City of Houston continuing to "Red Badge" CHL'ers.

[stevie_d_64]

This was posted originally on another forum...

A fellow Houstonian had to conduct some "lawful business" at a downtown City of Houston facility/office...

This facility apparently (as I have not been there to have to do business myself) has the full gauntlet of "screening" procedures...

(i.e.: security screener/guard, HPD officer, metal detectors, sign-in and out logs)

The story was basically the security personel were "shocked and amazed" that some person of non-LEO status was actually intending to come in and conduct business in their facility "armed"!

Lots of blustery retorts and exclamations of "You can't come in here with a gun" type talk...

The CHL person, was calm and collected and explained that they did have the exemption to conduct lawful business while armed per SB501 which is now State law...And that this facility was not a restricted facility per the CHL law and other 30.06 statute provisions...

After all the "security" personel checked with their superiors, our hero was "allowed" to proceed, but only if he was logged in and "red badged" to identify him as being armed...

Now...

I am not critical of my CHL friend here at all...I am a little concerned that if I recall correctly the City of Houston was instructed last year that this "special badging" violated State law, in the fact that outwardly identifying a CHL holder in this manner, constituted "failure to conceal", basically, and is a violation by the CHL'er...

I had thought that this issue had been put to bed...And that the City could not, and shall not do this...

Did I, "or we" miss something here, or has the city of Houston decided to basically give us the "what for" in this case???

Any ideas??? I think this is important to discuss and get the laundry aired out on this so we (mostly me, hehehe) can be better informed...

I am in contact with my State Rep (very Pro 2A), and have recommended we get the Texas AG to take a look at this again if we need to...

I don't know how effective the TSRA is in this regard, and if they even know this is still going on in Houston...

Later,
Steve

[Braden]

Just a question...but if they verbally told him that he could not enter with a gun does that not contstitute oral notification under 30.06. Seems to me that if they don't want him to have a gun in there then all they have to do is tell him that and it will then become illegal for him to carry there.

I know that doesn't address your question....but I was thinking out loud.

[stevie_d_64]

Nothing wrong with your thought process...I would think you were correct, but if there is not a properly "posted" 30.06 statute sign at all entrances to the facility, then how is the proper "notification" to be delivered to an "identified" CHL holder verbatim...

So if the whole idea is to remain concealed, and unless you are stopped by "lawful commissioned authority" on an official inquiry, then how is that supposed to be enforced??? In a situation like this???

I'm going to post the situation to Alice Tripp as well...See what she thinks...

This is just blowing me away that this is still going on...Maybe I missed the battle on this...Like I said I thought this problem with the City of Houston was resolved in our favor...

Later,
Steve

[dolanp]

A verbal warning is sufficient without posting a 30.06 sign under normal circumstances actually. However, government entities are still exempt from being able to do either. They have no right to use 30.06 to deny entry whether the notice is oral or written.

[stevie_d_64]

Ok, I got to post this in two or three forums, so I'll try to be brief for a change...

Apparently this was a concession that was met to allow some sort of control over the accessability of CHL'ers to City of Houston facilities and other functions...

Since they are actually allowing you to conduct your "lawful business" in that facility, you will be credentialed accordingly...Only Law Enforcement knows what the badge means...cough...Your badge should look like everyone elses with one identifiable feature that L.E. can see at a glance...cough...

This is to be confirmed by the originator of the encounter...If the badge is really similar to everyone else who accesses the facility...

Overall I think (as the originator explained) that the security personnel should have been more subtle about this persons status...

That does appear to be something that should be remedied...

So it looks like they are allowed to do this to us at this juncture...

And it appears not to be something that sings "GUN" to the layman...

Later,
Steve

My thanks to Alice Tripp for explaining to me, this concern...I wish all the TSRA folks a good and safe trip to Houston for the NRA convention this weekend...

[govtman]

A verbal warning is sufficient without posting a 30.06 sign under normal circumstances actually. However, government entities are still exempt from being able to do either. They have no right to use 30.06 to deny entry whether the notice is oral or written.

Actually, government entities can post PC §30.06 signs or give verbal notice pursuant to that section. There is no law saying that they can't.

SB 501 only made it an exception to the application of PC §30.06 for a CHL holder to carry, if the location is not listed in PC §46.03 or PC §46.035. Thus, if the location is listed in PC §46.03 or PC §46.035, the CHL holder can be prosecuted under one of those sections and PC §30.06, if he was given proper notice under that section.

[dolanp]

Well of course if you violate another law that's a different story.

[Kalrog]

Actually, government entities can post PC §30.06 signs or give verbal notice pursuant to that section. There is no law saying that they can't.

Actually there is. That is why the Houston Metro 30-06 policy was thrown out as illegal.

[govtman]

Actually, government entities can post PC §30.06 signs or give verbal notice pursuant to that section. There is no law saying that they can't.

Actually there is. That is why the Houston Metro 30-06 policy was thrown out as illegal.

You are confusing the issues. METRO had its own internal rule that probited people from carrying on its buses and it was eventually amended in a voluntary manner, before any court decided its legitimacy.

However, the above has nothing to do with the authority of a government entity to post PC §30.06 signs or give verbal notice pursuant to that section. Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0325 even declares as much by stating:
"A unit of government has statutory authority to bar entry to its property by a concealed handgun licensee carrying a weapon in the following manner: either by providing individualized verbal notice to the licensee or by erecting a sign or other written communication in compliance with section 30.06 of the Penal Code that furnishes statutory notice to concealed handgun licensees that entry on the property while carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited. However, a unit of government may not, merely by promulgating its own rules, regulations, or policies, bar the holder of a concealed handgun license from carrying his weapon onto property owned or controlled by the particular governmental unit."

Unless or until an opinion is modified or overruled by statute, judicial decision, or subsequent Attorney General Opinion, an Attorney General Opinion is presumed to correctly state the law. Accordingly, although an Attorney General Opinion is advisory, it carries the weight and force of law unless or until it is modified or overruled. SB 501 did not change the statutory scheme by which the opinion drew its conclusions; thus, it is still presumed to be the correct interpretation of state law.

[dolanp]

That opinion was given in 2001, and if you read the reasoning above the summary it is written:

The statutory language regarding the notice required under section 30.06 is virtually identical to that employed in section 30.05, the general criminal trespass statute. Because, under the reasoning of Attorney General Letter Opinion 95-058, section 30.05 is applicable to a governmental body for purposes of prohibiting the carrying of a concealed handgun, it naturally follows that the more specific section 30.06 permits a governmental body that is the "owner" of property to prohibit a concealed handgun licensee from carrying his weapon onto the premises of the governmental body.

The premise of the decision was based on the absense of any statutory prohibition of government to use 30.06 to bar CHL holders. This was specifically address by the addition of 30.06(e), which renders that opinion invalid.

However as you note, violations of 46.03 & 46.035 would be separate violations for which you could definitely be prosecuted.

[govtman]

That opinion was given in 2001, and if you read the reasoning above the summary it is written:

The statutory language regarding the notice required under section 30.06 is virtually identical to that employed in section 30.05, the general criminal trespass statute. Because, under the reasoning of Attorney General Letter Opinion 95-058, section 30.05 is applicable to a governmental body for purposes of prohibiting the carrying of a concealed handgun, it naturally follows that the more specific section 30.06 permits a governmental body that is the "owner" of property to prohibit a concealed handgun licensee from carrying his weapon onto the premises of the governmental body.

The premise of the decision was based on the absense of any statutory prohibition of government to use 30.06 to bar CHL holders. This was specifically address by the addition of 30.06(e), which renders that opinion invalid.

However as you note, violations of 46.03 & 46.035 would be separate violations for which you could definitely be prosecuted.

Your analysis is incorrect because of two issues.

First, the section of JC-0325, that you quoted, does not have anything to do with your conclusion. The section, that you quoted, based it’s conclusion on Letter Opinion 95.058’s own conclusion on what is the definition of “another�. The definition of “another� has not changed because of SB 501 and is non-sequitur to your argument.

Second, the “t is an exception to the application of…� language is a specific phrase that is required by PC §2.02, as it pertains to the criminal prosecution of offenders. It determines the burden of proof necessary to make an arrest and prosecution, among other things. It does not have anything to do with the discretionary authority of a government entity to post signs or give verbal notice, which is civil in nature.

If the Legislature wanted to prohibit government entities from giving PC §30.06 notice, pursuant to the Code Construction Act, it would have enacted a provision that stated, "Government entities may not give notice under this section," or it would have enacted a provision that stated, "For the purposes of this section, 'another' does not include a government entity."

[dolanp]

So what you are saying is that they could post them but they would be useless?

[govtman]

So what you are saying is that they could post them but they would be useless?

Yes, at least as it applies to non-PC §46.03 or PC §46.035 locations.

Well, let me qualify that statement. It is not useless for government entities, because they can confuse CHL holders into believing that it is a prohibited location, when in reality, it might not be prohibited at all.

[Braden]

Yeah...but who's willing to test that by ignoring the 30.06 sign posted by a government entity??

[Baytown]

I'll do it. Why the hell not? I'll report back.

Glenn