Verbal 30.06 on government owned property?

[mloamiller]

Paragraph (e) of Section 30.06 states "It is an exception to the application of this section that the property ... is owned or leased by a governmental entity..." I've always understood that to mean if a 30.06 sign was posted on a building owned by the city/state government, it could be ignored by a CHL (if it didn't fall into a restricted category, of course). However, in a more general sense, doesn't it also mean that a CHL holder can ignore someone verbally telling them they can't carry in the same building? Paragraph (e) doesn't mention a sign, it refers to the entire section.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
...
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
...
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

[chamberc]

You might beat the rap, but not the ride.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Paragraph (e) of Section 30.06 states "It is an exception to the application of this section that the property ... is owned or leased by a governmental entity..." I've always understood that to mean if a 30.06 sign was posted on a building owned by the city/state government, it could be ignored by a CHL (if it didn't fall into a restricted category, of course). However, in a more general sense, doesn't it also mean that a CHL holder can ignore someone verbally telling them they can't carry in the same building? Paragraph (e) doesn't mention a sign, it refers to the entire section.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
...
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
...
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Yes. As mentioned, less informed LEOs may make the arrest, but then they would be subject to a civil lawsuit. An officer cannot make a good faith arrest for something that is clearly not unlawful.

Chas.

[Jago668]

Paragraph (e) of Section 30.06 states "It is an exception to the application of this section that the property ... is owned or leased by a governmental entity..." I've always understood that to mean if a 30.06 sign was posted on a building owned by the city/state government, it could be ignored by a CHL (if it didn't fall into a restricted category, of course). However, in a more general sense, doesn't it also mean that a CHL holder can ignore someone verbally telling them they can't carry in the same building? Paragraph (e) doesn't mention a sign, it refers to the entire section.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
...
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
...
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Yes. As mentioned, less informed LEOs may make the arrest, but then they would be subject to a civil lawsuit. An officer cannot make a good faith arrest for something that is clearly not unlawful.

Chas.

Except that our great and wonderful SCOTUS ruled that it is okay if officers violate the law and constitution as long as they didn't know they were doing it.

[mloamiller]

Except that our great and wonderful SCOTUS ruled that it is okay if officers violate the law and constitution as long as they didn't know they were doing it.

That works both ways, right? If we don't know were breaking the law, then .... oh, wait...

[thetexan]

Remember that it takes both a lack of effective consent and a communication of prohibition in the form of verbal, written or signage to create a 30.06 prohibition. It's possible to have a written document or sign yet have a person in authority give effective consent thus eliminating any restriction. However, it's hard to have effective consent(which normally comes in a verbal form) while at the same time having a verbal 30.06 warning. The two are usually mutually exclusive.

In either case, the city can not issue any legitimate 30.06 communication, verbal, written or signed. The exception to the application of this section applies to all three.


Texas penal code 2.02b defines an exception to the application as

(b) The prosecuting attorney must negate the existence of an exception in the accusation charging commission of the offense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or defendant's conduct does not fall within the exception.

This simply places the burden on the prosecutor to prove the exception did not exist and therefore afford you a presumptive "no violation" if he can not do so when he contemplates charging you. In other words, in order for the prosecutor to successfully charge you for being in a city owned property with a concealed handgun in the face of a 30.06 warning he would have to prove that it was not a city or government owned property. If he could not "negate" the exception then you can not be charged...for that.

So if the city librarian comes up to you and says you can't carry your gun in there it has the same effect or lack of effect as them putting up a sign. If you are certain the property is owned by a governmental entity such as the city you can feel certain that the prosecutor can not bring charges.

Doesn't mean you won't have the cops called or won't be arrested. But that is a factor of how well the cop knows his law.

Tex