TexasCHLforum.com

The text on this page
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... lssign.htm

agrees with the text on this page
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... osting.htm

but disagrees with the text in the pdf file that makes up the handout booklet given out in class (one “a� is missing and one “comma� is added this version in the booklet)
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf

What the official copy of record states, I haven’t a clue. I’ll let the lawyers battle it out… hopefully on someone else’s nickel.

BTW, good luck dude. I mentioned this curiosity/discrepancy/inconsistency a year or two ago here and got pounced on.

Perhaps your guard buddy was only looking at the booklet???

Who wants to be the test case?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Russell wrote:Well, maybe I'm not getting pounced on for pointing it out since I've been here a while taken in the context of today's date, but the definition of identical is clear. The law regarding 30.06 signs does not say "nearly identical" or "almost identical except a single letter", it says "identical." Whatever the official wording on the books says is the one that must be followed.

Hopefully we will be able to get that.

It is not a "30.06 sign" unless it meets the letter of the law, and all the other requirements.

I will have to agree with Mr. gun
We NEVER had trouble with people doing stupid things like that.

He has the code section# wrong. The sign Shows 30.05 thus making the sign not valid. They can still fire you though.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.007.00.000030.00.htm#30.06.00 wrote: (3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"

According to the Texas Statutes online, there should not be an "a" in the sign, and the language must be identical. I stand corrected that I thought the sign was compliant, when it apparently is not, but I wish you the best of luck in convincing an arresting officer of that. I even went back and looked (closely, I thought) at the text required for a 30.06 sign to make sure it was correct, and I overlooked the "a". Good eye, whoever it was that noticed it!

Russell wrote:The language is not identical to 30.06 and is, therefor, not technically valid.

His sign says "Trespass by holder of a license to carry a concealed handgun"

The language is supposed to be "trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun".

I think the "confusingly non-compliant" signs can be dangerous. A LEO may see the sign and determine it compliant, thus, he would haul you off. This then leaves you to go to court to explain why the sign is not compliant, which may be considered a weak defense by the judge. This could cost some serious legal $$$.

I think the discussion may confusing two separate issues here.

The first is the effect on the employee of the business. The second is the effect on a visitor.

As to employees of the business, whether or not the posted sign is compliant or not is irrelevant. An employer is required to "notify" their employess that guns are not allowed on the premesis. Employer notification can be in any reasonable form (e.g., verbal, employee handbook, email, paper memo, etc.). Once an employee has been notified, they are in violation if they enter the premesis with a weapon.

As to visitors, the validity of the sign is indeed relevant. I won't weigh in with speculation as to whether or not the sign is compliant. The intent of the business is clear, and I'd never attempt to circumvent their intent solely on the basis of whether or not a very minor deviation from the required signage was present.

MaDeuce

If you are talking about whether or not the employee can be fired you are correct. As far as being in trouble legally, there is no difference between an employee and a visitor. Notification in that case requires either a verbal notification or a written one that contains the 30.06 wording.

stevie_d_64 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Back in the old days us plant workers would have a discussion out behind the cooling tower if someone did something stupid like that.

Anygunanywhere

I bet there was not a lot of talkin' goin' on back there...

Thats generally reffered to as "Contact Counseling"

tboesche wrote:Thats generally reffered to as "Contact Counseling"

Is that like percussive maintenance?

Hmm, I always knew it as "Wall-to-Wall Counseling".

Amazingly, the guy was not fired. It is impossible to be fired at this place. Not even when a guy accidentally sent a amazingly graphic full nudity photo to the entire plant, admins, and executives. The only firing I know of is when 2 guys were "caught" in the plant. And personally, I think it was possibly the being gay thing that got them canned. This is the good ole boy kinda plant.