30.06 vs <51% Sign Posting?

[RPB]

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to certain warning signs required on certain premises.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 11.041(a), Alcoholic Beverage Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) Each holder of a permit who is not otherwise required to
display a sign under Section 411.204, Government Code, shall
display in a prominent place on the permit holder's premises a sign
giving notice that it is unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on
the premises unless the weapon is a concealed handgun of the same
category the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code. The sign must also indicate that the
prohibition does not apply to peace officers or honorably retired
peace officers who, under Section 46.15, Penal Code, or other law,
are exempt from the prohibition.
SECTION 2. Section 61.11(a), Alcoholic Beverage Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) Each holder of a license who is not otherwise required
to display a sign under Section 411.204, Government Code, shall
display in a prominent place on the license holder's premises a sign
giving notice that it is unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on
the premises unless the weapon is a concealed handgun of the same
category the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code. The sign must also indicate that the
prohibition does not apply to peace officers or honorably retired
peace officers who, under Section 46.15, Penal Code, or other law,
are exempt from the prohibition.
SECTION 3. Section 411.204(c), Government Code, is amended
to read as follows:

(c) The sign required under Subsections (a) and (b) must
give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a
person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the
premises. The sign must also indicate that the prohibition does not
apply to peace officers or honorably retired peace officers who,
under Section 46.15, Penal Code, or other law, are exempt from the
prohibition. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block
letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the
number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height.
The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible
to the public.

I think this says it all for me.

We all agree on that 51 sign (Section 411.204), but, we are discussing the required NON-51/under 51% sign being posted along side a 30.06 sign. (non-51 = holder of a permit who is not otherwise required to
display a sign under Section 411.204, Government Code, shall
display in a prominent place on the permit holder's premises a sign
giving notice that it is unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on
the premises unless the weapon is a concealed handgun of the same
category the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code.)

H.E.B., WalMart, Restaurants, Convenience stores do not post 51 signs, as they don;t get 51% of income from alcohol. So they are required to post the other sign, which IMHO creates an exception to a prohibition, but the issue is IF one of those places also posted a 30.06 sign (or can they, if they have the under 51% sign?) what happens.

I mean if there's a 51 sign, no 30.06 sign is even needed, but if both a 51 sign AND a 30.06 sign were posted, it's like facing two red lights, of course you are prohibited from proceeding.

It issue at hand is a non-51 sign plus a 30.06 sign, thats like facing two red lights AND a green turn arrow, I'd assume I can turn. Otherwise, the situation of both signs creates an ambiguity/confusion which would fail to "give clear Notice" which is the very purpose of signs.

[whumble]

We all agree on that 51 sign (Section 411.204), but, we are discussing the required NON-51/under 51% sign being posted along side a 30.06 sign. (non-51 = holder of a permit who is not otherwise required to
display a sign under Section 411.204, Government Code, shall
display in a prominent place on the permit holder's premises a sign
giving notice that it is unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on
the premises unless the weapon is a concealed handgun of the same
category the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code.)

H.E.B., WalMart, Restaurants, Convenience stores do not post 51 signs, as they don;t get 51% of income from alcohol. So they are required to post the other sign, which IMHO creates an exception to a prohibition, but the issue is IF one of those places also posted a 30.06 sign (or can they, if they have the under 51% sign?) what happens.

IANAL but i am disscussung under 51% signs as well. any private business owner has the right to allow or not allow firearms legally carried or not in his premises. Just as you are allowed to allow them or not in your home. As i said i am not a lawyer this is just my observation and inturpretation of the law as i read it.
Edited: TABC states you must by law put under 51% sign up period no questions aske its the law if you do not sell 51% or over.TPC states if you do not want any firearms carried on premises you must post a legal 30.06 sign thats the reason in my opinion for both signs.

[RPB]

They may be able to acquire a hammer and nail and post a 30.06 sign, or any other sign they want, even if they are "required" to post the non-51 sign, but posting something that conflicts with the "required" non-51 sign is probably "failing to give clear notice" if it created any ambiguity of having an optional red next to a required red next to a required green arrow.... OR It's like having a stop sign next to a red light with a green turn arrow, yes, everyone must stop, but then, you are allowed to go turn left. There's no ambiguity if the green arrow still allows me to turn.

That's my layman's opinion, and I'm sticking to it, unless informed otherwise by a lawyer, or judge.

[dicion]

That's exactly what I mean ... the ""unless the weapon is a concealed handgun of the same
category the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code."" creates an exeption to a prohibition.

In the traffic situation, you are allowed to proceed in spite of the prohibition created by red light, because of the exception created by the green arrow ... in the carry situation, I assume the same. [/color]

In regard to the traffic part, that is not correct.
The Green arrow is not an exception to a prohibition for a left turn lane.
The green arrow applies to certain movements, and the red light that also applies to those movements goes away when the green arrow comes up. Eg, the prohibition goes away.
It is actually against MUTCD to display a Green arrow and a Red Ball to the same movement of traffic.
This USED to be done, and still happens in some places (Dedicated Left turn traffic signal where Red Ball stays on when Green Arrow Comes up), but it is an incorrect signal, non-compliant with MUTCD.
This is being fixed slowly as signals are being repaired/redone/retimed, etc.

There is no 'exception' to the red light for a left turn. The red lights that are on for the straight through lanes apply only to those movements, and not to the left turn movement.

BTW, I'm a Senior Signal Tech, one of the most qualified in the city of Houston ;)

As I stated before, Texas law generally only lists what is illegal, not what is legal. One of the few exceptions are exceptions like you posted above.
However, an exception like that only applies to that specific statute, not ALL statutes, everywhere.
So yes, it is an exception to that specific section of code that they are licensed, but Not under 30.06., which is a completely different statute.

[RPB]

Thanks for the clarification, since I retired and moved from Houston, yeah I'm now in a tiny town which only has a few lights, and obviously are non-compliant. I have a lot of respect for you guys because I met some of y'all from back when I was investigating some light maintenance and timing records on a case before with a reconstructionist.


"The green arrow applies to certain movements, and the red light that also applies to those movements goes away when the green arrow comes up. Eg, the prohibition goes away."

At any rate, I still believe I could carry when there is an "under 51" required sign
""unless the weapon is a concealed handgun of the same
category the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.""
but, technically, perhaps a different analogy would be better than using non-compliant lights, which prohibit, then remove a prohibition, only to be re-imposed by another sign.

And I still believe that a conflicting sign creates an ambiguity which fails to give the required notice by virtue of the ambiguity.

C'mon lawyers, tell me I'm wrong, it won't hurt my feelings, I was wrong once before I think..... yeah I was... I remember now .... that's why I got divorced ....so, I'm open to changing my mind


As a side note: we only have 2 CHL instructors in my county, and one in my city, so I'm sure every CHL holder around here thinks that too, because the CHL instructor emphasizes emphatically that since those places hold licenses by the State ( I'm assuming he means TABC and don't get 51% or more income from alcohol, and/or are required to post the under 51% sign), that they can not post 30.06 signs ... If he's wrong, I'd like to inform him.... He's not talking about city/county health/food permits at restaurants, but he actually says "licenses by the State"..... and the under 51% is the only thing I find that might be such a reason for justifying his statement.

[srothstein]

Good, I'd love input from a lawyer and a TABC person on this,

Well, I am not a lawyer, but I used to be a TABC person, if that counts. The answer is that there is no law prohibiting 30.06 signs on a non-51% licensed premise.

The law requires a licensed premise to post one of two signs, either a 51% sign (red sign) or an unlicensed carry sign (blue sign). There is no need for a 30.06 sign if it is 51% since the people who it would apply to are already banned from carrying.

So, what exactly does the blue sign mean? The sign is a warning to all that there is a law that upgrades unlawfully carrying to felony status on those premises. Since unlawfully carrying does not apply to CHL's, the sign warns that it is a felony for unlicensed to carry there. So, it is not unlawful for a person with a CHL to carry there.

But a bar is private property. And with very few exceptions, owners do not give up there property rights just by getting a liquor license (there are a few rights waived). Any property owner has the right to bar anyone from his premises if it is not for one of a very few illegal reasons (race, gender, age if over 40, national origin, etc.). So, just like a bar owner can ban people wearing biker clothes, he can ban people wearing guns. The carrying may be lawful, but it is not permitted by the owner. And in this one case, there just happens to be a law to help the owner. If he doesn't like biker clothes, he prosecutes under 30.05. If he doesn't like guns, he prosecutes under 30.6.

[dicion]

Good, I'd love input from a lawyer and a TABC person on this,

Well, I am not a lawyer, but I used to be a TABC person, if that counts. The answer is that there is no law prohibiting 30.06 signs on a non-51% licensed premise.

The law requires a licensed premise to post one of two signs, either a 51% sign (red sign) or an unlicensed carry sign (blue sign). There is no need for a 30.06 sign if it is 51% since the people who it would apply to are already banned from carrying.

So, what exactly does the blue sign mean? The sign is a warning to all that there is a law that upgrades unlawfully carrying to felony status on those premises. Since unlawfully carrying does not apply to CHL's, the sign warns that it is a felony for unlicensed to carry there. So, it is not unlawful for a person with a CHL to carry there.

But a bar is private property. And with very few exceptions, owners do not give up there property rights just by getting a liquor license (there are a few rights waived). Any property owner has the right to bar anyone from his premises if it is not for one of a very few illegal reasons (race, gender, age if over 40, national origin, etc.). So, just like a bar owner can ban people wearing biker clothes, he can ban people wearing guns. The carrying may be lawful, but it is not permitted by the owner.

30.06 sign is valid with a <51% Blue TABC Sign.

[RPB]

Sounds good, so if I see a 30.06 sign, I won't carry in that place, nor do business there.
I haven't even seen but 1 or 2 30.06 signs around town, I don't frequent any place that would have a 51% sign, and seen one hospital sign, but wanted to check on that hypothetical situation of an under 51 sign along with a 30.06 sign anyway, due to the instructor repeating that statement above several times that HEB can't keep him from carrying by posting a 30.06 sign because they are licensed by the State..... I assume he was wrong..... though I think everyone in the county believes it anyway, so no one is posting 30.06 signs..... maybe I won't correct him.

[chabouk]

But a bar is private property. And with very few exceptions, owners do not give up there property rights just by getting a liquor license (there are a few rights waived).

The law takes away their right to allow guns.

[Keith B]

But a bar is private property. And with very few exceptions, owners do not give up there property rights just by getting a liquor license (there are a few rights waived).

The law takes away their right to allow guns.

Only the 51% establishments. In this case, the law actually gives them the right to disallow guns with a 30.06.

[RPB]

I need another analogy, but instead, maybe I'll just use the LCRA as an example to an exemption to a prohibition (their terminology/words, not mine, see below) from now on. Since I was technically incorrect with the red light green arrow analogy.

In the LCRA case, the prohibition doesn't get removed or go away, but I believe an exemption to the prohibition creates a permissive right to carry in those locations. ie: No firearms allowed in those locations UNLESS... CHL .... See where I'm going with the "unless" class of persons and language in the Statutes?

on the premises unless the weapon is a concealed handgun of the same
category the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code.)




LCRA PARKS are a special deal, where they were forbidden to everyone, then allowed to CHL holders ONLY, because the Texas Legislature made changes .... [

Basically, an exemption to a prohibition was created for CHL holders (their terminology/words, not mine)

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/search/sea ... PSInternet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SB 535 Carrying on LCRA Property �Creates exemption for CHL holders from Parks and Wildlife Code prohibition against hunting with, possessing, or shooting a firearm on the land of the Lower Colorado River Authority

--

Like I said .. Sounds good, so if I see a 30.06 sign, I won't carry in that place, nor do business there.

But, I'd still like a lawyer's opinion on my rationale.
I believe an exemption to the prohibition creates a permissive right to carry in those locations. ie: No firearms allowed in those locations UNLESS... CHL ... See where I'm going with the "unless" class of persons and language in the Statutes? Maybe the issue is "Does the 'Unless' language create or imply an exemption or permissive right?" and, "If a permissive right is created, are CHLs the beneficiaries of that right?" I'd still like a lawyer's opinion on my rationale.... may require an Attorney General Opinion.... I just e-mailed the Govenor and head of Dept of TABC, because they can request an Attorney General Opinion, whereas private individuals can't.... I'd e-mail the DPS head too, if it was easier to find. Doubt they'll forward the request to the A/G, and if they do, I doubt I'd hear back, but it would be nice.... I've been involded in creating new law, or re-defning old law (through court cases appealed) several times before lol.


I just e-mailed them the issues and the rationale

Issues being :
"Does the 'Unless' language in Section 61.11(a), Alcoholic Beverage Code and in Section 11.041(a), Alcoholic Beverage Code create or imply an exemption or permissive right?" and, "If a permissive right is created, are CHLs the beneficiaries of that right?"

I think it creates a permissive right, and we may be either the beneficiaries or addressees of that right. That isn't to say that a 30.06 sign doesn't take that permissive right away if posted next to an under 51 sign, (a conditional permissive right)I'm pretty positive that it does. So, I still wouldn't carry anywhere a 30.06 sign is.

on the premises unless the weapon is a concealed handgun of the same
category the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code.)
------------
The Attorney General is prohibited by statute from giving a written opinion to anyone other than an authorized requestor. Authorized requestors include:
the Governor
the head of a department of state government
the head or board of a penal institution
the head or board of an eleemosynary institution
the head of a state board
a regent or trustee of a state educational institution
a committee of a house of the Texas Legislature
a county auditor authorized by law
the chairman of the governing board of a river authority