TexasCHLforum.com

These would make great handouts for CHL classes to go along with the law booklet.

hheremtp wrote:PB, You might want to add a pic of the old sign that was replaced by 30.06. That way newbies can compare and contrast them.

There's a picture of the ones up at Grapevine Mills Mall in one of these threads around here.

And, of course, there's always the blue 51% signs.

Great posting - I hadn't actually seen the 51% Red (heard it described in my class) but seeing the actual sign for size is important.

Thanks.

Great post! it's a nice memory refresher

added two more signs!

davidtx wrote:These would make great handouts for CHL classes to go along with the law booklet.

And some people are kinesthetic learners, have ADD, and still somehow managed to put the puzzle pieces together.

I think a lot of people just weren't paying attention in class and never cracked open their books afterwards.

Not that it wpuldn't be a good idea to have a handout illustrating the various signs. I just don't understand all the confusion.

This is a good resource, provided the signs are properly posted.

Exceptions to the first post:
A properly worded/sized 30.06 sign on government owned or leased property: Yes, you can carry!
An improperly posted 51% Sign on a non 51% location: Yes, you can carry! (Check TABC Licence to be sure!) <- Seems that this is quite common.
A 51% Location without a non 51% Sign posted, or no 51% Sign posted: It is a defense to prosecution that the sign was not posted properly.

Could you clarify that first exception for me?

glbedd53 wrote:Could you clarify that first exception for me?

Sure!

Texas Penal Code, section 30.06, subsection (e) reads as follows:

(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.

In other words, section 30.06 can not be applied if the property is owned or leased by a Government entity, and it is not a place already prohibited under the other listed sections. (Court, Premises of a School, etc)
The key word here is 'exception', which means, they aren't even supposed to be able to arrest you for it, as they can for something that is a 'defense to prosecution'. They can post all the signs they want, that section of law is powerless on government owned or leased property.

The basic premise here, is that the State Government trusts you to carry a handgun once they issue a permit, so why would the same government then try to deny your right to carry anywhere it has authority? It makes no sense. They trust you at first, but then change their mind later? The State says you can carry a handgun, and it doesn't want any random pleeb below it trying to undermine it's preemption authority by placing signs on government property under their control, so the above section exists to prevent that.

Thanks, somehow I missed that one. Still not sure I understand the reason for it.

OK, I guess I was thinkin federal.

glbedd53 wrote:OK, I guess I was thinkin federal.

Ah yes, Federal Law is different entirely, but they generally have their own signage that states such :)

But it is definitely not against State Law to carry on Federal Government property

thank you for posting this. it cleared up a question i had.

I posted a comment about this on Texas3006.com, but wanted some input from y'all, too. What strikes me as odd is that this hospital just finished a remodel, including the front doors, and they still have the old verbiage posted? And in non-block letter format?

This is what the front door of St. David's in Austin looks like. Well, the two wheelchair access doors, anyway. The main revolving door says nothing on it, so if you are able-bodied, you'd never see the non-compliant sign. Maybe they only want the disabled and injured disarmed. I usually have a ruler, but not on this day, and I don't think the letters meet the size requirements.



Now, Brackenridge has the correct verbiage and size and letter type, but they have a contrasting color thing going on. I forgot to take a picture. Theirs looks kinda like this:

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.

Does a contrasting color like that make it a non-compliant sign? It is kind of hard to see the red on the tinted glass of the door, but once you see the "Pursuant to Section 30.06..." you pretty much know what to expect.