Police Dept Signage

[Pawpaw]

Pawpaw,

But that says non-public secure portion. The lobby in question is a public area and non secure. They have a service window for records, permits, etc. There was another window with a phone, but I didn't pay attention to what it is used for because it was closed and the records/permit window was closer and where I needed to be.

I agree. I believe the statute I quoted (GC §411.207) means they are allowed to post the "non-public secure portion" if they provide secure storage for your firearm, but it would not be a 30.06 posting. For all public areas, GC §411.209 applies.

[Caliber]

My point is that is seems there is a problem with the law. Here, the owner has the right to give notice no matter who may occupy the property.


Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.

(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.

[rtschl]

Caliber,

This is off topic, but pawpaw quoted the statute (411.209 a) that forbids a state agency or political subdivisions (counties, cities, etc.) from posting 30.06/30.07. There is no problem with the law.

Edited to correct bad grammar.

[Caliber]

Caliber,

This is off topic, but pawpaw quoted the statute (411.209 a) that forbids the state agency or political subdivisions (counties, cities, etc.) from posting 30.06/30.07. There is no problem with the law.

I'll just respectfully disagree that there is a problem with the law. According to 30.06 and 30.07, the owner of the property has the right to post 30.06 and 30.07 notices.

[ScottDLS]

Caliber,

This is off topic, but pawpaw quoted the statute (411.209 a) that forbids the state agency or political subdivisions (counties, cities, etc.) from posting 30.06/30.07. There is no problem with the law.

I'll just respectfully disagree that there is a problem with the law. According to 30.06 and 30.07, the owner of the property has the right to post 30.06 and 30.07 notices.

Keep reading...

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
Text of section effective on Jan. 1, 2016
a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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.

[Caliber]

OK, got it...thanks!

[Pawpaw]

Thanks ScottDLS!!

I was so focused on the PD aspect, I missed that part.

[rtschl]

I'm leaning towards not writing the City on this due to the apparent carve out they have with 411.207 Section D. Bummer. I hate having to disarm to go into a place and then rearm when I get back into my car.
Maybe someday off limits area for LTC will be substantially reduced.


Edit: typo. Thanks pawpaw

[Pawpaw]

I'm leaning towards not writing the City on this due to the apparent carve out they have with 411.209 Section D. Bummer. I hate having to disarm to go into a place and then rearm when I get back into my car.
Maybe someday off limits area for LTC will be substantially reduced.

What "carve out" are you talking about?

411.209(d) reads:

(d) A citizen of this state or a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under this subchapter may file a complaint with the attorney general that a state agency or political subdivision is in violation of Subsection (a) if the citizen or person provides the agency or subdivision a written notice that describes the violation and specific location of the sign found to be in violation and the agency or subdivision does not cure the violation before the end of the third business day after the date of receiving the written notice. A complaint filed under this subsection must include evidence of the violation and a copy of the written notice.

[Pawpaw]

I bet you meant 411.207(d), which reads:

(d) In this section:
(1) “Law enforcement facility” means a building or a portion of a building used exclusively by a law enforcement agency that employs peace officers as described by Articles 2.12(1) and (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, and support personnel to conduct the official business of the agency. The term does not include:
(A) any portion of a building not actively used exclusively to conduct the official business of the agency; or
(B) any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(2) “Non-public, secure portion of a law enforcement facility” means that portion of a law enforcement facility to which the general public is denied access without express permission and to which access is granted solely to conduct the official business of the law enforcement agency.

I don't see any "carve out". In fact, I see where it specifically defines the "non-public, secure portion", which is the only area they can prohibit CC. I read it to mean that if the general public can just walk into the area, it can't be posted.

Edit: I think reporting it would be an excellent idea. It just might get us an AG opinion or even a court determination (case law).

[mloamiller]

I had a similar situation at GPPD last year - 30.06 sign posted at the main entrance. My understanding, based on the laws that have already been quoted in this thread, is that the building can't be posted (or at least shouldn't be). The only place that is off-limits is the jail area, but they have to provide a lockbox at the entrance to that area. I had the opportunity to talk to the chief about it and he agreed that all of that was correct; he gave a fairly poor excuse as to why it was posted anyway, but agreed it wasn't enforceable.

The sign came down before 1/1.

[rtschl]

I bet you meant 411.207(d), which reads:

(d) In this section:
(1) “Law enforcement facility” means a building or a portion of a building used exclusively by a law enforcement agency that employs peace officers as described by Articles 2.12(1) and (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, and support personnel to conduct the official business of the agency. The term does not include:
(A) any portion of a building not actively used exclusively to conduct the official business of the agency; or
(B) any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(2) “Non-public, secure portion of a law enforcement facility” means that portion of a law enforcement facility to which the general public is denied access without express permission and to which access is granted solely to conduct the official business of the law enforcement agency.

I don't see any "carve out". In fact, I see where it specifically defines the "non-public, secure portion", which is the only area they can prohibit CC. I read it to mean that if the general public can just walk into the area, it can't be posted.

Edit: I think reporting it would be an excellent idea. It just might get us an AG opinion or even a court determination (case law).

Pawpaw thanks for catching the statue number. I've corrected my typo.

Legalese is giving me a headache. Doesn't the highlighted above mean that since the lobby is used exclusively to conduct official business that they can prohibit LTC? Or is that just defining what "Law enforcement facility" means?

[AJSully421]

Like I said, when I wrote a nicely worded letter to the Benbrook city manager about their signs, I received a courtesy call from the Police Chief explaining their reasons.

It would not harm one thing to write a letter, and ask to hear from someone such as the city manager, city attorney, or police chief to discuss the matter before you turn them over to the AG's office. Any city who has even a lame excuse to put up the signs will call and justify themselves to you before they will fill out the mountain of paperwork that will undoubtedly go with an AG complaint for the signs.

Worst case, you send the letter, they don't contact you, three days later you send it to the AG, and then the process will work itself out.

Best case, you deliver the letter and the signs are down by COB that day.

[Pawpaw]

Or is that just defining what "Law enforcement facility" means?

Exactly!

411.207(d)1 = The paragraph defining "Law Enforcement facility".
411.207(d)1(A) = "Law Enforcement facility" does NOT include any portion of a building not actively used exclusively to conduct the official business of the agency.
411.207(d)1(B) = "Law Enforcement facility" does NOT include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

411.207(d)2 = The paragraph that defines the “Non-public, secure portion of a law enforcement facility” as basically the area you can't enter unless they let you in.


I agree wholeheartedly with AJSully421.

[srothstein]

Legalese is giving me a headache. Doesn't the highlighted above mean that since the lobby is used exclusively to conduct official business that they can prohibit LTC? Or is that just defining what "Law enforcement facility" means?

It is just defining what is required for the secure non-public parts.

The lobby is not for the exclusive conduct of police business. As one example, say I agreed to sell you a small collectible item after advertising on Criag's List. I do not trust anyone to come to my home since it contains other collectibles. You do not trust me as some stranger to come to your home. We agree to meet in the one safe public 0place we both know of, the lobby of the police department. We can meet there and make the exchange and it shows the lobby is not for the exclusive conduct of police business. Many departments even encourage this as a way to help reduce crime. Departments I was in also encouraged parents to meet at the station to swap the children for custody for the same reason.