TexasCHLforum.com

TexasCajun wrote:

Rrash wrote:Another scenario we could likely see from the guilty cities is to remove signage, but still verbally give notice. While it may not happen to concealed carriers unless going through a metal detector, I would think it will happen often to everyone that chooses to open carry. I'm not really sure if there is a way to defend against it. Charles, would this be something that might be addressed in 2017?

Verbal notice wouldn't be enforceable either. The whole point of SB273 was to prohibit gov'ts from attempting to prohibit lawful carry in gov't owned/leased buildings that don't contain jails or courts.

I understand verbal notice isn't enforceable, but there is nothing in SB273 that prohibits a gov't from attempting to prohibit lawful carry by giving verbal warnings. It simply says they can't post signs. If you are asked to leave and even regardless of whether or not you are breaking any laws, couldn't they claim you are trespassing? My point is that I could see some government owned properties trying to intimidate and abuse by giving a verbal warning, even calling police and disarming the CHL holder, threatening arrest, etc., whether lawful or not.

jimlongley wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:

Rrash wrote:Another scenario we could likely see from the guilty cities is to remove signage, but still verbally give notice. While it may not happen to concealed carriers unless going through a metal detector, I would think it will happen often to everyone that chooses to open carry. I'm not really sure if there is a way to defend against it. Charles, would this be something that might be addressed in 2017?

Verbal notice wouldn't be enforceable either. The whole point of SB273 was to prohibit gov'ts from attempting to prohibit lawful carry in gov't owned/leased buildings that don't contain jails or courts.

Do they verbally warn every person that enters?

Carry a voice recorder.

I doubt there would be that many people wanting to open carry (me included), but yes, I could see somewhere like the DMA verbally warning every person open carrying, or every person who gets wanded at the AAC when going to a concert/circus.

I always record anything I suspect could be used for/against me, including if a boss calls me into his office. At the very least, I can go back and make sure I heard him correctly.

Rrash wrote: I understand verbal notice isn't enforceable, but there is nothing in SB273 that prohibits a gov't from attempting to prohibit lawful carry by giving verbal warnings. It simply says they can't post signs. If you are asked to leave and even regardless of whether or not you are breaking any laws, couldn't they claim you are trespassing? My point is that I could see some government owned properties trying to intimidate and abuse by giving a verbal warning, even calling police and disarming the CHL holder, threatening arrest, etc., whether lawful or not.

Incorrect.

may not provide notice by a communication described by
Section 30.06

This includes written or verbal communication. You could record them giving you verbal notification and they would be subject to the same penalties.

Rrash wrote:Another scenario we could likely see from the guilty cities is to remove signage, but still verbally give notice. While it may not happen to concealed carriers unless going through a metal detector, I would think it will happen often to everyone that chooses to open carry. I'm not really sure if there is a way to defend against it. Charles, would this be something that might be addressed in 2017?

I would ask the person's first and last name, and exactly what gives them authority to give me notice. After they gave me their name and position, I would thank them, and let them know that's who I will name in my formal letter of complaint to the state's attorney.

Rrash wrote:I understand verbal notice isn't enforceable, but there is nothing in SB273 that prohibits a gov't from attempting to prohibit lawful carry by giving verbal warnings. It simply says they can't post signs. If you are asked to leave and even regardless of whether or not you are breaking any laws, couldn't they claim you are trespassing? My point is that I could see some government owned properties trying to intimidate and abuse by giving a verbal warning, even calling police and disarming the CHL holder, threatening arrest, etc., whether lawful or not.

Actually, that's not the way I read it.

A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

That underlined part is where they would be stuck. One of the communications described in 30.06 is verbal.

Will this also apply to the 30.06 signs Austin ISD posts at their parking lot entrances?

I'm thinking yes.

ScooterSissy wrote:
That underlined part is where they would be stuck. One of the communications described in 30.06 is verbal.

The problem, however, is that the penalty will only apply to signage that has been left up. It will not pose any penalty to anyone who gives verbal warning.

Rrash wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:
That underlined part is where they would be stuck. One of the communications described in 30.06 is verbal.

The problem, however, is that the penalty will only apply to signage that has been left up. It will not pose any penalty to anyone who gives verbal warning.

Charles has indicated (if memory serves me) that locations that regularly violate the new law, even if they remove the violation within the time frame, could still be subject to the fine.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm not understanding this correctly.

Rrash wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:
That underlined part is where they would be stuck. One of the communications described in 30.06 is verbal.

The problem, however, is that the penalty will only apply to signage that has been left up. It will not pose any penalty to anyone who gives verbal warning.

The penalty applies to any violation:

Sec.411.209.WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06,
...
A state agency or a political subdivision of the state that violates Subsection (a) is liable for a civil penalty of:
(1)not less than $1,000 and not more than $1,500 for the first violation; and

This part sounds like it would apply to a location that was consistently giving verbal warnings, but did not post a sign, but I'm not sure how it would be carried out in practice:

(f)Before a suit may be brought against a state agency or a political subdivision of the state for a violation of Subsection (a), the attorney general must investigate the complaint to determine whether legal action is warranted. If legal action is warranted, the attorney general must give the chief administrative officer of the agency or political subdivision charged with the violation a written notice that:
(1)describes the violation and specific location of the sign found to be in violation;
(2)states the amount of the proposed penalty for the violation; and
(3)gives the agency or political subdivision 15 days from receipt of the notice to remove the sign and cure the violation

Sec.411.209.WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06,

Since SB 273 specifically references 30.06, does that leave a loophole for government offices to improperly post 30.07 signs? Or will it apply equally to both?

mloamiller wrote:

Sec.411.209.WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06,

Since SB 273 specifically references 30.06, does that leave a loophole for government offices to improperly post 30.07 signs? Or will it apply equally to both?

It's not really a loophole because §30.07 was/is not in existence so SB273 couldn't address it. SB273 will not apply to §30.07 signs.

Chas.

What happens if the city does not remove the sign and the fines total $zillions ?
I'm betting nothing at all.

Rrash wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:

Rrash wrote:Another scenario we could likely see from the guilty cities is to remove signage, but still verbally give notice. While it may not happen to concealed carriers unless going through a metal detector, I would think it will happen often to everyone that chooses to open carry. I'm not really sure if there is a way to defend against it. Charles, would this be something that might be addressed in 2017?

Verbal notice wouldn't be enforceable either. The whole point of SB273 was to prohibit gov'ts from attempting to prohibit lawful carry in gov't owned/leased buildings that don't contain jails or courts.

I understand verbal notice isn't enforceable, but there is nothing in SB273 that prohibits a gov't from attempting to prohibit lawful carry by giving verbal warnings. It simply says they can't post signs. If you are asked to leave and even regardless of whether or not you are breaking any laws, couldn't they claim you are trespassing? My point is that I could see some government owned properties trying to intimidate and abuse by giving a verbal warning, even calling police and disarming the CHL holder, threatening arrest, etc., whether lawful or not.

Actually no it states in 30.05 f that it is a defense to prosecution that you are being asked to leave just because you have a gun, so yea you might take a ride but it probably won't go to court and it is an affirmative defense. So I doubt most LEO's would even arrest you, might ask you to leave but that's about it

SRO1911 wrote:I wonder how taylor county courthouse will handle it, they have had metaldetectors at the entrance for years. The first floor doesn't have court rooms, those are all up stairs. The first floor does however house the county clerk, whom I'm frequently having to visit during my work day.

Similar situation as Burnet County Courthouse ANNEX
also houses 33rd & 424th District Courts,
Metal detector at front door, door has "No weapons knives etc ... leave them in your car sign"
Just to the right, after you go through the Metal Detector is D.P.S. Driver's License office
Walk 5 more feet take a left down a different hall and wayyyy down at end of hall is County Tax Assessor Collector for license plates, there's an exterior door next to it which people used to use to avoid metal detector and just go to County Tax Assessor or D.P.S., but they now lock all doors so no matter where you are going, you must go through metal detector
Courtroom WAYYYY down at end of the hall you were originally in before taking a left into a different hall to go to County Tax Assessor/collector

Oddly the MAIN County Courthouse on the square where everyone goes to vote, Burnet County Court at Law
Family Law/County Misdemeanor has no metal detectors, everyone just behaves there, same as the Municipal Court/Municipal offices building where everyone pays water/electric bills and traffic fines, yet there's no metal detector nor sign.

I mean Everyone knows not to carry in a Courthouse, but Burnet bought old Stores/business spaces on the Courthouse square and calls those, actually put up big sign "Courthouse Annex" so they store old furniture or boxes there ,,, "Offices utilized by a court" Other business in that "strip center" building on Courthouse square are a restaurant, clothing store, antique store ... people carry in those .