30.05 sign

[txinvestigator]

Wow.

The law is clear. It is an offense if you are given notice. Then the law defines notice. Since the law defines notice, anything not meeting the definition is not notice.

Notice is any verbal communication.

Notice is written communication

Written communication is a card or documentnwith specific wording. I

Written communication is also a sign with Sepcific wording that also meets other requirements.

If it is posted on a wall, door, etc, that is a sign. A card or document could be notice in an employee manual, new member packet at a church. An attorney recently told me her firm places 30.06 notice in their contracts with clients.

A card or document that does not meet the specific wording requirements is not enforceable criminally. A sign that does not meet the signage requirements is not enforceable.

Any argument about no case law, or it is up to a cops judgment is specious. It is as clear as the law allowing you to carry under a CHL.

 

[txinvestigator]

Exactly my point! A sign, even though not complying with the signage rules, could conceivably be treated by a court as providing you with effective notice. And it is effective notice that might determine a court's decision. I would not want to be the first test case.


One legal definition of "document" is "Information captured on paper or in electronic format. Under the rules of evidence, the term receives the broadest possible interpretation and may include such items as photographs, audiotapes, etc."

So an invalid sign would still be a document and therefore might be deemed by a court to comply with the first half of the law (see earlier posts).

You are making up stuff. A sign is a sign. Your conclusion is wrong. How is an incorrect sign like a photograph or audiotape?

Good grief, man.

 

[txinvestigator]

Exactly my point! A sign, even though not complying with the signage rules, could conceivably be treated by a court as providing you with effective notice. And it is effective notice that might determine a court's decision. I would not want to be the first test case.

No, it is not effective notice. A court must follow the law, other "duns conclusions". To meet the definition of notice it must comply with 30.06.

 

[winchster]

Exactly my point! A sign, even though not complying with the signage rules, could conceivably be treated by a court as providing you with effective notice. And it is effective notice that might determine a court's decision. I would not want to be the first test case.

Not according to the law.

One legal definition of "document" is "Information captured on paper or in electronic format. Under the rules of evidence, the term receives the broadest possible interpretation and may include such items as photographs, audiotapes, etc."

All of which could be considered documents, yet none of those examples include a sign.

So an invalid sign would still be a document and therefore might be deemed by a court to comply with the first half of the law (see earlier posts).

Not if it is a sign. If it were a document, then obviously it complies.

Again, a sign is not a document and a document is not a sign.

You're still over complicating this.


ETA:
It takes a while to post all this on my phone and did not see TXI responses during my toil.

 

[Flat Lander]

Way over complicating this. As long as you leave when asked, or given effective notice, then you are not in violation of the law. And for the record, a non -compliant sign is still a sign, not a document.

 

[Shorts]

TxDPS - CHL FAQs

36. Do private property/business owners have the right to exclude license holders from their property?

Yes. Private property owners may exclude license holders from carrying concealed handguns on their property by providing notice as provided in Section 30.06, Texas Penal Code. If you wish to prohibit license holders from carrying concealed handguns on your property, §30.06, Texas Penal Code requires you to post specific signage. The sign must be in both English and Spanish, must include the specific language described by law, must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.


The Department does not furnish or sell these signs. You may print or purchase the signs from your local printing company. See §30.06, Texas Penal Code for the exact required language.

 

[duns]

I work for the State of Texas and trust me, it is in our employee's handbook that you can be terminated for carrying a gun in the building.

Not just the State of Texas but many non-governmental companies too, especially the larger ones. What angers me greatly is that some of my employer's potential customers, who ban conceal carry on their own premises, make it a requirement of doing business with them that we impose a similar ban in our premises. So far, we haven't won any of that type of business but it is probably only a matter of time. There should be a law to prevent a company compelling its contractors, as a contractual condition, to ban a legal activity. It's pure discrimination against those who choose to exercise their 2A rights. It's another way of pursuing an anti-gun agenda that is being followed by many of those in charge of big business.

 

[Shorts]

Way over complicating this. As long as you leave when asked, or given effective notice, then you are not in violation of the law. And for the record, a non -compliant sign is still a sign, not a document.

And somehow a concealed firearm has been spotted.

Compliant 30.06 or nothing.

 

[duns]

Well, I've had my say. Most of you think my concern is unfounded. That's fine. I'll carry on being cautious and not carry when the property owner has made it clear that they do not not want concealed firearms on their premises. Perhaps I'm being over cautious but it doesn't cost me anything since 30.06 notices are so rare here in Houston that I can take my business to gun-friendly establishments without any inconvenience.

 

[M. Sage]

The law does not say it has to jump into your hand or get into your hand at all.

I do not know if there has ever been a test case on what constitutes effective notice that the owner does not want conceal carry. If there has, it could end this debate. If there has not, then a future court might well find that effective notice can be given multiple ways. The term "other document" is incredibly broad. I would not rule out the possibility that a court would decide that a non-compliant sign is an "other document". The law is never black and white and lawyers read things into language that ordinary people would never dream of.

If you're not given the document or card to read, then it's failed the "communication" part of written communication. The law says you have to have "received notice". If the doorman has notification documents in his pocket and never hands them out, nobody is receiving notification.

Everybody's right. You're looking too hard for a "gotcha" where there isn't one. This law is airtight in how it's written, there's not any room for misinterpretation or misapplication. It's extremely specific and not vague in any way.

A sign is a sign. A sign isn't a document or a card and vice versa. There are specific rules for posting that sign, and the law specifically states that with written or oral notice, you have to be given that notice for the law to apply.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I work for the State of Texas and trust me, it is in our employee's handbook that you can be terminated for carrying a gun in the building.

But that does not apply to visitors to the building (unless of course it is a state or govt. location and/or a 30.06 ).
I can be terminated for carrying at work, but there is No sign anywhere stating other may not

 

[inceptor]

But that does not apply to visitors to the building (unless of course it is a state or govt. location and/or a 30.06 ).
I can be terminated for carrying at work, but there is No sign anywhere stating other may not

It is a govt leased building, at least we have a part of it. No, there is no 30.06 sign outside for non-employee's.

ETA: We can also be terminated for defending ourselves depending on how it's done. There are specific rules concerning this. I had to take a class.

 

[Shorts]

It is a govt leased building, at least we have a part of it. No, there is no 30.06 sign outside for non-employee's.

ETA: We can also be terminated for defending ourselves depending on how it's done. There are specific rules concerning this. I had to take a class.

Yeah, but that's your place of employment. Other places might allow customers to carry but not want their employees to.

 

[Charlie]

Well, I've had my say. Most of you think my concern is unfounded. That's fine. I'll carry on being cautious and not carry when the property owner has made it clear that they do not not want concealed firearms on their premises. Perhaps I'm being over cautious but it doesn't cost me anything since 30.06 notices are so rare here in Houston that I can take my business to gun-friendly establishments without any inconvenience.

Exactly! You have to interpret these laws how you see fit. Several times I've started to go into a store that had a 30.06 (I think) sign at the entrance and chose not to go in. Maybe it was right and maybe it was wrong. I didn't measure the lettering, etc. It's always your choice. I believe what I read in the legal definition. All anyone can do. Good luck.


By the way, I think you're misinterpreting what you're reading.

 

[inceptor]

Yeah, but that's your place of employment. Other places might allow customers to carry but not want their employees to.

Yes and I did choose to stay. I just gotta be careful because I work in an office full of libs.

 

[Shorts]

Yes and I did choose to stay. I just gotta be careful because I work in an office full of libs.

They are easy to frighten.

 

[inceptor]

They are easy to frighten.

Ya got that right. I was surprised though, a few of them are gun owners. One wanted me to teach her how to shoot so I did. She loved it. Another knows I have an AR and asked my why I needed an automatic gun. I explained that it is already not legal for the average person to full auto weapons. I also explained that I had no desire to own a full auto of any kind. Then I informed her that the Glock she owns is also on the ban list. She has a Glock .40

 

[Shorts]

Ya got that right. I was surprised though, a few of them are gun owners. One wanted me to teach her how to shoot so I did. She loved it. Another knows I have an AR and asked my why I needed an automatic gun. I explained that it is already not legal for the average person to full auto weapons. I also explained that I had no desire to own a full auto of any kind. Then I informed her that the Glock she owns is also on the ban list. She has a Glock .40

Baby steps are good. Can't change them all at once I guess. I would have loved to see the look on the lady's face when you told her she had a <gasp!> high cap gun.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Actually it is legal for the average person to own a full auto weapon.

 

[Shorts]

Actually it is legal for the average person to own a full auto weapon.

Correct.