Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 245 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This new sign is at Post Oak Mall in College Station, TX.

I know it is not a legal 30.06 sign, so should have no effect on CHL holders, but what are your thoughts?

I will email the College Station chief of police and inform him that any arrest would be illegal, as per the real 30.06 statute.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
I'm no lawyer but as I read this arrest for criminal trespass is warranted under this statue.

Texas Penal Code - Section 30.06. Trespass By Holder Of License To Carry Concealed Handgun:

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

(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.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "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"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(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.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, § 23, eff. Sept. 1,
1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 9.24, eff.
Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1178, § 2, eff. Sept. 1,
2003.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
The mall has recently posted the 30.05 as if it were a 30.06. Now they are posting incorrect 30.06 signs-- and certainly not
at each entry. The vestiges of the old 30.05 sign are still visible. It appears that they still incorrectly reference
30.05 in the Spanish version, and use an unenforceable 30.06 in English. Take a careful look at the photo and you will see this.
My take is that they are just trying to scare away unlicensed unknowing unlicensed carriers, or else they have received very poor advice from whomever they asked-- if they asked. Hmm.

Personally, I think it is best to not call the police chief. At this juncture the signs aren't valid and I would think the police
are aware of what is and isn't a valid sign. If the police chief had this pointed out to him I have a hunch the mall would
quickly put up real 30.06 signs. (OTOH, I'd not like my taxes to go up because of a false arrest.)

My take, these signs are invitations to license holders to carry (same as "Unlicensed Possession" signs at food places serving alcohol are) and intended to scare the ignorant-- who of course never took the CHL course or read the handbook, but also
don't follow rules as their unlicensed carry in the mall is illegal anyway.

Happily I seldom go in there. I can go 9 months to a year without the need. Compared to 30-40 years back, or even 20 years back, we now have plenty of other places to shop for almost anything.

BTW, maybe I didn't look carefully but I entered through Penny's today and didn't see any sign on their door or on the door
from Penny's to the mall. Yesterday I entered Sears automotive and didn't see any sign.

The mall management is either screwing this up by the numbers or they are being cagy and know the signs aren't valid.

Meanwhile, I guess we do need to be extra careful going there as they could put new legal ones up all over at any time.

So, let's all be careful, and shop elsewhere.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
I'm no lawyer but as I read this arrest for criminal trespass is warranted under this statue.

Texas Penal Code - Section 30.06. Trespass By Holder Of License To Carry Concealed Handgun:

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

(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.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "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"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(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.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, § 23, eff. Sept. 1,
1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 9.24, eff.
Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1178, § 2, eff. Sept. 1,
2003.
No, it is a TX specific thing and the sign has to meet the specification--exact language, with precise wording, and with the described lettering size and contrast. The word "identical" isn't in that piece of statute for an idle purpose. It means what
it says. The language must be identical not similar to what is in the code. Same for the part about contrasting
colors in 1 inch block letters, conspicuous manner, and clearly visible. I can tell you none of these
are the case -so far- at the mall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
The mall has recently posted the 30.05 as if it were a 30.06. Now they are posting incorrect 30.06 signs-- and certainly not
at each entry. The vestiges of the old 30.05 sign are still visible. It appears that they still incorrectly reference
30.05 in the Spanish version, and use an unenforceable 30.06 in English. Take a careful look at the photo and you will see this.
My take is that they are just trying to scare away unlicensed unknowing unlicensed carriers, or else they have received very poor advice from whomever they asked-- if they asked. Hmm.

Personally, I think it is best to not call the police chief. At this juncture the signs aren't valid and I would think the police
are aware of what is and isn't a valid sign. If the police chief had this pointed out to him I have a hunch the mall would
quickly put up real 30.06 signs. (OTOH, I'd not like my taxes to go up because of a false arrest.)

My take, these signs are invitations to license holders to carry (same as "Unlicensed Possession" signs at food places serving alcohol are) and intended to scare the ignorant-- who of course never took the CHL course or read the handbook, but also
don't follow rules as their unlicensed carry in the mall is illegal anyway.

Happily I seldom go in there. I can go 9 months to a year without the need. Compared to 30-40 years back, or even 20 years back, we now have plenty of other places to shop for almost anything.

BTW, maybe I didn't look carefully but I entered through Penny's today and didn't see any sign on their door or on the door
from Penny's to the mall. Yesterday I entered Sears automotive and didn't see any sign.

The mall management is either screwing this up by the numbers or they are being cagy and know the signs aren't valid.

Meanwhile, I guess we do need to be extra careful going there as they could put new legal ones up all over at any time.

So, let's all be careful, and shop elsewhere.
Hop...help me out here...not that it matters to me I will probably never get to Texas, but I posted 30.06 and read it and I am having trouble seeing where the mall sign is illegal..I'm missing something here........
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
Hop...help me out here...not that it matters to me I will probably never get to Texas, but I posted 30.06 and read it and I am having trouble seeing where the mall sign is illegal..I'm missing something here........
It isn't illegal. They can post whatever they want. It is invalid as far as making carry by a license holder an act of criminal
trespass because the signs posted at the mall don't meet the prescribed language, letter size, contrast, conspicuousness, requirements, and are not on each entry-- as of this afternoon.

The sign is especially screwy due to the fact that the Spanish language portion references the wrong part of the code-- 30.05
instead of 30.06. [sarcasm] Maybe the mall management meant to let our Spanish speaking neighbors carry? [/sarcasm]

Our OP has a point, to a point, that it would be best if the police chief were informed the signs aren't legal so no one gets
arrested when no crime has been committed. OTOH, I have this gnawing thought that if he is informed the error will quickly
be transmitted to the hapless mall management.

As far as I know only two entries have the signs, and there are many entrances to the mall through each of the anchor stores.
So if I enter through for example Penny's (which I did today) I won't (didn't today) see any signage at all.

Maybe our OP won't agree with me, and I wouldn't mind exchanging some private messages with him, but I'd rather they
posted the real thing on all the doors so that there is no confusion than they continue to monkey around stupidly. At least then
folks like us would know where we stand with certainty and there would be no possibility that mall security or an LEO or both would make an error.

I'd go with him to mall management.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shadowwalker

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
Anyone stop to think about contacting a LAWYER to ask about this rather than playing internet legal counsel?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,089 Posts
Well,at least this mall will be crime free. Hey they have a sign. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
It isn't illegal. They can post whatever they want. It is invalid as far as making carry by a license holder an act of criminal
trespass because the signs posted at the mall don't meet the prescribed language, letter size, contrast, conspicuousness, requirements, and are not on each entry-- as of this afternoon.

The sign is especially screwy due to the fact that the Spanish language portion references the wrong part of the code-- 30.05
instead of 30.06. [sarcasm] Maybe the mall management meant to let our Spanish speaking neighbors carry? [/sarcasm]

Our OP has a point, to a point, that it would be best if the police chief were informed the signs aren't legal so no one gets
arrested when no crime has been committed. OTOH, I have this gnawing thought that if he is informed the error will quickly
be transmitted to the hapless mall management.

As far as I know only two entries have the signs, and there are many entrances to the mall through each of the anchor stores.
So if I enter through for example Penny's (which I did today) I won't (didn't today) see any signage at all.

Maybe our OP won't agree with me, and I wouldn't mind exchanging some private messages with him, but I'd rather they
posted the real thing on all the doors so that there is no confusion than they continue to monkey around stupidly. At least then
folks like us would know where we stand with certainty and there would be no possibility that mall security or an LEO or both would make an error.

I'd go with him to mall management.
Got ya.....but informing the mall security may just result in all entrances being posted with proper prescribed signs as in the statue...but that probably will happen anyway once they actually arrest someone and a good sue you lawyer gets involved....thanks for the explanation.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
Anyone stop to think about contacting a LAWYER to ask about this rather than playing internet legal counsel?
This is a topic that is covered well in the concealed carry training course, so no one is playing internet lawyer. It is a TX specific
issue and licensed Texans know from their instruction what the rules are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Hop...help me out here...not that it matters to me I will probably never get to Texas, but I posted 30.06 and read it and I am having trouble seeing where the mall sign is illegal..I'm missing something here........
It fails to meet the legal requirement:

(3) Written communication means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written

language identical to the following:

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Thanks for all the replies! I will be in touch Hopyard.

I think you do have a good point about not going to the police chief, as it would be foolish to have him inform the mall of their mistake and have them post real 30.06 signs.

OTOH, I have been in email correspondence with the Chief before on CHL issues, about an officer thinking that the "gunbuster" sign at Cinemark in College Station carried the force of law (which of course, in TX, is not the case). Soon thereafter, the gunbuster signs were removed from the theater...Coincidence? Probably so... but maybe not.

As for now, I will continue to shop there and will fervently fight mall management if they ever post the real signs, they would lose a considerable customer.

That being said, if they do post the real thing, I seriously doubt they will cover EVERY entrance... in which case I will use an unmarked entrance and all will be well. After all, concealed means concealed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,731 Posts
Could be they know that licensed Texans will know the sign is not up to standard but they just want to scare off folks carrying under reciprocity who might not know any better.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,257 Posts
So let me ask kind of a devil's advocate question, and don't mistake my motives: If the owner/operator of a property (in this case, some sort of retail establishment) had made it clear by a conspicuously posted sign that he does not want armed people on his premises, why quibble about the itty-bitty details? Why would you venture inside? If the block letters fail to meet the letter of the law by being only 0.9 inches high instead of the required "at least one inch", isn't the owner/operator's intent still clear? I'm not talking about some miniscule sign posted 16 feet inside the premises with size 12 font, I mean a sign on the door that meets the intent of the law but misses the letter of the law by a small margin.

Just one man's opinion, but if it's obvious that a place doesn't want armed people inside, why give them your business?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Gasmitty, I'm glad you posed the question. I agree with you that there should be no quibble of the details. It is clear the owners of the mall don't want me there, however, the owners of the mall property merely make money from the retailers leasing space there. It is at those retailers that I shop.

As Hopyard posted earlier, there are many entrances to the mall through private retailers' own entrances. These private doors are not posted, only the few main mall entrances.

If the mall management proceeds to post every entrance with correct 30.06 signage I will actively boycott shopping there, and encourage everyone I know to do the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
The law is the law. If they want to legally keep me from carrying, there is an easily found way of doing so.


If I have to follow the law, so should they. Intent doesn't matter. The letter of the law does.


Funny how the ones who have problems with this haven't gone through a Texas chl class where it is covered as per required by the same people who wrote the law.
 
1 - 20 of 245 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top