Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:51:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 4:52:48 PM EDT by SC-Texas]
I was playing in the chat section and someone mentioned that an unnamed guy was arrested for Legal (Had CHL) Concealed carry in the Dallas PD HQ because they posted a 30.05 sign with a ban handguns (circle-slash) at the entrance?

Anyone know some of the details?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 5:03:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 5:05:11 PM EDT by SC-Texas]

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.






(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at
the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;




(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor at the time of the offense was a fire fighter or emergency
medical services personnel, as that term is defined by Section
773.003, Health and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of
an official duty under exigent circumstances.




(d) An offense under Subsection (e) is a Class C misdemeanor
unless it is committed in a habitation or unless the actor carries a
deadly weapon on or about the actor's person during the commission
of the offense, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor. An
offense under Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that
the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if:
(1) the offense is committed:
(A) in a habitation or a shelter center; or
(B) on a Superfund site; or
(2) the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his
person during the commission of the offense.





(e) A person commits an offense if without express consent
or if without authorization provided by any law, whether in writing
or other form, the person:
(1) enters or remains on agricultural land of another;
(2) is on the agricultural land and within 100 feet of
the boundary of the land when apprehended; and
(3) had notice that the entry was forbidden or
received notice to depart but failed to do so.





(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was
carrying.


Link Posted: 1/29/2006 5:05:53 PM EDT
So, I do not see how this actor could have been convicted under 30.05 unless he refused to leave.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 5:53:17 PM EDT
He may not have been convicted, but he could've been arrested. Whats that saying, you can beat the rap but not the ride.

Anyways, I've never heard of such a thing, but that doesnt mean it didnt happen. I do have my doubts, though.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:00:14 PM EDT
TSRA should know about this..... if they don't, they SHOULD.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:19:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
I was playing in the chat section and someone mentioned that an unnamed guy was arrested for Legal (Had CHL) Concealed carry in the Dallas PD HQ because they posted a 30.05 sign with a ban handguns (circle-slash) at the entrance?

Anyone know some of the details?


Does this rumor indicate how DPD became aware of the legally carried handgun?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:17:21 PM EDT
Metal detector- just like going into HPD's HQ on Travis.

I just told the Metal detector lady that I have a CHL and she waived me through to the front desk.

Then the lib-tard chick with a badge and gun at the front desk asked me if i was carrying.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:17:53 PM EDT
I am a member of TSRA and thought they had a forum- they don;t
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:46:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
I am a member of TSRA and thought they had a forum- they don;t



I have been to the DPD headquarters. I did not see any metal detectors, nor was subjected to passing thru one.

Sounds like a myth to me.....
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:52:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 8:56:35 PM EDT by tvc184]
SC-Texas,

Assuming that the story is true...................

You quote from Section 30.05 of the Penal Code. You needed to read the next section. Section 30.06 does make it an offense IF a sign is posted restricting entry. The defense that you listed only applies if there is no sign posted as required in 30.06.

HOWEVER, the last section of 30.06 says that:

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.

I would think that a police station is a premises owned or lease by a governmental entity and it is not a restrict place such as a correctional facility.

There is one more catch though. The last section of Section 46.035 restricts entry if the handgun is concealed "any meeting of a governmental entity".

If he entered the police station to attend a meeting, then there is your answer. By saying at "any" meeting, it seems to leave the interpretation wide open.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:04:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tvc184:
SC-Texas,

Assuming that the story is true...................

You quote from Section 30.05 of the Penal Code. You needed to read the next section. Section 30.06 does make it an offense IF a sign is posted restricting entry. The defense that you listed only applies if there is no sign posted as required in 30.06.

HOWEVER, the last section of 30.06 says that:

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.

I would think that a police station is a premises owned or lease by a governmental entity and it is not a restrict place such as a correctional facility.

There is one more catch though. The last section of Section 46.035 restricts entry if the handgun is concealed "any meeting of a governmental entity".

If he entered the police station to attend a meeting, then there is your answer. By saying at "any" meeting, it seems to leave the interpretation wide open.



The alleged sign did not meet the requirements of 30.06, thats why we had the discussion about 30.05.


I was playing in the chat section and someone mentioned that an unnamed guy was arrested for Legal (Had CHL) Concealed carry in the Dallas PD HQ because they posted a 30.05 sign with a ban handguns (circle-slash) at the entrance?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:26:24 PM EDT
txinvestigator,
I understand that but Section 46.035 (mentioned in 30.06) requires no sign and it is just illegal per se. No one has stated for a fact that it even happened. It is just a rumor. I was just trying to give a plausible explanation for an arrest and conviction at the police station. As you stated, "the alleged sign".

I have been involved in cases where a person was convicted of a crime but by the time the story is told and retold, the original crime is forgotten and you end up with opinions, not fact. That is especially true when the media is involved.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:40:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tvc184:
txinvestigator,
I understand that but Section 46.035 (mentioned in 30.06) requires no sign and it is just illegal per se. No one has stated for a fact that it even happened. It is just a rumor. I was just trying to give a plausible explanation for an arrest and conviction at the police station. As you stated, "the alleged sign".

I have been involved in cases where a person was convicted of a crime but by the time the story is told and retold, the original crime is forgotten and you end up with opinions, not fact. That is especially true when the media is involved.



Agreed.

BTW, meetings of government entities restricted under 46.035 must be posted with 30.06 to legally keep 0ut CHLs.



Link Posted: 1/30/2006 3:26:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tvc184:
I have been involved in cases where a person was convicted of a crime but by the time the story is told and retold, the original crime is forgotten and you end up with opinions, not fact. That is especially true when the media is involved.



Perfect example: http://www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=430316&page=10
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 3:57:26 AM EDT
The Dallas PD HQ does not have a sign or metal detectors. None of the stations, substations or neighborhood storefronts have them either. Many city facilities other than the police do have 30.05 signs up. Oddly enough, the old credit union building located on Canton has both a 30.05 and a 30.06 and the bulding is empty.

The only city facilty that I can definately say has 30.06 signs up is 1400 Commerce, when you go up the stairs to the courts....posted at the stairs, at the top are security guards and a metal detector(and I think an x-ray machine).

I'll try to get some pics later this week.


mm
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:42:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tvc184:
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.



Wasn't this part added very recently in response to cities putting up 30.06 (or whatever) in Libraries and other "city-owned" buildings the CHL holder (and all other tax payers) paid for and (by extension) owns?
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:50:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 5:50:32 AM EDT by soowah]
Wow, I just saw a 30.05 posting a branch bank that I use, just the other day. I though it was a misprint, never remember covering that in class.

Anyway, the way I take it, the language reads like he can be arrested but the CHL is his defense. Kinda moronic IMHO because it's the 30.06 that specifically exclueds CHL/carry under the criminal tresspass law.

Link Posted: 1/30/2006 8:33:56 AM EDT
Like I said- it was a rumor, told tome 3rd or 4th hand by a member here.

I was just wondering if I had missed something.
Top Top