Posted: 1/3/2009 8:19:50 PM EDT
|
I live in Tx and have my CHL. I was carrying to work for some time until recently because my job requires me to go many places. One of the places that I went to last week required us to take a training course to be on there property. There was no 30.06 sine any where that I looked, and I always look.
During the training video the TV screen went completely black and a lady's voice read the 30.06 "PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A 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." agine this was never posted, not in any way shape or form, it was only read. What would you have done? Thanks! |
|
I'm not exactly sure how it works with subcontractors and contractors (I'm assuming you are one of those since you are working in their facility), but employers don't need a 30.06 sign to prohibit you from carrying on their facility. They simply just need to tell you in some form or fashion.
If you are a subcontractor or contractor to that client, then it could very well be the same case. I am unsure though if indirect employment such as contractor work falls under the rights of an employer to not allow carrying a firearm on their facility without posting a 30.06 sign. Bottom line though, if you will be doing contract work in a clients facility, you are jeopardizing the relationship between your company and the client if you break their rules. I frequently do site visits in refineries, chemical plants and power plants around the United States. Usually there is a 30.06 sign in the Texas plants along with a bunch of other prohibited items listed. In other states they often have the handgun and the "no" sign. Is your employer aware that you carry at work? |
|
I no longer carry to work because I may be required to go to an secured location of an airport, or a government contract facility that I know has 30.06 posted.
I do not know if my employer knows that I personally carry but I do know that the owner had a conversation about this very thing with one employee and he had no problem with anyone carrying. Their is a very big % of employees who I work with that carry. Again I no longer do because I might be required to go some where that it is not allowed without notice. |
|
Quoted:
To be honest I've adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" policy... 
And the video thing is not Texas Penal Code compliant. Why not? The law says that you have to be given written or oral notice. Everyone probably knows that the 30.06 signs cover the written notification but I would think that a video of someone reading the law to you complies with the oral notification. Only one notification is required and oral notification is written into the law. |
|
Quoted:
To be honest I've adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" policy...
And the video thing is not Texas Penal Code compliant. The question I would like to know the answer too though is if a subcontractor or contractor is considered an "employee." Employers don't need 30.06 signs to keep firearms out of their facilities, they simply need it as their policy and that's all. |
| Unless that policy is conveyed either in written form or verbally, an employer cannot expect an employee or even a contractor/subcontractor to be knowledgeable of that policy. Telepathy is not an assumed ability for the majority of humans. That's why 30.06 signs are required to be posted in compliant format in plain view at all entrances to the property if the property owner wishes to pursue trespassing charges for carriers upon the first violation. Obviously, the "don't ask, don't tell" defense won't work because it's up to employees/contractors to clarify the policy with the employer - preferably before employment commences. It's a crappy situation but until Texas legislature comes in with stronger 2A rights for CHL, that's the way it is. |
| I don't think it would count as 30.06 even if they did play it every time because the video is simply quoting Texas law. It doesn't specifically say "You can't carry on site" which would serve as a verbal notice. The company probably has a written policy in place, and the video is a piss poor means of notification. |
|
Quoted:
To be honest I've adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" policy...
And the video thing is not Texas Penal Code compliant. Yes it is. A person is put under 30.06 notice by ANY oral communication. Texas Penal Code
Sec. 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 |
|
Quoted:
I don't think it would count as 30.06 even if they did play it every time because the video is simply quoting Texas law. It doesn't specifically say "You can't carry on site" which would serve as a verbal notice. The company probably has a written policy in place, and the video is a piss poor means of notification. What he was spoken was 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
It is an EXTREMELY effective means of notification. Everyone is given tghe exact notice, and the video in an of itself can be used as evidence. |
|
Quoted:
I live in Tx and have my CHL. I was carrying to work for some time until recently because my job requires me to go many places. One of the places that I went to last week required us to take a training course to be on there property. There was no 30.06 sine any where that I looked, and I always look. During the training video the TV screen went completely black and a lady's voice read the 30.06 "PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A 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." agine this was never posted, not in any way shape or form, it was only read. What would you have done? Thanks! I would have then secured my handgun in my vehicle. If you carry there any further you are committing a class A misdemeanor, and a conviction of 30.06 will result in a revocation of your CHL. |
|
Quoted:
It is an EXTREMELY effective means of notification. Everyone is given tghe exact notice, and the video in an of itself can be used as evidence. Unless you happen to be hearing impaired. I fully understand the rights that owners and employers can refuse entry to CHL, but instead of using signs nor documents, they chose to tack it on the end of a video with no imagery or text but just vocals. If they were so concerned, put out a corporate document and have all the employees sign it. Sure, the video covers the company's ass in this instance, but I'm getting tired of these companies wussing out on the fact they're anti-gun. Stick a freakin' sign in your front yard with 10' letters that says the words and just be done with it. Don't hide the 30.06 sign in the bathroom or the 51% under the restaurant bar so you can only see it in reverse in the mirror. But in the end, the person with CHL will get screwed. That's just how the law is stacked at the moment. |
|
Quoted:
Actually, I would argue that it is only effective on that day. In fact, I believe that may be a good argument. How do you figure? A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."
With no restriction on the time listed, I think the "period" sums it up. It means no handguns allowed by CHLers, PERIOD. 30.06 does not require the verbal notice be given "upon each entry" or any other such wording. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
To be honest I've adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" policy...
And the video thing is not Texas Penal Code compliant. Yes it is. A person is put under 30.06 notice by ANY oral communication. Texas Penal Code
Sec. 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 The man stated that it was a "training" video....... If you want to get technical about the law, does the "lady in the video" have the authority to act for the owner, or is she just some random lady they chose to do the video? If she was just someone that was hired to make the video or is a lady from a company that just makes training videos, I'd say she doesn't fit the description as the owner or someone who can act for the owner..... That's my 2 cents. |
| I have a question about the reading of 30.06. Was is read out in english and spanish? The law states that signs have to be in english and spanish. I would think, if a person is going to read out a law and assume it applies the same as a sign, it would have to be done in english and spanish. |
| Is your concern putting your job in jeopardy or trouble with the law? Chances are you would never have an issue with the law. If you are carrying concealed as required by the law how would anyone ever know? even if they did see it my guess is you might just get fired over it. You probably wouldn't get in trouble with the law. |
|
Quoted:
I have a question about the reading of 30.06. Was is read out in english and spanish? The law states that signs have to be in english and spanish. I would think, if a person is going to read out a law and assume it applies the same as a sign, it would have to be done in english and spanish. That is incorrect. 30.06 does not stipulate that oral communication must meet ANY requirement. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a question about the reading of 30.06. Was is read out in english and spanish? The law states that signs have to be in english and spanish. I would think, if a person is going to read out a law and assume it applies the same as a sign, it would have to be done in english and spanish. That is incorrect. 30.06 does not stipulate that oral communication must meet ANY requirement. I understand that. I was trying to say that if you were going to argue that reading aloud what is on the 30.06 sign is the same thing as posting the sign, then you should have to read it aloud in spanish also. |
|
Quoted:
sounds cute but is not notice. 30-06 must be a written sign of specific size and type. Someone can't read it or quote it and have it be notice. The can simply say "no guns" and give notice but quoting the text and leaving it at that is not proper notice. Of course it is. Good grief. Lets look at the law; Sec. 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. So, if you enter after receiving notice that entry was forbidden you violate the law. If you remain on the property after being given notice that it was forbidden and failed to depart, you violated the law. So the question is; "what is notice"? The law continues; (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
Ok, so if we receive oral or written communication then we received notice. If you read further, you see that WRITTEN COMMUNICATION is defined and has specific requirements. 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"; Notice that THIS communication does not require that the writing be in any other language, does not require any specific size, etc. If employees are given this wording in the manual, or any other document or card then carry there is illegal. If an employee hands out little cards to every customer that enters with that wording then entry with a handgun is illegal. Of course, the law further address written communication in the form of a sign; (3) "Written communication" means:
(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. Notice that there are no requirements for the oral communication. Simply being told "no guns allowed" is oral communication that is sufficient under the law. To summarize you violate 30.06 if; 1. You are given notice that entry is forbidden and you enter anyway 2. You are given notice that remaining on the property is forbidden, and you fail to depart. Notice can be ANY verbal communication or A document or card that makes a specific statement but does not have to be in Spanish or be 1" tall letters, or A sign that meets specific requirements. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a question about the reading of 30.06. Was is read out in english and spanish? The law states that signs have to be in english and spanish. I would think, if a person is going to read out a law and assume it applies the same as a sign, it would have to be done in english and spanish. That is incorrect. 30.06 does not stipulate that oral communication must meet ANY requirement. I understand that. I was trying to say that if you were going to argue that reading aloud what is on the 30.06 sign is the same thing as posting the sign, then you should have to read it aloud in spanish also. That argument does not make any sense. It is irrelevant. Oral communication does not have to be anything specific. Certainly reading in English the wording required of the 30.06 sign is sufficient oral communication. |
|
Well . . if oral notification doens't have to be specific, then it would not be valid notification as the oral notification requriement is vague. What if the person watching the video speaks spanish and doesn't understand much engrish?
You can't have notification at that point. The purpose of the sign is to provide constant notice to anyone entering the premises. Oral notification would be likewise be required each time the person entered the premises. Think about it like this, In court, they would have to prove that the person received oral notice. Normally, the prosecutor would have to produce the person who orally gave the CHL holder notice. That person would be subject to cross examination and hilarity would ensue. In this case, it wouldn't be so easy. The prosecutor would have to get the videotape entered into evidence. Prove that the accused actually received the notification by questioning someone who conducted the training session and then prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually received the notification. This person will have to have personal knowlege that the accused was present that day. Hilarity is guranteed to ensue when the crossexamination starts. And thats even before we get into whether the person in the video is a "someone with apparent authority". If so, they will need to produce that person. I'll take that case any day of the week and I'll bet it doesn't even get to a jury without being dumped. |
|
Quoted:
Well . . if oral notification doens't have to be specific, then it would not be valid notification as the oral notification requriement is vague. What if the person watching the video speaks spanish and doesn't understand much engrish? You can't have notification at that point. The purpose of the sign is to provide constant notice to anyone entering the premises. Oral notification would be likewise be required each time the person entered the premises. Think about it like this, In court, they would have to prove that the person received oral notice. Normally, the prosecutor would have to produce the person who orally gave the CHL holder notice. That person would be subject to cross examination and hilarity would ensue. In this case, it wouldn't be so easy. The prosecutor would have to get the videotape entered into evidence. Prove that the accused actually received the notification by questioning someone who conducted the training session and then prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually received the notification. This person will have to have personal knowlege that the accused was present that day. Hilarity is guranteed to ensue when the crossexamination starts. And thats even before we get into whether the person in the video is a "someone with apparent authority". If so, they will need to produce that person. I'll take that case any day of the week and I'll bet it doesn't even get to a jury without being dumped. I am not an attorney so I am not versed at twisting things to fit my position (client). 
I just look at the law at try to make sense of it. Seems pretty clear to me when I read it with no agenda. |
|
The law states written or oral communication. A simple web definiton of communication: the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs.
Basically this means that the listener understood what was being said (written, viewed, etc). Does not matter what language was used, if they understood that they were being told that they could not carry, that meets the notification requirements of the law. Where I work, our handbook, and regular online 'refreshers' clearly state that employees may not bring 'deadly weapons' on company property. IMO, this equates to meeting the requirements of Texas law, even though it does not specify handgun, or concealed handgun. We were playing "what if" one day, and I made the argument that if a slide was removed from the receiver, it would no longer be a 'deadly weapon' (but still a firearm). |
|
Quoted:
The law states written or oral communication. A simple web definiton of communication: the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs. Ah ha.....a "simple web definition" or definition found in your everyday dictionary would not hold up in court. That is why in the Texas penal code you find the words "defined as..." or "such n such means..." It's stuff like this that requires the penal code to be altered and modified. I believe both sides of this argument have valid points but it would come down to the judge, or whomever is hearing the case, just tossing it out because of lack of definition as to what "oral communication" is. |
|
I'm nt saying that I would reccomend it,
I'm just saying that I, for the right amount of money, (of course) would gladly take that case to a jury. Like I have said in teh thread on carrying an illegal knife under a CHL, the law says what it says. In ths case, the dificulty would be in proving notice in court. That and I think the law clearly says "Someone Authorized" and a video is certainly no "Someone" as the term "Someone" denotes a living, breathing person. That is another aspect that hasnt't really been explored in this thread. Is a video image of a person "Someone" under the wording of the statute? I would say clearly not. The word "somone" denotes a living, breathing human person, not a video image. A video image is clearly much more closely related to a sign. Notification by visual means i.e. a sign or a video, is clearly covered. Therefore, I do not beleive that notice is properly given under hte oral section of 30.06 by a video image of someone reading the trespass language. I think this really is a good analysis of the issue. A video image is just that. Its an image. Its not "Someone". If they wanted to provide notice by an image, they could display the 30.06 sign in the apprpiate manner and they would be covered. They could also have someone stand up and read the language to the class. The more i think about this, the more I beleive that a videotape of a person reading the notice language fails. |
|
Quoted:
That and I think the law clearly says "Someone Authorized" and a video is certainly no "Someone" as the term "Someone" denotes a living, breathing person. That is another aspect that hasnt't really been explored in this thread. Is a video image of a person "Someone" under the wording of the statute? I would say clearly not. The word "somone" denotes a living, breathing human person, not a video image. A video image is clearly much more closely related to a sign. . That is lawyer double talk at its finest. The law does not address "images" and I don't think anyone believes a video has to meet the requirement of a "card, document or sign." But I am glad to know that of I ever am arrested you could make an argument for me, no matter how silly. 
|
|
Put 30.06 in the company policy handbook. Make all new employees/contractors read it. Make them sign a document stating they have read it and understood it. Is it that hard?
The video is as effective as playing 30.06 over elevator music. I can already hear 30.06 as a ringtone jingle on the senior HR rep's phone. Yet, I am sure any CHL holder will be screwed in the end if an employer reports him/her as trespassing. |
|
Quoted:
How is that silly. Is a video "someone"? Its not. Its an image projected on a screen. What is a sign? Its an image printed on a peice of cardboard or am image pasted on a glass door. I am not an attorney, but I have been in court more than a few times. I just don't think it will fly. The sound coming from the speakers is not an image; it is oral communication. The screen was blank, according to the OP. Since the OP wrote in English, I am going to take a leap and guess that he understands English. Since he wrote that he heard the words, I am going to believe that he is not hearing impaired. IMO, he was given 30.06 notice. Like Dr Phil, I ask no one to substitute my opinion for their own. |
|
Quoted:
How is that silly. Is a video "someone"? Its not. Its an image projected on a screen. Using that same reasoning, a person's voice electronically reproduced by a telephone or intercom speaker is also not "someone". But I'd pay good money to see the expression on a judge's face when you insulted his intelligence by trying to argue that because you were told something over the phone you weren't actually notified by "someone". What is a sign? Its an image printed on a peice of cardboard or am image pasted on a glass door.
More to the point, it is a written form of communication in a given language, rather than a verbal form. That would be the critical difference between the two. |
|
All the law requires is that they tell you that you are not allowed to carry, and that is it...You are not allowed to carry.
"(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" You could argue that someone like a store clerk does not have "apparent authority". You could argue that a trainer does not have "apparent authority". You could argue that the video does not cut it, but it was shown as part of a class, and therefore you should take it as company policy. You could always try to weasel out and yammer on about the definitions of words...But they have clearly communicated their desire and anything else is like when Slick willy needed to define "sexual relations" and "is". It would be effective until repealed. Statements of policy remain in effect till they are changed. You would have an argument, IMO, if the person was hearing impaired or did not speak English. |
|
Quoted:
What is a sign? Its an image printed on a peice of cardboard or am image pasted on a glass door.
More to the point, it is a written form of communication in a given language, rather than a verbal form. That would be the critical difference between the two. Actually, a videotape is an image of someone or some animation. Again, its an image not "Someone" and I don't think it provides good notice. |
|
All the law requires is that they tell you that you are not allowed to carry, and that is it...You are not allowed to carry.
ot true. The law requires that the owner tell you or SOMEONE authorized by the owner. "(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"
You could argue that someone like a store clerk does not have "apparent authority".
The store clerk is SOMEONE You could argue that a trainer does not have "apparent authority".
Again, The trainer is SOMEONE You could argue that the video does not cut it, but it was shown as part of a class, and therefore you should take it as company policy.
Company policy has nothing to do with 30.06 notice. Its either a proper sign or "SOMEONE" not an image, but someone. Or a proper image inthe form of a sign posted proeprly. You could always try to weasel out and yammer on about the definitions of words...But they have clearly communicated their desire and anything else is like when Slick willy needed to define "sexual relations" and "is".
Sory, but the law clealry says someone. Not a onetime video image shown in a training class. It would be effective until repealed. Statements of policy remain in effect till they are changed.
The statute doesn't say this You would have an argument, IMO, if the person was hearing impaired or did not speak English.
If you follow the latter of the law, you wouldn't. but that is another thread altogether. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is a sign? Its an image printed on a peice of cardboard or am image pasted on a glass door.
More to the point, it is a written form of communication in a given language, rather than a verbal form. That would be the critical difference between the two. Actually, a videotape is an image of someone or some animation. Again, its an image not "Someone" and I don't think it provides good notice. You seem to have missed the part of my post that addressed this.... Quoted:Using that same reasoning, a person's voice electronically reproduced by a telephone or intercom speaker is also not "someone". But I'd pay good money to see the expression on a judge's face when you insulted his intelligence by trying to argue that because you were told something over the phone you weren't actually notified by "someone".
"Someone" spoke the words that were played on the training video, and "someone" from the company had you watch the video, thus conveying the relevant information to you. You were informed by "someone" (two "someone"s, in fact). You're engaging in nothing but incredibly weak word-parsing gamesmanship here. |
|
Hey Dan, I guess you have me there.
Someone made me watch the videotape of an image speaking some words. Unfortunately, that "somone" wasn't the "someone that made the speech. So it fals outside of the statute. I'm not parsing words. Like I said earlier, it depends on who the someone is. Since teh company rep that made you watch the videotape isn't the one speaking, he doesn't fall under the statute. That leqaves the question of whether the videotape is "SOMEONE", or if it is "SOMEONE" whether its SOMEONE with APPARENT AUTHORITY" or an image of a person on a videotape is "Someone" as contemplated by the statute. Look at it like this: If your interpretation is correct, there is no need for a 30.06 sign anymore. Just put a video monitor at the entreance and play a loop with the 30.06 words on it, or run a recording over the loudspeakers. Somehow I doubt that would be effective verbal notice by "SOLMEONEwith apparrent authority". |
|
Quoted:
Hey Dan, I guess you have me there. Someone made me watch the videotape of an image speaking some words. You're not even familiar with the facts you're arguing over. There was no "image" involved. There was an electronic reproduction of a voice, as spoken by "someone". Unfortunately, that "somone" wasn't the "someone that made the speech.
But "someone" did make the speech, and "someone" else directed you to listen to it for purposes of conveying information to you. So it fals outside of the statute. I'm not parsing words. Like I said earlier, it depends on who the someone is. Since teh company rep that made you watch the videotape isn't the one speaking, he doesn't fall under the statute. That's the most anal-retentive, pedantic clap-trap I've heard since, "I guess that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." That leqaves the question of whether the videotape is "SOMEONE", or if it is "SOMEONE" whether its SOMEONE with APPARENT AUTHORITY" or an image of a person on a videotape is "Someone" as contemplated by the statute.
Again, there was no "image" involved. There was an electronic reproduction of verbal communication. I see you're still avoiding the point regarding that general concept. Look at it like this: If your interpretation is correct, there is no need for a 30.06 sign anymore. Just put a video monitor at the entreance and play a loop with the 30.06 words on it, or run a recording over the loudspeakers.
That would certainly suffice, provided the verbal communication was clearly audible and it was assured that visitors listened to it AND were able to understand it. Of course, that approach would be expensive and very troublesome. So pretty much everyone is going to go with the sign instead. Somehow I doubt that would be effective verbal notice by "SOLMEONEwith apparrent authority".
Since the audio presentation would be there at the direction of management/proprietorship...who would be the "someone" who is conveying the information to you, even if using someone else's voice, I think it most certainly WOULD be effective verbal notice by someone with apparent authority. |