Author Topic: New 30.06 sign at work  (Read 5170 times)

505795

  • Guest
New 30.06 sign at work
« on: May 12, 2014, 04:40:58 PM »
After several years, my employer has just placed a 30.06 sign at the entrance of our building.  I do not like the idea of now making my occasional late evening trek across the dark parking lot to my car with my protection safely locked inside it rather at my side.  Is there an effective consent or similar instrument I could ask for from our legal department or HR that would exempt me from the condition imposed by the 30.06 sign at this building?

Update 5/13/2014
I have done some research on my own and the building I work in is owned by a city.  My understanding of the law is that a city cannot prohibit a CHL holder from carrying on publicly owned property.  This signage may be in appropriate for this location but until it is removed, I may be subject to arrest if the local police officers are not aware of the proper application of this law; in which case, I would be in need of TLS services.

In my personal opinion, posting a sign like this is an advertisement to the bad guys that this location is likely full of unarmed and relatively defenseless people.  I fail to see the logic in placing limitations on law abiding people when only law abiding people will observe them.  Has any gun law ever prevented a gun crime?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest »

TexasLawShield

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
    • View Profile
Re: New 30.06 sign at work
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2014, 03:26:03 PM »
Thanks for the question 505795.

If your building is a government building, then it is illegal to post a 30.06 sign. However, if it is merely owned by the city and leased to private individuals, they have "control of the premises" and may post a 30.06 sign.

As you know, a 30.06 sign is a legal tool used to prohibit CHL holders from entering a particular premises. Unfortunately, employers may not pick and choose who must follow the 30.06 law; it applies to everyone.

Hope that helps.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest »

702067

  • Guest
Re: New 30.06 sign at work
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2014, 11:56:52 PM »
First of all, I do not think it is illegal for anyone to post a 30.06 sign on a government owned building - I wish it was...

Section (e) of the 30.06 law states:

(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

This section states that 30.06 does not apply if it is posted on a government owned property.  It doesn't make it illegal to post the sign, just unenforceable - no one is getting fined, arrested, etc. for posting the sign.  There are many cases of cities posting 30.06 signs on city owned buildings.  There seems to be little remedy for a CHL holder trying to get a city to take down a 30.06 sign that is posted on government owned property.  CHL holder: take down that sign because it doesn't apply.  City:  Tough, you can't make me :lol:

The main problem I have with your response is about your position that if a building is owned by a government entity, but leased to a 3rd party, section (e) above does not apply and 30.06 is enforceable.

The law seems clear to me that are 2 conditions where section (e) makes a otherwise valid 30.06 not apply and therefore unenforceable.

1.  The property is owned by a government entity
2.  The property is leased by a government entity

PERIOD - if either of these conditions are met, section (e) makes the 30.06 sign not apply.

You seem to be arguing that although a property is owned by a government entity, the fact that they lease it to a 3rd party makes section (e) not apply.  

Somebody could argue that section (e) does not apply if:

1) it is raining OR
2) it is Thursday OR
3) the CHL holder ate pancakes for breakfast

Section (e) doesn't say anything about not applying if it is raining, if it is Thursday, or if the CHL holder ate pancakes for breakfast.  Likewise it doesn't say anything about the property being leased to a 3rd party.

I would argue that if the property is owned by a government entity, section (e) makes an otherwise valid 30.06 sign posted, not apply.

This is not changed by the fact that it is raining, or it's Thursday or if the CHL holder ate pancakes for breakfast or if it is leased to a 3rd party.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest »

switch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: New 30.06 sign at work
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2014, 06:17:09 AM »
/ Like :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest »

TexasLawShield

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
    • View Profile
Re: New 30.06 sign at work
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2014, 09:42:38 AM »
702067,

Unfortunately, you are in a gray area of the law. Statutorily, it is an exception to 30.06 signage if the building is “owned or leased” by the government (46.03 and 46.035 still apply regardless, of course). Therefore, since this building is owned by the city, it would seem as if the 30.06 sign was invalid. However, private parties can post 30.06 signs regardless of this fact, and there is no law that restricts the rights of private individuals from posting 30.06 signs or prohibiting entry, regardless of what property they are on.

Regrettably, we do not live in a world of strict statutory interpretation, so even though the statute is cut and dry as 702067 points out, that is not the end of the story from a legal standpoint. This conflict of laws and legal philosophies has no answer, and even the Texas Law shield independent firearms program attorneys have different positions on this issue. For the absolute safest route of action, we would advise you not to carry.

None of this addresses the non-criminal aspect, where your job can fire you for violating their policy and carrying on the property. Texas is an at will employment state, so you can certainly be fired for anything under the sun, including carrying against their policy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest »

702067

  • Guest
Re: New 30.06 sign at work
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2014, 12:08:43 AM »
TexasLawShield,

Thank you for responding to my post.

Quote
Statutorily, it is an exception to 30.06 signage if the building is “owned or leased” by the government (46.03 and 46.035 still apply regardless, of course).
- I agree

Quote
Therefore, since this building is owned by the city, it would seem as if the 30.06 sign was invalid.
- I agree, although I would go farther than "it would seem"

Quote
However, private parties can post 30.06 signs regardless of this fact, and there is no law that restricts the rights of private individuals from posting 30.06 signs or prohibiting entry, regardless of what property they are on.


I agree that there is not a law that restricts private individuals posting 30.06 signs on government owned property (let's assume the private entity is leasing the government owned property for this discussion ). BUT there is no law that restricts a government entity from posting a 30.06 sign on government owned property either - they both can post a 30.06 sign.  Section (e) just states that section 30.06 does not apply to property "owned or leased" by a government entity with no further qualifications or exceptions.  There is no section (f) that states that section (e) doesn't apply if the property owned by a government entity is leased by a 3rd party.

Just because there is no law that restricts government entities OR private individuals from posting a 30.06 sign, doesn't mean 30.06 applies when section (e) clearly states that it does not on property owned or leased by a government entity.  They can post all the signs they want, but according to section (e) they are not enforceable.

I am not a lawyer, and I understand your point about "we do not live in a world of strict statutory interpretation", but it seems to me that the onus is on the person arguing before a court to provide a really good explanation for why a seemingly black and white provision of the law does not apply in their special circumstance. To me the argument that it is not illegal for a private entity leasing a government owned property to post a 30.06 sign is not a convincing argument that section (e) somehow does not apply or means something else than what it states in black and white.




Quote
None of this addresses the non-criminal aspect, where your job can fire you for violating their policy and carrying on the property. Texas is an at will employment state, so you can certainly be fired for anything under the sun, including carrying against their policy.
- I completely agree
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest »