Hoss said:

---

I hear ya, but I'd rather be in for a longer and more expensive court case than be dead. I don't anticipate it ever being an issue. It's pretty rare for me to see 30.06 signs.

Also, I don't understand why people still think churches and hospitals are off limits. That changed a long time ago. Are you saying they're treated differently if posted than other places that are posted?

---

Quote:

---

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed or carried in a shoulder or belt holster, on or about the license holder's person:

(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing facility licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing facility administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.

(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed or carried in a shoulder or belt holster, in the room or rooms where a meeting of a governmental entity is held and if the meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code, and the entity provided notice as required by that chapter.

(g) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the offense is committed under Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(3), in which event the offense is a felony of the third degree.

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

txyaloo said:

---

Just remember, if you walk past a 30.06 sign, you lose the presumption of "reasonableness" in the penal code. I'm not saying I disagree with walking past most 30.06 signs, but you're in for a longer/more expensive court case if you use your weapon while trespassing. Key points in bold below.

---

How will this make the case longer and more expensive? The prosecution's burden doesn't change and even an incompetent defense attorney will put forth evidence that your belief was reasonable whether this applies or not.

---

One of my absolute favorite things about coming to TexAgs is internet lawyers! It's like, "I know that being a real lawyer takes a lot of education and learning the intricacies of and interplay between the various laws that make up our system of justice, but I don't need all that . . . I've seen Law & Order reruns!"

Carry on . . .

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

txyaloo said:

---

Just remember, if you walk past a 30.06 sign, you lose the presumption of "reasonableness" in the penal code. I'm not saying I disagree with walking past most 30.06 signs, but you're in for a longer/more expensive court case if you use your weapon while trespassing. Key points in bold below.

---

How will this make the case longer and more expensive? The prosecution's burden doesn't change and even an incompetent defense attorney will put forth evidence that your belief was reasonable whether this applies or not.

---

One of my absolute favorite things about coming to TexAgs is internet lawyers! It's like, "I know that being a real lawyer takes a lot of education and learning the intricacies of and interplay between the various laws that make up our system of justice, but I don't need all that . . . I've seen Law & Order reruns!"

Carry on . . .

---

What did I say that is incorrect?

My favorite part of the Internet is people that make baseless insults and refuse to respond to the substance of a statement.

So the prosecution will make no effort to prove that the persons belief was unreasonable and the defense will make no effort to prove that the belief was reasonable?

---

You don't seem to understand the burden of proof or what it means in these types of cases. If there's a presumption that your belief that deadly force was necessary was reasonable, you don't have to prove that it was. The prosecution would have to prove, to the applicable burden, that your belief that deadly force was necessary was unreasonable. If, on the other hand, you have no presumption of reasonablness, you must prove, to the applicable burden, that your belief was reasonable. That may, to the internet lawyers out there, seem like a small difference . . . but in reality it's an ENORMOUS difference. You say "even an incompetent attorney will put forth evidence that your belif was reasonable whether this applies or not," but you're just wrong. There's no need for that evidence if there is a presumption that you reasonably believed deadly force was necessary.

In the first instance, you don't have to put on a single shred of evidence and the prosecution must put on enough evidence to meet its burden and prove that your belief was unreasonable. If they put on that evidence, you could rebut it with your own evidence that your belief was, in fact, reasonable, but the burden of proof remains with them. In the second instance, the prosecution doesn't have to put on a shred of evidence that your belief was unreasonable, you have the burden of establishing that it was reasonable to believe deadly force was necessary. So in the second scenario you're giving them a two-part headstart: they don't have to prove your belief was unreasonable, and you do have to prove that it was reasonable. Thus, your case is necessarily going to be longer (an additional issue exists, you have more to prove, etc.) and longer costs more.

I didn't make a single insult anywhere, and I didn't respond substantively because, frankly, your statement was sort of obvioulsy wrong.

---

txyaloo said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

txyaloo said:

---

Just remember, if you walk past a 30.06 sign, you lose the presumption of "reasonableness" in the penal code. I'm not saying I disagree with walking past most 30.06 signs, but you're in for a longer/more expensive court case if you use your weapon while trespassing. Key points in bold below.

---

How will this make the case longer and more expensive? The prosecution's burden doesn't change and even an incompetent defense attorney will put forth evidence that your belief was reasonable whether this applies or not.

---

The defense's burden changes. There are 2 reasonableness "standards" when deadly force is used.
1) automatic presumption of reasonableness when using deadly force. This is established when meeting all criteria defined in the statute including the person was not committing a crime, other than a misdemeanor traffic violation, when deadly force was used
2) no automatic presumption of reasonableness. Reasonableness must be established by the defense team

The deadly force statute is all about whether a person "reasonably" believed deadly force was required. Assume our hypothetical deadly force case was presented to a grand jury. The automatic presumption of reasonableness would likely result in a no bill, case closed. Now assume a person did't have an automatic presumption of reasonableness - grand jury indicts and you go to trial for a judge/jury to decide whether your actions were reasonable. This isn't saying the person's actions weren't reasonable, but now it's on the defense to prove the actions were reasonable.

Do you not think going to a full trial would make your case longer and more expensive?

As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been tested since the "castle doctrine" was passed 10 years ago. Most LTC holders didn't knowingly violate 30.06 signs when the charge was a Class A and loss of license. Now that it's a Class C in most cases, with no loss of license, I've seen more and more LTC holders advocate walking past 30.06 signs without considering the other implications. I've done it myself, but I'm also aware if I have to use my pistol, I'm likely in for a longer road than if there was no 30.06 signage.

---

gig em 02 said:

---

txyaloo said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

txyaloo said:

---

Just remember, if you walk past a 30.06 sign, you lose the presumption of "reasonableness" in the penal code. I'm not saying I disagree with walking past most 30.06 signs, but you're in for a longer/more expensive court case if you use your weapon while trespassing. Key points in bold below.

---

How will this make the case longer and more expensive? The prosecution's burden doesn't change and even an incompetent defense attorney will put forth evidence that your belief was reasonable whether this applies or not.

---

The defense's burden changes. There are 2 reasonableness "standards" when deadly force is used.
1) automatic presumption of reasonableness when using deadly force. This is established when meeting all criteria defined in the statute including the person was not committing a crime, other than a misdemeanor traffic violation, when deadly force was used
2) no automatic presumption of reasonableness. Reasonableness must be established by the defense team

The deadly force statute is all about whether a person "reasonably" believed deadly force was required. Assume our hypothetical deadly force case was presented to a grand jury. The automatic presumption of reasonableness would likely result in a no bill, case closed. Now assume a person did't have an automatic presumption of reasonableness - grand jury indicts and you go to trial for a judge/jury to decide whether your actions were reasonable. This isn't saying the person's actions weren't reasonable, but now it's on the defense to prove the actions were reasonable.

Do you not think going to a full trial would make your case longer and more expensive?

As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been tested since the "castle doctrine" was passed 10 years ago. Most LTC holders didn't knowingly violate 30.06 signs when the charge was a Class A and loss of license. Now that it's a Class C in most cases, with no loss of license, I've seen more and more LTC holders advocate walking past 30.06 signs without considering the other implications. I've done it myself, but I'm also aware if I have to use my pistol, I'm likely in for a longer road than if there was no 30.06 signage.

---

A 5'1 90 pound woman shoots a man that is 6'5 300 pounds of solid muscle

1. She is standing one foot outside of a 30.06 marked parking lot
2. She is now standing 1 foot inside the sign

Assume there are no witnesses and the defendant takes the 5th. Are you saying that in 1 the grand jury doesn't indict but in 2 the grand jury does?

---

txyaloo said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

txyaloo said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

txyaloo said:

---

Just remember, if you walk past a 30.06 sign, you lose the presumption of "reasonableness" in the penal code. I'm not saying I disagree with walking past most 30.06 signs, but you're in for a longer/more expensive court case if you use your weapon while trespassing. Key points in bold below.

---

How will this make the case longer and more expensive? The prosecution's burden doesn't change and even an incompetent defense attorney will put forth evidence that your belief was reasonable whether this applies or not.

---

The defense's burden changes. There are 2 reasonableness "standards" when deadly force is used.
1) automatic presumption of reasonableness when using deadly force. This is established when meeting all criteria defined in the statute including the person was not committing a crime, other than a misdemeanor traffic violation, when deadly force was used
2) no automatic presumption of reasonableness. Reasonableness must be established by the defense team

The deadly force statute is all about whether a person "reasonably" believed deadly force was required. Assume our hypothetical deadly force case was presented to a grand jury. The automatic presumption of reasonableness would likely result in a no bill, case closed. Now assume a person did't have an automatic presumption of reasonableness - grand jury indicts and you go to trial for a judge/jury to decide whether your actions were reasonable. This isn't saying the person's actions weren't reasonable, but now it's on the defense to prove the actions were reasonable.

Do you not think going to a full trial would make your case longer and more expensive?

As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been tested since the "castle doctrine" was passed 10 years ago. Most LTC holders didn't knowingly violate 30.06 signs when the charge was a Class A and loss of license. Now that it's a Class C in most cases, with no loss of license, I've seen more and more LTC holders advocate walking past 30.06 signs without considering the other implications. I've done it myself, but I'm also aware if I have to use my pistol, I'm likely in for a longer road than if there was no 30.06 signage.

---

A 5'1 90 pound woman shoots a man that is 6'5 300 pounds of solid muscle

1. She is standing one foot outside of a 30.06 marked parking lot
2. She is now standing 1 foot inside the sign

Assume there are no witnesses and the defendant takes the 5th. Are you saying that in 1 the grand jury doesn't indict but in 2 the grand jury does?

---

If there are no witnesses, and the defendant takes the 5th, who establishes that she was violating 30.06 when she made the shot and how was it established?

---

EMY92 said:

---

Yes & no.

They can't search your vehicle, but they can fire you if they find out.

---

texags08 said:

---

EMY92 said:

---

Yes & no.

They can't search your vehicle, but they can fire you if they find out.

---

Easy argument is that you didn't drive to work. You drove to the public lot that is next to the coffe shop you visit, or restaurant, and you walked to work from there.

---

Ark03 said:

---

texags08 said:

---

EMY92 said:

---

Yes & no.

They can't search your vehicle, but they can fire you if they find out.

---

Easy argument is that you didn't drive to work. You drove to the public lot that is next to the coffe shop you visit, or restaurant, and you walked to work from there.

---

Easier argument is that your employer can't make or enforce such a policy under SB 321.

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

AggieGunslinger said:

---

It is the responsibility of the operator to make sure anyone coming onto the property knows the rules.

---

This

basically the way the law reads, the language in the lease exempts the company from Title 2. Subtitle B. 52.061:

Quote:

---

RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.

---

because in the exemptions you have:

Quote:

---

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(2) apply to:
(E) property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property

---

So the language in the lease doesn't specifically stop the employee from bringing a firearm on property, but it allows a company to put a policy in place prohibiting firearms even in private vehicles, and fire employees for violations without being in breach of 52.061

---

gig em 02 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

txyaloo said:

---

Just remember, if you walk past a 30.06 sign, you lose the presumption of "reasonableness" in the penal code. I'm not saying I disagree with walking past most 30.06 signs, but you're in for a longer/more expensive court case if you use your weapon while trespassing. Key points in bold below.

---

How will this make the case longer and more expensive? The prosecution's burden doesn't change and even an incompetent defense attorney will put forth evidence that your belief was reasonable whether this applies or not.

---

One of my absolute favorite things about coming to TexAgs is internet lawyers! It's like, "I know that being a real lawyer takes a lot of education and learning the intricacies of and interplay between the various laws that make up our system of justice, but I don't need all that . . . I've seen Law & Order reruns!"

Carry on . . .

---

What did I say that is incorrect?

My favorite part of the Internet is people that make baseless insults and refuse to respond to the substance of a statement.

So the prosecution will make no effort to prove that the persons belief was unreasonable and the defense will make no effort to prove that the belief was reasonable?

---

You don't seem to understand the burden of proof or what it means in these types of cases. If there's a presumption that your belief that deadly force was necessary was reasonable, you don't have to prove that it was. The prosecution would have to prove, to the applicable burden, that your belief that deadly force was necessary was unreasonable. If, on the other hand, you have no presumption of reasonablness, you must prove, to the applicable burden, that your belief was reasonable. That may, to the internet lawyers out there, seem like a small difference . . . but in reality it's an ENORMOUS difference. You say "even an incompetent attorney will put forth evidence that your belif was reasonable whether this applies or not," but you're just wrong. There's no need for that evidence if there is a presumption that you reasonably believed deadly force was necessary.

In the first instance, you don't have to put on a single shred of evidence and the prosecution must put on enough evidence to meet its burden and prove that your belief was unreasonable. If they put on that evidence, you could rebut it with your own evidence that your belief was, in fact, reasonable, but the burden of proof remains with them. In the second instance, the prosecution doesn't have to put on a shred of evidence that your belief was unreasonable, you have the burden of establishing that it was reasonable to believe deadly force was necessary. So in the second scenario you're giving them a two-part headstart: they don't have to prove your belief was unreasonable, and you do have to prove that it was reasonable. Thus, your case is necessarily going to be longer (an additional issue exists, you have more to prove, etc.) and longer costs more.

I didn't make a single insult anywhere, and I didn't respond substantively because, frankly, your statement was sort of obvioulsy wrong.

---

1. A has to prove X and B is silent.
2. A is silent and B has to prove X.

Which one will take longer?

Is it common for defense attorneys to offer no rebuttal or argument supporting a very important issue in a case? That seems like a situation ripe for ineffective assistance of counsel.

If you can't draw the logical conclusion necessary to find the insult then you might want a refund on all that really important education you received.

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

txyaloo said:

---

Just remember, if you walk past a 30.06 sign, you lose the presumption of "reasonableness" in the penal code. I'm not saying I disagree with walking past most 30.06 signs, but you're in for a longer/more expensive court case if you use your weapon while trespassing. Key points in bold below.

---

How will this make the case longer and more expensive? The prosecution's burden doesn't change and even an incompetent defense attorney will put forth evidence that your belief was reasonable whether this applies or not.

---

One of my absolute favorite things about coming to TexAgs is internet lawyers! It's like, "I know that being a real lawyer takes a lot of education and learning the intricacies of and interplay between the various laws that make up our system of justice, but I don't need all that . . . I've seen Law & Order reruns!"

Carry on . . .

---

What did I say that is incorrect?

My favorite part of the Internet is people that make baseless insults and refuse to respond to the substance of a statement.

So the prosecution will make no effort to prove that the persons belief was unreasonable and the defense will make no effort to prove that the belief was reasonable?

---

You don't seem to understand the burden of proof or what it means in these types of cases. If there's a presumption that your belief that deadly force was necessary was reasonable, you don't have to prove that it was. The prosecution would have to prove, to the applicable burden, that your belief that deadly force was necessary was unreasonable. If, on the other hand, you have no presumption of reasonablness, you must prove, to the applicable burden, that your belief was reasonable. That may, to the internet lawyers out there, seem like a small difference . . . but in reality it's an ENORMOUS difference. You say "even an incompetent attorney will put forth evidence that your belif was reasonable whether this applies or not," but you're just wrong. There's no need for that evidence if there is a presumption that you reasonably believed deadly force was necessary.

In the first instance, you don't have to put on a single shred of evidence and the prosecution must put on enough evidence to meet its burden and prove that your belief was unreasonable. If they put on that evidence, you could rebut it with your own evidence that your belief was, in fact, reasonable, but the burden of proof remains with them. In the second instance, the prosecution doesn't have to put on a shred of evidence that your belief was unreasonable, you have the burden of establishing that it was reasonable to believe deadly force was necessary. So in the second scenario you're giving them a two-part headstart: they don't have to prove your belief was unreasonable, and you do have to prove that it was reasonable. Thus, your case is necessarily going to be longer (an additional issue exists, you have more to prove, etc.) and longer costs more.

I didn't make a single insult anywhere, and I didn't respond substantively because, frankly, your statement was sort of obvioulsy wrong.

---

1. A has to prove X and B is silent.
2. A is silent and B has to prove X.

Which one will take longer?

Is it common for defense attorneys to offer no rebuttal or argument supporting a very important issue in a case? That seems like a situation ripe for ineffective assistance of counsel.

If you can't draw the logical conclusion necessary to find the insult then you might want a refund on all that really important education you received.

---

Dude, you've been told you're wrong by people who are far more knowledgeable on the issue than you are, who have explained exactly why you're wrong. I could keep on explaining how your complete and utter lack of understanding about extremely basic principles of law make your laughably obtuse and completely unfounded position on this ridiculous, but it won't matter because you're bound and determined to be obtuse. You either can't or won't understand that the burden of proof is important - something that is so obvious as to be self-proving - so the rest of the discussion is completely meaningless. You do you, brother. I'm just going to laugh and point silently from here on out.

(See, that is insulting.)

---

dodger02 said:

---

I don't remember seeing any at either of the post offices I use. If they are off limits, how many of us have committed a federal offense? All of us?

---