Improper signs and results

[cb1000rider]

If a business posts non-compliant signs, and we all obey them, what then is the purpose of having a specific sign requirement to begin with?

I think about it this way:
I don't want to stand up in front of a jury of my peers and argue that I walked right past a sign that I did see because I knew that the lack of the Spanish made it non-compliant. Nor do I want to tell a jury that the letters were only 3/4" of an inch high and I walked right past it as I knew that it was non-compliant. Those are not very strong arguments, even if they are valid.

LEOs have very wide discretion generally - it's part of the job. And if one decides that you're the kind of joker (no offense, Joker) that is causing a problem, I don't see it creating much liability to arrange a very expensive arrest for violating what he/she might know is a technically non-compliant sign. The reality of our system really isn't innocent til-guilty, it's innocent until arrested, then pay-for-best-outcome, if you can afford it. If I had infinite money, infinite time, and a more skewed since of what is important in this world, I might make a big deal out of it.

What you do is up to you. I told you that I won't obey all non-compliant signs... But my personal choice is to obey those that I feel are a reasonable-familiarity of compliance. Should I have to do that? No. Is that what they law says I have to do? No. Like many things in life, risk factors in - so I generally hedge my bets. What you do is up to you.... Do consider that in this series of examples, personal property rights factor in. When do my 2nd amendment rights get to trump personal property rights, even if those property owners cant manage to post a legal-to-the-letter sign.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If gun owners are expected to follow the law, to the letter, so should businesses. It's in the law, with that specific wording, for a reason.

If you want to lobby that 30.06/07 be changed to allow any random no gun sign be valid then go ahead, but the law is VERY clear on the requirements today so if a store wants to prohibit carrying, they can follow the SAME law I'm required to follow.

Show me the law that requires a property owner to post a §30.06 or §30.07 sign. Show me the law that makes it illegal for a property owner to post a legally insufficient §30.06 or §30.07 sign as a courtesy notice.

I realize you are a Carry Texas member, but you aren't going to use the Forum to spew this type of garbage.

Chas.

Don't misquote me and don't accuse me of spewing "garbage" when all I do is quote the Penal Code.

No, you misquoted the Penal Code.

I said that if a business wants to prohibit carry they must post a specific type of sign.

Oral notice is effective under both §30.06 and §30.07. Companies can post signs that don't comply with §30.07 as a courtesy warning without violating any law. They can also orally tell someone to leave, even if they have a noncompliant sign posted.

That's clearly in 06 and 07 and as you know, it's been in 06 for over a decade.

Since 1997 when HB2909 passed.

I did not say it was illegal for a business to post an improper sign, I said that such a sign has no force of law behind it because of the requirements set forth in 30.06 and 07 and that if a business expects gun owners to abide by 06 and 07, it's reasonable for them to as well.

You repeated claimed that, "If gun owners are expected to follow the law, to the letter, so should businesses. It's in the law, with that specific wording, for a reason." The implication is that they are not complying with the law, but that's false.

And this is precisely why the punishment was changed to be minimal.

No, you're dead wrong. The penalty was reduced to a Class C because it is possible to enter into property posted with a §30.06 sign by mistake, because the sign was obscured, posted in a non-conspicuous location, etc. You can watch the video of the first floor debate in the House if you want to confirm what I know.

This isn't exactly new ground here.

Apparently it's new to you.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

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) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN

Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.

Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.

Even non-attorneys know the caption (a/k/a title of a section is not the operative language. TPC §30.05, §30.06 and 30.07 contain "trespass" in the captions, but not in the operative language.

Chas.

Don't know what to tell you, I got all this from an attorney so go figure.

I seriously doubt that.

Chas.

[TexasRifleman]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

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) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN

Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.

Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.

Even non-attorneys know the caption (a/k/a title of a section is not the operative language. TPC §30.05, §30.06 and 30.07 contain "trespass" in the captions, but not in the operative language.

Chas.

Don't know what to tell you, I got all this from an attorney so go figure.

I seriously doubt that.

Chas.

I know you do. That's fine. No point in arguing it really, people can read the law if they want to.

Bottom line is, whatever you call it, it's only a Class C and $200 max fine and that's a HUGE win for Texas gun carriers in case they run across a sign they can't see etc.

[TexasRifleman]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

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) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN

Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.

Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.

Well, apparently you have changed your mind at least twice on this issue. Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:

• As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.
  
  If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

In that post you correctly stated that a violation of either §30.06 or §30.7 would be "criminal trespass." Now you want to claim that only §30.05 sets out a criminal trespass violation.

Chas.

Again, as told to me by someone who actually went to law school:

If you don't see the sign, and get caught for whatever reason, it's simple trespass, 30.06 etc. if the police are called.
If you are THEN verbally notified to leave AND YOU REFUSE you are no longer guilty of just violating 30.06 but now it rises to Criminal Trespass because you are carrying OUTSIDE the authority of GC411, which is the affirmative defense in 30.05.

All I can say is I trust my lawyer.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

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) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN

Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.

Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.

Well, apparently you have changed your mind at least twice on this issue. Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:

• As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.
  
  If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

In that post you correctly stated that a violation of either §30.06 or §30.7 would be "criminal trespass." Now you want to claim that only §30.05 sets out a criminal trespass violation.

Chas.

Again, as told to me by someone who actually went to law school:

If you don't see the sign, and get caught for whatever reason, it's simple trespass, 30.06 etc. if the police are called.
If you are THEN verbally notified to leave AND YOU REFUSE you are no longer guilty of just violating 30.06 but now it rises to Criminal Trespass because you are carrying OUTSIDE the authority of GC411, which is the affirmative defense in 30.05.

All I can say is I trust my lawyer.

Now that's believable, as opposed to what you have been claiming up to this post. Your lawyer didn't tell you that any violation of §30.06 or §30.7 would not be a criminal trespass. Every offense in the Penal Code is criminal!!!!!

Also, you apparently you have changed your mind at least twice on this issue. Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:

• As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.
  
  If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

In that post you correctly stated that a violation of either §30.06 or §30.7 would be "criminal trespass." Now you want to claim that only §30.05 sets out a criminal trespass violation.


Chas.

[ScottDLS]

Again, as told to me by someone who actually went to law school:

If you don't see the sign, and get caught for whatever reason, it's simple trespass, 30.06 etc. if the police are called.
If you are THEN verbally notified to leave AND YOU REFUSE you are no longer guilty of just violating 30.06 but now it rises to Criminal Trespass because you are carrying OUTSIDE the authority of GC411, which is the affirmative defense in 30.05.

All I can say is I trust my lawyer.

Technically it's not an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is a DEFENSE. There is a difference, and a DEFENSE is better for the accused. And nowhere in 30.05 does it say that you lose your DEFENSE if you are not carrying under GC 411 authority. The defense is if you HAVE a license (under GC 411).

I would have to go with Chas. on this based on your presentation of what your attorney said, but that's just my personal opinion.

[TexasRifleman]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

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) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN

Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.

Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.

Well, apparently you have changed your mind at least twice on this issue. Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:

• As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.
  
  If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

In that post you correctly stated that a violation of either §30.06 or §30.7 would be "criminal trespass." Now you want to claim that only §30.05 sets out a criminal trespass violation.

Chas.

Again, as told to me by someone who actually went to law school:

If you don't see the sign, and get caught for whatever reason, it's simple trespass, 30.06 etc. if the police are called.
If you are THEN verbally notified to leave AND YOU REFUSE you are no longer guilty of just violating 30.06 but now it rises to Criminal Trespass because you are carrying OUTSIDE the authority of GC411, which is the affirmative defense in 30.05.

All I can say is I trust my lawyer.

Now that's believable, as opposed to what you have been claiming up to this post. Your lawyer didn't tell you that any violation of §30.06 or §30.7 would not be a criminal trespass. Every offense in the Penal Code is criminal!!!!!

Also, you apparently you have changed your mind at least twice on this issue. Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:

• As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.
  
  If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

In that post you correctly stated that a violation of either §30.06 or §30.7 would be "criminal trespass." Now you want to claim that only §30.05 sets out a criminal trespass violation.


Chas.

No, you read too much into what I said. I said that you would not be charged with the specific offense "Criminal Trespass, PC 30.05" if you violate 06 or 07. And I agreed with you that every thing in the Penal Code is criminal, but I also believe you're playing a word game to make it sound "scary" to people to discourage even an accidental violation of 06 or 07 by calling it "criminal trespass" That's probably a safe position from a forum administrator and your position in the gun world, but I just don't agree with it.

[TexasRifleman]

Again, as told to me by someone who actually went to law school:

If you don't see the sign, and get caught for whatever reason, it's simple trespass, 30.06 etc. if the police are called.
If you are THEN verbally notified to leave AND YOU REFUSE you are no longer guilty of just violating 30.06 but now it rises to Criminal Trespass because you are carrying OUTSIDE the authority of GC411, which is the affirmative defense in 30.05.

All I can say is I trust my lawyer.

Technically it's not an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is a DEFENSE. There is a difference, and a DEFENSE is better for the accused. And nowhere in 30.05 does it say that you lose your DEFENSE if you are not carrying under GC 411 authority. The defense is if you HAVE a license (under GC 411).

I would have to go with Chas. on this based on your presentation of what your attorney said, but that's just my personal opinion.

Once again, it's a word game only anyway. The penalty is Class C unless you are asked to leave and you remain, in which case it's a Class A.
My belief is that calling everything remotely attached to this "Criminal Trespass" is intended to frighten, nothing more.

[rtschl]

Words have meaning. And I sure would be showing a lot of deference to Charles since he is the one person that several legislators rely on to assist in drafting the language in our statutes regarding CHL/LTC.

[TexasRifleman]

Words have meaning. And I sure would be showing a lot of deference to Charles since he is the one person that several legislators rely on to assist in drafting the language in our statutes regarding CHL/LTC.

I'll be polite, but deference is a bit much. If that's a requirement to be here maybe I'm in the wrong place.

[The Annoyed Man]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

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) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN

Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.

Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.

Even non-attorneys know the caption (a/k/a title of a section is not the operative language. TPC §30.05, §30.06 and 30.07 contain "trespass" in the captions, but not in the operative language.

Chas.

Don't know what to tell you, I got all this from an attorney so go figure.

TexasRifleman , You got it from an attorney, but you're not debating with someone who got it from an attorney; you're debating with an attorney in the first person. And you're not only debating with an attorney, you're debating with the attorney who helped to write the law, including most of its amendments. Are you SURE you're on solid ground?


I need to go get some popcorn......

[Charles L. Cotton]

Well some good news is that there are already discussions being had about decriminalizing 30.06 completely (like Oklahoma) next session so maybe it won't matter at all before long for concealed carry at least.

By whom is this being discussed?

Chas.

How about an answer to this question?

Chas.

[nightmare69]

The quote function could use an upgrade to avoid endless scrolling on mobile. All other forums I frequent the quote feature only quotes that specific post, not every post that was quoted before then. Sorry for going off topic.

[Charles L. Cotton]

No, you read too much into what I said. I said that you would not be charged with the specific offense "Criminal Trespass, PC 30.05" if you violate 06 or 07.

That most certainly is not what you posted! I quoted you about and I just verified it by reviewing your prior post.

. . . I also believe you're playing a word game to make it sound "scary" to people to discourage even an accidental violation of 06 or 07 by calling it "criminal trespass" That's probably a safe position from a forum administrator and your position in the gun world, but I just don't agree with it.

How do you encourage someone to have an accident?

I'm not trying to scare anyone and I'm certainly not engaging in fear mongering as you stated in an earlier post. I simply posted that any violation of §30.06 or §30.07 was a criminal trespass. You're the one who launched into a long post and "challenged" me to show you were wrong. I did and you're obviously quite irritated.

You encouraged people to violate the law by ignoring §30.06 signs. You put it in two posts also stating that's what you do. You were already on thin ice because of your blatant Rule 4 violations, then you compounded the problem by posting that, essentially, getting a Class C misdemeanor conviction was no big deal.

Chas.