TexasCHLforum.com

snapcap45 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:00 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:42 pm

snapcap45 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:03 pm The HEB I shop at on Research Blvd in Northwest Austin used to have 30.07 signs on their two front doors. A couple days after Constitutional Carry started they updated the signs on their doors to the new 30.05 unlicensed carry signs.

Did they keep the 30.07? If not you could theoretically open carry in there with a license though I'm pretty sure they'd verbally notify you not to.

They did not keep the 30.07 sign. So I guess I can open carry.

Yeah technically that means licensed open carry is OK, but given that open carry is by definition observable, you'd likely get oral notice. Better to shop at the many chains that don't have any signs if you wish to open carry.

snapcap45 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:03 pm The HEB I shop at on Research Blvd in Northwest Austin used to have 30.07 signs on their two front doors. A couple days after Constitutional Carry started they updated the signs on their doors to the new 30.05 unlicensed carry signs.

Did they keep the 30.07? If not you could theoretically open carry in there with a license though I'm pretty sure they'd verbally notify you not to.

cyphertext wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:22 pm ...
When the bill says "substantially similar", that leaves a lot open to interpretation. If they want to to preclude entry by signage, the bill should state "shall", not "may"... just like many states moved from "may" issue to "shall" issue on concealed carry license. Ambiguity is not good in law... creates loopholes and unintended consequences.
...

You can be the test case if you like. Funny that you bring up the purple paint markers... those seem to be a lot harder to understand the meaning of than the no guns pictograph.

Substantially similar is not THAT vague a term. In fact, I don't think it's vague at all in the context of what we're discussing. A sticker with NO writing in NO language is not substantially similar to the prescribed sign.

Granted, all this stuff is subject to interpretation. However, in criminal cases the burden is on the prosecution and all the elements of the crime must be proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. I "reasonably doubt" that a sticker is substantially similar to the format and wording of the sign prescribed in 30.05.

We're never going to get the proverbial "test case" for the same reason that we will never get one for the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act (TAM should be very impressed that I worked that into this thread ). The circumstances are so unlikely to occur for it to be tested:

-You conceal past a sticker, that you may or may not have noticed, without having a LTC.
-A store employee notices and rather than asking you to depart, calls the police.
-The police rather than telling the store employee to tell you to leave, actually comes to the store.
-The police officer confronts you before you have left the store and makes you leave the store.
-The police officer detains or arrests you for a no jail $200 class C ticket in order to search you so that he may discover that you actually were carrying and it wasn't just your insulin pump.
-The cop writes you the ticket.
-The county (JP) prosecutor or municipal attorney decides to go to trial even after you insist that you didn't see the sign.
-You ask for a jury trial, as is your right.
-The prosecutor proves to the jury that the witness actually saw a concealed handgun (through your concealment) and that it wasn't in fact your insulin pump.
-Prosecutor establishes that you received notice despite notice being defined as a sign "substantially similar" to one with 1" letters, 2 languages, and specific wording as compared to the sticker.
-The Justice of the Peace or Municipal Judge lets this go to the jury.
-The jury convicts
-You appeal
-The appellate court rules despite all of the above that a circle / gun sticker is in fact substantially similar.
- It becomes case law.

cyphertext wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:10 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:02 am

..."substantially similar" to the "big ugly sign" spelled out in PC 30.05... The law should say what it means, period...

Do you not see how these two statements contradict each other? I agree, the law should say what it means, not "substantially similar" or "may".

I'm fine with the signs not carrying the force of law. After all, if a business posts 30.05 but not 30.07 (which isn't likely), how would they know if the patron is carrying unlicensed or under the LTC without asking?

This whole "may" and substantially similar issue is a complete red herring, drummed up by [prepaid legal service] in a poorly articulated FAQ that I contend is designed more to drum up business for [prepaid legal service] than to inform.

A sticker with a circle / pictogram is not REMOTELY similar to the language or format specified in the revised 30.05 statute. Instead of purple paint markers and "no trespassing" signs posted on trees, are we now to look for little stickers?

The "may" word in the statute is very simple to understand. If the owner wants to provide notice they "may" post the specified sign, or they "may" inform you orally, OR they "may" not do either, in which case they didn't provide notice under 30.05. If they don't so one of these two ways then they haven't provided you notice. In 30.06/7 there's no may OR shall, there is simply a description of notice. The word is legally meaningless in the context of the 30.05 statute, at least in the way that [pre-paid legal service] wants you to believe.

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 5:59 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:57 am

The inconsistency I see is the burden of property rights is OK for you if it's required (two big ugly signs) to keep out LTC, but there should be less burden to keep out the unlicensed. Why not a circle / sticker to (legally) keep out everyone carrying, licensed or otherwise.

Because, as I already stated, many who will carry unlicensed are not going to bother reading laws. They heard on the news that they can now carry without a license, so signage should be clear in a way that is easy to understand, not legalese. If it is now easy for someone to carry unlicensed, then why should it be difficult for a business to bar it? If you lessen the requirements on one side of the equation, why not lessen the requirements on the other? If you have jumped through the hoops to obtain the LTC, then you at least have a basic understanding of Texas law that those without a license have not demonstrated. Consider it a perk of maintaining a LTC, such as reciprocity, bypassing NICS, campus carry, etc.

I've already spent much more energy on this than I really care about. In my area, I doubt it will be that big of a deal unless you carry openly and I rarely see anyone openly carrying.

My point is it shouldn't be "easy" to use a sign to invoke the police power of the State to enforce your (a business's) personal preferences on behavior that is not even readily identifiable (carrying concealed). Actually, I don't think any signs should do this for carry, as they don't for other things, without requiring an oral request to depart. That is assuming the location is normally open to the public. I don't believe permitless carry should be subject to additional burdens at all.

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:18 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:36 pm

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:13 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:06 pm
I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

Sounds like you are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment. It seems you believe it is some right that has to be earned rather than a god given right to self defense.

Not sure how you got that because I believe in private property rights...

The inconsistency I see is the burden of property rights is OK for you if it's required (two big ugly signs) to keep out LTC, but there should be less burden to keep out the unlicensed. Why not a circle / sticker to (legally) keep out everyone carrying, licensed or otherwise.

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:06 pm ...

I have an LTC and will continue to keep it, so I really don't care. But I think that if you have the constitutional right to carry with little state requirements and regulations (which I agree with) then the same should apply to a business owner on his signage to keep UNLICENSED carry out of their establishment. Many of these unlicensed carriers are not going to research the law and understand what applies to them and what doesn't...
they just heard the soundbite on the news that they can carry without a license. And I can't believe that you guys claim that you don't understand what is meant by that picture. It boggles the mind ... and for ScottDLS to continue to argue that it doesn't convey the owners wishes is absolutely ludicrous! If the owner, or his agent acting on his behalf, posts any sign in his business common sense would dictate that the owner supports what that sign states. No guns, no smoking, no soliciting, ... etc. These are all posted by an owner of a business (or their authorized agent) as policies that they expect patrons to follow when in their business.

You keep missing my point. A sticker with a circle / pictogram may very well convey the owner's intent. What it does not do is legally convey that the entry of non-license holders, without some other exception or Defense to 30.05, while carrying a firearm, is prohibited.

Why do you believe that a sticker with a pictogram, should legally be able to bar entry to non-LTC, when you said yourself as a LTC you would carry past such a sign? Don't you respect the owner's wishes? Or do you get to disregard the owner's wishes because you have a LTC?

See for me the answer is consistent. I don't respect the owner's wishes, whether I have LTC or not. The owner's wishes communicated by a pictogram sign or even a legally deficient 30.06 sign are stupid and unworthy of respect.

Any owner, or owner's agent, who wishes to legally bar my entry with a gun, must post the specific 3 signs to do so. Even then their wishes are still stupid, and I still won't respect them, because I have a legal exception/Defense to all of them.

dlh wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:56 am My local HEB put up a 30.05 sign. Disappointed.

I've heard they all are, but LTC can still legally carry concealed. Another reason to get/keep the card.

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:08 am

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:13 am Under Texas Law there is a prescribed means to Exclude a person that is carrying a handgun from a business, to Exclude a Person from open carrying a Handgun a business must post the prescribed 30.07 Sign it MUST be worded as the law states, if a business wants to Exclude a person carrying a handgun that is Concealed they must post a prescribed 30.06 sign, it must be worded exactly as the law states! To Exclude a Person from carrying a handgun under the Constitutional Carry they must post a 30.05 sign as prescribed by the law! The signs have to have every "i" dotted and every "T" crossed or they fail to meet the requirement prescribed by law and have no force of law! If business wants to Exclude people from carrying a handgun in their business they must spend the money to post the proper sign! If it's not the proper sign worded correctly I just Carry past it!

Actually, they don't have to post any signs at all. Verbal notice is also effective notice. And 30.05 signs do not have to have specific language with "every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed, as the law states the language be identical or "substantially similar". Talk about ambiguous! And thus the debate. What equals "substantially similar"? How is that defined? Does the sign posted make it clear that guns are not allowed on the property, thus meeting "substantially similar"?

The difference between substantially similar and identical is not so ambiguous as to reasonably include a sticker with no words and and a pictograph. And as I suggested above, the meaning that must be clearly communicated is "an unlicensed person without any other exceptions or Defenses to 30.05 may not enter this property while carrying a firearm". In addition to being irrelevant to LTC, the sticker doesn't clearly communicate the legal position of the owner, only the opinion of whoever posted it.

cyphertext wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:34 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 3:34 pm And no I don't think that it is at all clear that a Circle / Beretta means that the owner of the property is notifying me I may not enter with a firearm if I don't have a LTC. I think it means the whoever put it up doesn't like people carrying guns. Too bad, that's not a crime.

Ok, if you say so... I think you know damn well that sign means "no guns allowed". The circle slash sign is a internationally recognized symbol indicating that something is prohibited. It may not carry the weight of law in Texas, but you guys are being extremely obtuse to claim that you don't know what it means.

I don't know damn well it means "that the owner of the property is notifying me I may not enter with a firearm if I don't have a LTC" because it DOESN'T mean that. "No guns allowed" is a non-sequitur and is legally irrelevant, so I am not required to speculate on the intent.

cyphertext wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 3:01 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:32 am SNIP

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:36 am
This is precisely my point. I am not obligated to try to infer the intent behind a vague "circle-slash" sign precisely because we have decided that signs alone should carry the force of law, so any such signs need to be completely and totally unambiguous. A circle-slash anything sign simply does not meet that definition, regardless of what is in the circle. This is why the law requires specific wording, or something "substantially similar" to that exact same wording.

This right here. The ENTIRE point of the 30.05/.06/.07 signs is to ensure that there is no ambiguity, that the business owner can clearly and properly convey the intent regarding the restriction of firearms in their business, and so the individual carrying can know those wishes and comply with them PRIOR to entering the establishment. The "gunbuster" sign does none of that.

So you guys are really trying to tell me that you think that the circle slash sign through a gun is ambiguous? Really? So the no smoking signs at restaurants confuse you? How about the no parking or no U-turn signs that are made up with the circle slash? Do you tell the officer or the judge that the sign was too ambiguous... that you thought it meant arrows couldn't make a u-turn, or that you thought the sign meant no urinating but it was ok to park?

Not meeting the requirements of the law as written and being ambiguous are two totally different things. But if it does have to go to court as the pre-paid legal folks think it may, I want to be there when the defendant tries to convince the judge that the ghostbuster no gun sign is too ambiguous and he thought it meant something else, like no Berettas.

It's never going to go to court, but if it did the argument in a criminal trial is not - defendant, prove you didn't know what a sticker with a gun meant. It is rather - State, prove (beyond a reasonable) I received effective notice under 30.05 AND refute any of the Defenses that I may raise beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is not incumbent on a person to discern the intent of a graphic. And no I don't think that it is at all clear that a Circle / Beretta means that the owner of the property is notifying me I may not enter with a firearm if I don't have a LTC. I think it means the whoever put it up doesn't like people carrying guns. Too bad, that's not a crime.

cyphertext wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:18 pm
...

But if the property owner posts the legal sign, giving effective legal notice, he doesn't have to say boo to you if they notice you are carrying. They simply call the police.
...

Given the number of exceptions and Defenses to 30.5/6/7, it is very unlikely the police would come after the 4th or 5th time they were called on an off duty LEO, Fed, or emergency responder.

NotRPB wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:32 pm

Flightmare wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:47 am Again, does a circle/slash with a pistol imply notice given to JUST unlicensed? or are you suggesting that it applies to licensed and unlicensed? Without the "identical or substantially similar language", it is vague and arguably impossible to discern the difference. Hence the specific language requirement in HB 1927.

Most of those you describe I interpret to mean to inform UNLICENSED people that Taurus & Berretta PT 92 PT 99 type 9mm models are prohibited
possibly the Taurus & Beretta .380 acp models which resemble those models too.

30.05 doesn't (arguably) allow me to put up a circle slash donkey sign and have police arrest Democrats

IT DOESN'T ?

Only if they refuse to be present for a quorum of the Legislature, then I can go to DC and arrest them with authority of my (expired) DC CCW.

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:36 pm

NotRPB wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:32 pm

Flightmare wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:47 am Again, does a circle/slash with a pistol imply notice given to JUST unlicensed? or are you suggesting that it applies to licensed and unlicensed? Without the "identical or substantially similar language", it is vague and arguably impossible to discern the difference. Hence the specific language requirement in HB 1927.

Most of those you describe I interpret to mean to inform UNLICENSED people that Taurus & Berretta PT 92 PT 99 type 9mm models are prohibited
possibly the Taurus & Beretta .380 acp models which resemble those models too.

I would love to see something like that go down.. Some guy gets called out and has a Glock and he is like.. Hey your sign says no Beretta's... So I came on in.... I would probably just loose it right there and buy him a drink....

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:21 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:06 pm

cyphertext wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:48 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:13 am
...

You miss the point. I don't care what the "intent" of a sign is, even for a sole proprietorship. The CEO of a company has only the legal authority granted to him by the owners (shareholders). Directing that a sticker be placed on a publicly open retail location in Texas tells me nothing more than what the CEO or his agents think about guns. And I don't care. If they want to legally block me they may post 30.05/6/7 compliant signs, and even then they can't, because I am a volunteer emergency responder. A visitor owes no legal duty to determine the wishes of the owner(s) absent proper legal notice, nor to comply with them. I don't want Democrats in my stores, but 30.05 doesn't (arguably) allow me to put up a circle slash donkey sign and have police arrest Democrats entering for a class B.

I think you are missing my point. The CEO or owner who says to post a legally compliant sign is the same person who has the authority to post a gun buster sign. I get that the law states the specifications of a 30.05 sign. Not arguing that. It is my OPINION that it is overkill, that a gun buster sign or a no guns allowed sign should suffice, but my opinion is not what the law states. Really seems to be making a mountain out of a mole hill because the only folks that this is going to affect is those who open carry anyway.

I agree mostly. Any random store manager can post a legally compliant or deficient sign. Or the CEO can tell them all to do it. My point is that the posting of sticker or even a compliant sign tells me nothing of the wishes of the owner(s). I own (part of) Exxon and I want everyone to carry. More importantly, I don't care what the owners are signaling with their sticker. For all I know they could not want anyone licensed or not, or even cops carrying in their stores. Legally it doesn't matter, they can't do anything about it (using the force of State law), and therefore I will carry (concealed) and unless someone approaches me and askes me to leave, I will go about my business...legally.

Wait... What ?? Are you saying that you walk past 30.06 signs while still carrying ? And if so actually believe that you are doing so legally because you don't think that was the owners intent?

No, I'm saying I walk past notifications that are not legally applicable to me, like a sticker with a circle slash Beretta silhouette, or a 30.05 sign, which doesn't apply to me since I have a LTC.

I also walk past 30.06 signs that are posted improperly on government owned or leased property.

I am also saying that I don't care what the owner's "intent" is, I care if they posted a sign that is legally applicable to me.