Anyone Seen a 3005 Sign?

[Soccerdad1995]

I might be in the minority here, but I am fine with a no guns "ghostbuster" sign applying to unlicensed carriers. If you take the approach that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right without any requirements of a government permit or training, then the same logic should apply to the property owner that he can restrict firearms without specific, government regulated signs. No guns allowed with a pictograph is pretty clear in what the intent is. Seems a lot more intuitive than wading through the myriad of signs we have today.

I agree with you right up to the point that the property owner gets to use law enforcement resources (that we all pay for) to arrest someone he doesn't want on his property WITHOUT first telling that person to leave.

If I as a property owner want no one on my property, I will post unequivocal notice of that fact. If I want people to come on my property and later decide that I don't want them there any more, I will tell them that. If I only want people on my property if they meet certain criteria (no democrats, no vaccinated people, no one carrying a gun, no one wearing shoes, etc.), and I determine that someone who didn't meet my specific criteria is on my property, I'll tell them to leave.

But I don't think I should get to call the police and have the "offending" person arrested just because I'd rather not speak to someone who might be vaxxed, or whatever it might be. Now if someone wants to get belligerent after being told to leave, then by all means, the police should be called. And this applies even if I clearly put a "circle-slash" needle picture up which everyone clearly should know means that the vaxxed are not allowed to enter.

[E10]

…"circle-slash" needle picture…

To some, that might mean “No Illegal Drug Use.” Or to others, “No Diabetics.” Like when I carry my Beretta past a “Glockbuster” sign. I agree that the graphics should not carry the force of law.

And I’ve not seen any 30.05 signs, but there do seem to be more 30.07’s evident. I’m fine with that, as it means tacit approval of concealed carry.

[cyphertext]

I might be in the minority here, but I am fine with a no guns "ghostbuster" sign applying to unlicensed carriers. If you take the approach that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right without any requirements of a government permit or training, then the same logic should apply to the property owner that he can restrict firearms without specific, government regulated signs. No guns allowed with a pictograph is pretty clear in what the intent is. Seems a lot more intuitive than wading through the myriad of signs we have today.

I agree with you right up to the point that the property owner gets to use law enforcement resources (that we all pay for) to arrest someone he doesn't want on his property WITHOUT first telling that person to leave.

If I as a property owner want no one on my property, I will post unequivocal notice of that fact. If I want people to come on my property and later decide that I don't want them there any more, I will tell them that. If I only want people on my property if they meet certain criteria (no democrats, no vaccinated people, no one carrying a gun, no one wearing shoes, etc.), and I determine that someone who didn't meet my specific criteria is on my property, I'll tell them to leave.

But I don't think I should get to call the police and have the "offending" person arrested just because I'd rather not speak to someone who might be vaxxed, or whatever it might be. Now if someone wants to get belligerent after being told to leave, then by all means, the police should be called. And this applies even if I clearly put a "circle-slash" needle picture up which everyone clearly should know means that the vaxxed are not allowed to enter.

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.

As far as a "circle-slash needle" sign, I would think that syringes would not be allowed on the property, not someone who is vaccinated. Your sign would keep diabetics that require insulin shots from coming on to your property with their syringes. If using the logic that a "circle-slash needle" sign means that the vaccinated are not welcome, then the ghostbuster gun sign would mean that you don't want people who have been shot on your property and that clearly is not what is intended.

There are some benefits that come with keeping your LTC current after unlicensed carry went into effect. Protection from inconsistent and / or vague signage could have been one.

[jmorris]

Just saw a Facebook post from Shannon Watts crowing that HEB had put up signs "prohibiting permit-less carry" in Texas. There was no evidence of the actual sign provided. Now I'm curious if it IS a 30.05 sign. Anyone?

Yes, saw one today. Correct wording and size. Larger than necessary actually. It's black letters though. 30.07 is white.

[ScottDLS]

...

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.

[bbhack]

HEB at Alon in San Antonio had to scrape off the 30.07 to make room for a 30.05 - which was there on 9/1. The Español 30.07 was left.

[J.R.@A&M]

I appreciate this discussion.

I think the forum is living.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

I took your original post to be saying how you thought things SHOULD be as opposed top an argument about the actual law. I think that a property owner SHOULD man up and have a conversation with someone they don't want on their property (assuming they didn't post a general "no trespassing sign). Yes, I know that is not how the law is currently written.

As far as a "circle-slash needle" sign, I would think that syringes would not be allowed on the property, not someone who is vaccinated. Your sign would keep diabetics that require insulin shots from coming on to your property with their syringes. If using the logic that a "circle-slash needle" sign means that the vaccinated are not welcome, then the ghostbuster gun sign would mean that you don't want people who have been shot on your property and that clearly is not what is intended.

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.

There are some benefits that come with keeping your LTC current after unlicensed carry went into effect. Protection from inconsistent and / or vague signage could have been one.

It could have been, but I don't believe it actually was based on the wording of the actual law that was passed.

[K.Mooneyham]

SNIP

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.

[cyphertext]

SNIP

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.

[ScottDLS]

SNIP

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]

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.

[crazy2medic]

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!

[cyphertext]

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"?

[K.Mooneyham]

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"?

I'm really trying to understand your motivations and fascination with defending the "gunbuster" sign. Many folks in this state worked very hard to get a compromise where property owners could keep people from carrying handguns onto their property while protecting the rights of those who carry. This was done by creating first the 30.06 signage and making it known that was the PROPER and LEGAL way to keep out people carrying concealed with CHL. When open carry was added to the license, 30.07 was added to TPC to indicate to those carrying with LTC that such was prohibited. The natural extension of that is the 30.05 sign, properly worded to notify the public that the property/business owner doesn't want them carrying there without an LTC. Why would anyone who isn't a "gun grabber" want to go back to the days of the "gunbuster" signs when we have reasonably well-crafted laws that get the job done for both sides?