“No Firearms on Premises” Sign

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 8385
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#31

Post by Abraham » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:28 pm

Let's cut to the chase.

If your sign is per Texas Law - I'll abide.

If your sign is something 'you decided' I'll chuckle and carry ...

Dream on snowflake...


rotor
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 3024
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#32

Post by rotor » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:35 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
rotor wrote:
TexasJohnBoy wrote:
Gun buster sign by itself, or any other rendition of a sign that is no guns permitted, carries no weight of law. A card with the 30.06/30.07 verbiage handed to you does. Any verbal communication that you can't carry does. Of course, a 30.06/30.07 sign properly posted does as well.
Carries no weight of law for LTC holders with hand guns but does carry weight of law for non-LTC holders and for long guns. Please do not give me the "this is a LTC forum" again. Let's not state categorically that a No Firearms sign carries no weight of law. If you carry your shotgun (or your sub2000 in a briefcase) into a store with a No Firearms sign regardless of your LTC you might be cited or just asked to leave or whatever punishment they want to throw at you for trespassing. Now if it were a No Guns with the standard Beretta symbol I would agree with the "no weight". A No Firearms notice is different. Where are all the legal experts to chime in?
Semantics aside, I would disagree that you are breaking the law by carrying your sub-2000 past a sign that says "no firearms on premises". I would simply ask, "what law are you supposed to have violated in this scenario?"

Let's start with what that sign even means. The simple English definition is that there are no firearms on those particular premises. Interesting info. If this is a place that sells things, you might have thought they sold firearms. Apparently, the sign is educating you that they do not currently have any firearms for sale so you don't waste your time going in there to buy one.

Importantly, let's consider what the sign is NOT saying. It does not say that your entry is prohibited if you step onto the property carrying a firearm. To assign that meaning would require a huge leap of faith. I have driven my car with a half full tank of gas onto a gas station lot past a sign that said "no gas". Did that sign mean that entry onto these premises with gasoline is forbidden, like we are trying to read into this "no firearms" sign? If so, am I guilty of trespassing with my half tank of gas? If the owners wanted to issue a trespass warning to anyone that is carrying a firearm, or carrying gasoline, or whatever, they would have said so. Let's stop assuming that business owners are too ignorant to say what they actually mean.

It's like the humorous signs at Buffalo Wild Wings that say they "ban all guns". Those are obviously a joke since they do not in fact ban all guns. They could ban some guns, but have chosen not to do so. By posting these signs they are just pointing out the irony. If they were telling the truth and they were somehow able to ban all guns, then they couldn't have you arrested for trespassing or anything else since they would have also banned on duty LEO's at all times. Like I said. It's a humorous sign that is meant to be ironic.
So, I have had to read this thread again to see what it was about. I guess we will need a legal opinion from someone with more knowledge to tell us if a No Firearms on Premises sign has legal bearing or not. Perhaps Bill Clinton can tell us what "is" means. Would anyone here like to use the argument that they thought no firearms on premises meant that there were no firearms on the premises? The issue then is trespassing. If the place is posted No Firearms on Premises and you are C.J. and enter with your AR-15 strapped to your back are you trespassing? Perhaps a lawyer here can give us a definitive answer because I am certainly not a lawyer. Would I carry a rifle into such a place, no.


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4009
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#33

Post by srothstein » Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:31 pm

IANAL but I will surely advise my friends to not try the semantic games mentioned. It would be like someone seeing the "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" sign and trying to claim it does not mean you will not be served if you are barefoot or bare chested. To me, this is the same as trying to claim that the old red circle with a slash through it did not apply to me because it had a picture of a Beretta 9mm and I carry a 1911.

As evidence, I will point out that in at least 45 states (I think) putting up the same sign has the legal force behind it to get people arrested on a regular basis. There is also a lot of cases where people have been arrested in Texas for wearing the wrong clothing when there was a sign saying "No Biker Attire" or "No Gang Signs". When you read 30.05, there is no definition of what constitutes proper legal notice.
Steve Rothstein


crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#34

Post by crazy2medic » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:28 am

Abraham wrote:Let's cut to the chase.

If your sign is per Texas Law - I'll abide.

If your sign is something 'you decided' I'll chuckle and carry ...

Dream on snowflake...
:iagree:
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention


NotRPB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 8:24 am

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#35

Post by NotRPB » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:45 am

OneGun wrote:[sarcasm]
My understanding of a sign that says "No Firearms on Premises" is that the property owners are informing criminals that they do not have any firearms on the premises and that the location is safe for criminal activity. The sign did not say do not bring any firearms on to the premises. [/sarcasm]
Yup that was my first impression. Like when you request a "Smoke-Free Motel Room" .... That's a Free-of-Firearms-for-Defense area sign. (For defense, they may have kung-fu throwing stars, Ninja swords, bullwhips, grenades, or explosives and pressure cookers, but for the Hoplophobic people, there's comfort in the sign that there's no firearms.)


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#36

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:49 am

crazy2medic wrote:
Abraham wrote:Let's cut to the chase.

If your sign is per Texas Law - I'll abide.

If your sign is something 'you decided' I'll chuckle and carry ...

Dream on snowflake...
:iagree:
:iagree:

For the carry of handguns, it is very clear in Texas law how a property owner can legally restrict the permission of some people to enter the premises while carrying. A large number of people cannot be restricted at all from carrying (LEO's, VESP, etc) unless the property owner just issues a broad based "no trespassing" notice.

If a property owner wants to get "cute" and grant permission to the general public to enter their premises, but only under certain conditions, then they need to clearly state this. A sign that says "entry is forbidden if you are in the possession of a firearm" is clear. A sign that says "no gas" or "no cops" or "no fat chicks" or "no firearms" or "no liberals" is not clear. Aside from the fact that some of these things are subjective in nature (a liberal in rural Texas would be a right wing extremist in San Francisco), none of these signs issue a trespass warning. That same property owner could see a fat chick or a cop or a guy wearing Birkenstocks and tell them to leave. And at that point the offending person would have been given a very clear warning that their continued presence would be trespassing, but I don't think that we are going to see a LEO prosecuted for simply walking past a "no cops" sign. Same goes for the other conditional restrictions on entry.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4419
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#37

Post by ScottDLS » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:12 am

srothstein wrote:IANAL but I will surely advise my friends to not try the semantic games mentioned. It would be like someone seeing the "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" sign and trying to claim it does not mean you will not be served if you are barefoot or bare chested. To me, this is the same as trying to claim that the old red circle with a slash through it did not apply to me because it had a picture of a Beretta 9mm and I carry a 1911.

As evidence, I will point out that in at least 45 states (I think) putting up the same sign has the legal force behind it to get people arrested on a regular basis. There is also a lot of cases where people have been arrested in Texas for wearing the wrong clothing when there was a sign saying "No Biker Attire" or "No Gang Signs". When you read 30.05, there is no definition of what constitutes proper legal notice.
45 states? Most state trespass laws can't be invoked in public locations without specific warning to the individual involved. States that have specific sign requirements generally address them in the "weapons" part of their penal code and don't conflate them with trespass.

I don't believe it's clear at all in Texas that a sign saying "no firearms" means that (IAW PC 30.05) entry is prohibited to those carrying long guns, concealed or otherwise. PC 30.05 invokes a criminal sanction and as such the requirements for notice should be explicitly conformed with. Other than the 22 year old Dan Morales AG opinion on 30.05, which was mooted by statute 20 years ago, there seems to be no clear evidence that "any" sign invokes trespass under 30.05, particularly for otherwise public locations.
PC §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;
...
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Entry” means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) “Notice” means:
...
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
How does "no shirt, no shoes, no service" indicate that entry is forbidden to shirtless individuals? No guns? That doesn't seem any more explicit. IAW TX PC 30.05 Entry with a firearm is prohibited....Maybe, for non LTC. A pictogram of a Beretta with a slash through it...very big stretch to say that prohibits entry by persons carrying long guns.

Even the signs that some stores selling alcohol are posting: It is illegal carry a weapon on these premises, unless that weapon is a handgun and you are licensed under GC 411.... or something to that effect. I don't know if TABC is handing these out, but they are at best misleading, and at worst, wrong. Some people have said that such a sign prohibits a person from entering a store so posted with a long gun... Under 30.05? How does that sign specify that "entry is prohibited"? I guess you could argue that the by saying it's illegal that you are prohibiting entry, but it really should be more explicit that entry (with a long gun, or a handgun by an unlicensed person is prohibited). Because if you get right down to it, there is no law that says I can't carry a long gun in a 51% location. Now the TABC licensee could be sanctioned if they knowing allowed me to, but for a concealed long gun...

Anyway, to offer my opinion on the OP's question. Does the "no firearms" sign that he saw have any criminal legal implications...? For a LTC carrying a handgun, NO. For someone carrying a long gun, probably not, though it's highly likely that if you are discovered you will be told to leave and failure to do so would definitely be an offense.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#38

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:14 am

ScottDLS wrote:
srothstein wrote:IANAL but I will surely advise my friends to not try the semantic games mentioned. It would be like someone seeing the "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" sign and trying to claim it does not mean you will not be served if you are barefoot or bare chested. To me, this is the same as trying to claim that the old red circle with a slash through it did not apply to me because it had a picture of a Beretta 9mm and I carry a 1911.

As evidence, I will point out that in at least 45 states (I think) putting up the same sign has the legal force behind it to get people arrested on a regular basis. There is also a lot of cases where people have been arrested in Texas for wearing the wrong clothing when there was a sign saying "No Biker Attire" or "No Gang Signs". When you read 30.05, there is no definition of what constitutes proper legal notice.
45 states? Most state trespass laws can't be invoked in public locations without specific warning to the individual involved. States that have specific sign requirements generally address them in the "weapons" part of their penal code and don't conflate them with trespass.

I don't believe it's clear at all in Texas that a sign saying "no firearms" means that (IAW PC 30.05) entry is prohibited to those carrying long guns, concealed or otherwise. PC 30.05 invokes a criminal sanction and as such the requirements for notice should be explicitly conformed with. Other than the 22 year old Dan Morales AG opinion on 30.05, which was mooted by statute 20 years ago, there seems to be no clear evidence that "any" sign invokes trespass under 30.05, particularly for otherwise public locations.
PC §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;
...
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Entry” means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) “Notice” means:
...
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
How does "no shirt, no shoes, no service" indicate that entry is forbidden to shirtless individuals? No guns? That doesn't seem any more explicit. IAW TX PC 30.05 Entry with a firearm is prohibited....Maybe, for non LTC. A pictogram of a Beretta with a slash through it...very big stretch to say that prohibits entry by persons carrying long guns.

Even the signs that some stores selling alcohol are posting: It is illegal carry a weapon on these premises, unless that weapon is a handgun and you are licensed under GC 411.... or something to that effect. I don't know if TABC is handing these out, but they are at best misleading, and at worst, wrong. Some people have said that such a sign prohibits a person from entering a store so posted with a long gun... Under 30.05? How does that sign specify that "entry is prohibited"? I guess you could argue that the by saying it's illegal that you are prohibiting entry, but it really should be more explicit that entry (with a long gun, or a handgun by an unlicensed person is prohibited). Because if you get right down to it, there is no law that says I can't carry a long gun in a 51% location. Now the TABC licensee could be sanctioned if they knowing allowed me to, but for a concealed long gun...

Anyway, to offer my opinion on the OP's question. Does the "no firearms" sign that he saw have any criminal legal implications...? For a LTC carrying a handgun, NO. For someone carrying a long gun, probably not, though it's highly likely that if you are discovered you will be told to leave and failure to do so would definitely be an offense.
:iagree:

Although just to be safe I am considering putting a "circle slash badge" decal on my front and back doors. That way, if any LEO's happen to stop by for a chat I will be sure to have them arrested without even talking to them first. I'll make sure I post back with the link to their arrest report by their fellow officers.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


rotor
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 3024
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#39

Post by rotor » Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:21 pm

So, the answer seems to be that perhaps a No Firearms on Premises sign does have legal bearing for a long gun even if one has a LTC. Perhaps. I guess it might cause one to take "the ride" or perhaps not depending on the LEO involved. The point seems to be that it is unsettled.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#40

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:53 pm

rotor wrote:So, the answer seems to be that perhaps a No Firearms on Premises sign does have legal bearing for a long gun even if one has a LTC. Perhaps. I guess it might cause one to take "the ride" or perhaps not depending on the LEO involved. The point seems to be that it is unsettled.
I don't think it meets the requirements of 30.05 to notify you that your entry is forbidden unless of course the sign says this, but to be fair yes it is unsettled meaning that no one has ever been tried for this that I know of. In other words, your chance of "taking a ride" is less than remote, and you would be the first ever to do so. You have a better chance of "taking a ride" for something else that you legally do every single day (which could be any of a number of things). And I do agree that whether you have an LTC or not makes no difference whatsoever to your ability to legally carry a long gun.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4419
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#41

Post by ScottDLS » Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:30 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
rotor wrote:So, the answer seems to be that perhaps a No Firearms on Premises sign does have legal bearing for a long gun even if one has a LTC. Perhaps. I guess it might cause one to take "the ride" or perhaps not depending on the LEO involved. The point seems to be that it is unsettled.
I don't think it meets the requirements of 30.05 to notify you that your entry is forbidden unless of course the sign says this, but to be fair yes it is unsettled meaning that no one has ever been tried for this that I know of. In other words, your chance of "taking a ride" is less than remote, and you would be the first ever to do so. You have a better chance of "taking a ride" for something else that you legally do every single day (which could be any of a number of things). And I do agree that whether you have an LTC or not makes no difference whatsoever to your ability to legally carry a long gun.
With the very minor exception that it exempts you from the Federal GFSZA for long guns. :evil2: See I was even able to work that into this thread! :smilelol5: :smilelol5:

ScottDLS <------ Mutters something about Post Offices... :grumble
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#42

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:38 am

ScottDLS wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
rotor wrote:So, the answer seems to be that perhaps a No Firearms on Premises sign does have legal bearing for a long gun even if one has a LTC. Perhaps. I guess it might cause one to take "the ride" or perhaps not depending on the LEO involved. The point seems to be that it is unsettled.
I don't think it meets the requirements of 30.05 to notify you that your entry is forbidden unless of course the sign says this, but to be fair yes it is unsettled meaning that no one has ever been tried for this that I know of. In other words, your chance of "taking a ride" is less than remote, and you would be the first ever to do so. You have a better chance of "taking a ride" for something else that you legally do every single day (which could be any of a number of things). And I do agree that whether you have an LTC or not makes no difference whatsoever to your ability to legally carry a long gun.
With the very minor exception that it exempts you from the Federal GFSZA for long guns. :evil2: See I was even able to work that into this thread! :smilelol5: :smilelol5:

ScottDLS <------ Mutters something about Post Offices... :grumble
Not to side track, but are you 100% sure about that? The exemption for the GFSZA says a person licensed by the state. The state of Texas has licensed me for the carry of a handgun, but they have not issued me a license for the carry of a long gun, so I'm not convinced that having an LTC gets me that GFSZA exemption w/r/t the carry of a long gun...
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4419
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#43

Post by ScottDLS » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:04 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
rotor wrote:So, the answer seems to be that perhaps a No Firearms on Premises sign does have legal bearing for a long gun even if one has a LTC. Perhaps. I guess it might cause one to take "the ride" or perhaps not depending on the LEO involved. The point seems to be that it is unsettled.
I don't think it meets the requirements of 30.05 to notify you that your entry is forbidden unless of course the sign says this, but to be fair yes it is unsettled meaning that no one has ever been tried for this that I know of. In other words, your chance of "taking a ride" is less than remote, and you would be the first ever to do so. You have a better chance of "taking a ride" for something else that you legally do every single day (which could be any of a number of things). And I do agree that whether you have an LTC or not makes no difference whatsoever to your ability to legally carry a long gun.
With the very minor exception that it exempts you from the Federal GFSZA for long guns. :evil2: See I was even able to work that into this thread! :smilelol5: :smilelol5:

ScottDLS <------ Mutters something about Post Offices... :grumble
Not to side track, but are you 100% sure about that? The exemption for the GFSZA says a person licensed by the state. The state of Texas has licensed me for the carry of a handgun, but they have not issued me a license for the carry of a long gun, so I'm not convinced that having an LTC gets me that GFSZA exemption w/r/t the carry of a long gun...
Charles Cotton clarified this recently. Licensed by the state for anything firearms wise gets you out of GFSZA. Eg. Illinois FOID, permits to puchase, etc. I'm too lazy to link the thread because I am too busy thinking up my next brilliant commentary for this site... "rlol"
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: “No Firearms on Premises” Sign

#44

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:08 pm

ScottDLS wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
rotor wrote:So, the answer seems to be that perhaps a No Firearms on Premises sign does have legal bearing for a long gun even if one has a LTC. Perhaps. I guess it might cause one to take "the ride" or perhaps not depending on the LEO involved. The point seems to be that it is unsettled.
I don't think it meets the requirements of 30.05 to notify you that your entry is forbidden unless of course the sign says this, but to be fair yes it is unsettled meaning that no one has ever been tried for this that I know of. In other words, your chance of "taking a ride" is less than remote, and you would be the first ever to do so. You have a better chance of "taking a ride" for something else that you legally do every single day (which could be any of a number of things). And I do agree that whether you have an LTC or not makes no difference whatsoever to your ability to legally carry a long gun.
With the very minor exception that it exempts you from the Federal GFSZA for long guns. :evil2: See I was even able to work that into this thread! :smilelol5: :smilelol5:

ScottDLS <------ Mutters something about Post Offices... :grumble
Not to side track, but are you 100% sure about that? The exemption for the GFSZA says a person licensed by the state. The state of Texas has licensed me for the carry of a handgun, but they have not issued me a license for the carry of a long gun, so I'm not convinced that having an LTC gets me that GFSZA exemption w/r/t the carry of a long gun...
Charles Cotton clarified this recently. Licensed by the state for anything firearms wise gets you out of GFSZA. Eg. Illinois FOID, permits to puchase, etc. I'm too lazy to link the thread because I am too busy thinking up my next brilliant commentary for this site... "rlol"
Very interesting.

I wonder if that would also apply to a hunting license since it is also issued by the state and is more related to the carry / use of a rifle than an LTC is.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”