More info on the scope of 30.06 signage placement

[thetexan]

This subject keeps coming up in class and on this forum so I thought I'd add a little more info. First, a little background...

One of the confusing parts of signage notification of 30.06 and 30.07 is the scope of the authority of the sign based on placement compared to the scope of the sign based on the language of the sign. Does a 30.06 sign, for example, if placed at the door entrance to a gas station notify everyone that concealed carry is not allowed within the store itself or does the language of the sign "...may not enter on this property..." mean what it says and restrict carriage on the entire property...gas pumps, parking lot, and within the store?

Further, if we take the language of the sign literally to mean the entire property, all that is left for the notification by the sign to be effective is that is is statutorily compliantly designed and statutorily properly placed, that is, conspicuous and clearly visible to the public. The implication is therefore, and the only conclusion we can come to (without adding assumption and interpretation to the rule) is that a properly placed 30.06 compliant sign conspicuously placed at the door entrance to a gas station prohibits cc on the entire property. And, for discussion and thought, I will allow for and add this one small interpretation to this conclusion...that the conspicuousness and visibility of the sign limits the reasonable effectiveness of the sign to that portion of the entire property from which the sign is conspicuous and clearly visible. Remember, 30.05, the general trespass section, uses this phrase in its version of the conspicuous clause [abbreviated profanity deleted] 30.06 and 30.07...."

In other words, adding this interpretation, one approaching from the wrong side of the building does not have a notifying sign (one that meets statutory conspicuousness and visibility) from his perspective and is thus he is not notified. Or so the theory goes...and that is the crux of the issue...does a sign have to be conspicuous and visible from the perspective of ANY entrant to the property for the notification to be effective? If that is true and if the scope of the language is property-wide then the language of the sign "...may not enter on this property..." and the effective scope of that literal meaning is based, not on the language of the sign but rather solely on the conspicuousness and visibility of the sign. Again, if true, the sign should read "...If you can read this sign then you may not enter anywhere on this property.". 30.05, the general trespass section, uses this phrase to define its version of conspicuous..."...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...". So, at least as far as 30.05 is concerned, conspicuousness has a "reasonable likelyhood" factor. I think that applies to 30.06 and 30.07 as well.

So there is a literal legal prohibition over the entire property...yet...the effective notification of that prohibition is statutorily solely dependent on conspicuous placement and public visibility of the sign. In short, if you CAN read the sign (because of its conspicuousness and not necessarily actually observe the sign) then you are prohibited on the entire property, not just the inside of the store.

That has been the debate. And I believe the last paragraph summarizes it accurately.

But I have found one sentence in the regs that I think may give justification of the "scope depends on location of placement" theory. It certainly seems to give a defensive argument. And we find that in 411.2031(d-1) "...The institution must give effective notice under Section 30.06, Penal Code, with respect to any portion of a premises on which license holders may not carry...". So we have an instruction to educational institutions that 30.06 signage notification, which has literal property-wide scope, may be given with respect to individual portions of the entire property, presumably, not effecting the other portions of the property. Note that this rule is an administrative imperative to the notifier and not a penal code.

However, this seems to indicate that the legislature thinks of 30.06 and 30.07 notifications as particular to the location of the notice, even though the prohibition is literally property-wide. Lacking any case law on this subject, this would seem to be helpful to any defense based on location. However, there is still no requirement that the entrant ACTUALLY OBSERVE the sign. This just seems to indicate that the legislature, at least as far as educational institutions are concerned, believes the scope of the sign is limited by placement and that the effectiveness of that location-based notification is solely dependent on statutorily compliant design, conspicuousness and public visibility at that location, and not whether or not the entrant actually sees the sign.

And, if the legislature is willing to have a property-side imperative only apply with respect to a particular portion of a premises at educational institutions, then why should we not believe that the same logic and legislative intent hold true at other properties?

If this is true, conspicuousness and public visibility determines effectiveness of notification. Placement location determines scope. So, as you ponder this, if this is true, then how does one use a 30.06 sign to restrict cc on his entire property?

I thought this might be of interest.

tex

[RossA]

I have seen locations that have 30.06 signs at the entrance to parking lots, so apparently the intent is to prohibit carry anywhere on the property.

[doncb]

You bring up some good points and I wish that the Legislature would clean up the whole situation.

My thoughts:

1. If a business wants to prohibit carry on the entire property, they would have to post 30.06 / 07 at every entrance to the property.
2. If a business wants to prohibit carry in the premise, they would have to post 30.06 / 07 at every entrance to the building.
3. To be legally enforceable the signs would have to meet ALL requirements as set forth by law.
4. Penalty for ignoring a non-compliant sign is zero. Penalty for ignoring a compliant sign reduced to a $50 civil fine.

#1 would require defining the terms "property" and "premise".
#3 would mean that the requirement for the lettering be on a contrasting background would eliminate places like Whole Foods posting signage on glass in colors you almost have to be right in front of to read. It would also mean that combined signs like the zoo and Whole Foods would also not be enforceable. (BTW, if it is a sign like the zoo or Whole Foods, I carry right past because I'm not breaking any laws.)
#4 would only be fair. If the business doesn't follow the law then we wouldn't be breaking one. After all the non-compliant sign has no meaning. Just like a gun buster sign doesn't.

[ralewis]

This subject keeps coming up in class and on this forum so I thought I'd add a little more info. First, a little background...

One of the confusing parts of signage notification of 30.06 and 30.07 is the scope of the authority of the sign based on placement compared to the scope of the sign based on the language of the sign. Does a 30.06 sign, for example, if placed at the door entrance to a gas station notify everyone that concealed carry is not allowed within the store itself or does the language of the sign "...may not enter on this property..." mean what it says and restrict carriage on the entire property...gas pumps, parking lot, and within the store?

Further, if we take the language of the sign literally to mean the entire property, all that is left for the notification by the sign to be effective is that is is statutorily compliantly designed and statutorily properly placed, that is, conspicuous and clearly visible to the public. The implication is therefore, and the only conclusion we can come to (without adding assumption and interpretation to the rule) is that a properly placed 30.06 compliant sign conspicuously placed at the door entrance to a gas station prohibits cc on the entire property. And, for discussion and thought, I will allow for and add this one small interpretation to this conclusion...that the conspicuousness and visibility of the sign limits the reasonable effectiveness of the sign to that portion of the entire property from which the sign is conspicuous and clearly visible. Remember, 30.05, the general trespass section, uses this phrase in its version of the conspicuous clause [abbreviated profanity deleted] 30.06 and 30.07...."

In other words, adding this interpretation, one approaching from the wrong side of the building does not have a notifying sign (one that meets statutory conspicuousness and visibility) from his perspective and is thus he is not notified. Or so the theory goes...and that is the crux of the issue...does a sign have to be conspicuous and visible from the perspective of ANY entrant to the property for the notification to be effective? If that is true and if the scope of the language is property-wide then the language of the sign "...may not enter on this property..." and the effective scope of that literal meaning is based, not on the language of the sign but rather solely on the conspicuousness and visibility of the sign. Again, if true, the sign should read "...If you can read this sign then you may not enter anywhere on this property.". 30.05, the general trespass section, uses this phrase to define its version of conspicuous..."...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...". So, at least as far as 30.05 is concerned, conspicuousness has a "reasonable likelyhood" factor. I think that applies to 30.06 and 30.07 as well.

So there is a literal legal prohibition over the entire property...yet...the effective notification of that prohibition is statutorily solely dependent on conspicuous placement and public visibility of the sign. In short, if you CAN read the sign (because of its conspicuousness and not necessarily actually observe the sign) then you are prohibited on the entire property, not just the inside of the store.

That has been the debate. And I believe the last paragraph summarizes it accurately.

But I have found one sentence in the regs that I think may give justification of the "scope depends on location of placement" theory. It certainly seems to give a defensive argument. And we find that in 411.2031(d-1) "...The institution must give effective notice under Section 30.06, Penal Code, with respect to any portion of a premises on which license holders may not carry...". So we have an instruction to educational institutions that 30.06 signage notification, which has literal property-wide scope, may be given with respect to individual portions of the entire property, presumably, not effecting the other portions of the property. Note that this rule is an administrative imperative to the notifier and not a penal code.

However, this seems to indicate that the legislature thinks of 30.06 and 30.07 notifications as particular to the location of the notice, even though the prohibition is literally property-wide. Lacking any case law on this subject, this would seem to be helpful to any defense based on location. However, there is still no requirement that the entrant ACTUALLY OBSERVE the sign. This just seems to indicate that the legislature, at least as far as educational institutions are concerned, believes the scope of the sign is limited by placement and that the effectiveness of that location-based notification is solely dependent on statutorily compliant design, conspicuousness and public visibility at that location, and not whether or not the entrant actually sees the sign.

And, if the legislature is willing to have a property-side imperative only apply with respect to a particular portion of a premises at educational institutions, then why should we not believe that the same logic and legislative intent hold true at other properties?

If this is true, conspicuousness and public visibility determines effectiveness of notification. Placement location determines scope. So, as you ponder this, if this is true, then how does one use a 30.06 sign to restrict cc on his entire property?

I thought this might be of interest.

tex

Kind of related to the idea of sign placement... I was a movie theater in Round Rock a while back where the (compliant) 30.06 sign was inside the door on the wall a few steps inside the building. Having not seen the sign until I was actually inside for a few mins, I returned to my car to disarm. But I was wondering that since the sign wasn't placed on the door or outside at the entrance, would it be a technically enforceable sign.

[ScottDLS]

You bring up some good points and I wish that the Legislature would clean up the whole situation.

My thoughts:

1. If a business wants to prohibit carry on the entire property, they would have to post 30.06 / 07 at every entrance to the property.
2. If a business wants to prohibit carry in the premise, they would have to post 30.06 / 07 at every entrance to the building.
3. To be legally enforceable the signs would have to meet ALL requirements as set forth by law.
4. Penalty for ignoring a non-compliant sign is zero. Penalty for ignoring a compliant sign reduced to a $50 civil fine.

#1 would require defining the terms "property" and "premise".
#3 would mean that the requirement for the lettering be on a contrasting background would eliminate places like Whole Foods posting signage on glass in colors you almost have to be right in front of to read. It would also mean that combined signs like the zoo and Whole Foods would also not be enforceable. (BTW, if it is a sign like the zoo or Whole Foods, I carry right past because I'm not breaking any laws.)
#4 would only be fair. If the business doesn't follow the law then we wouldn't be breaking one. After all the non-compliant sign has no meaning. Just like a gun buster sign doesn't.

#1 & #2 would be good to add the 30.07 requirement at each entrance to the 30.06 law. Premises and property are already defined in law, but perhaps posters should be required to specify the excluded area on the sign.
#3 This is already the law...what needs to be added? If the sign isn't compliant with the existing statute it is not valid notice...
#4 There is no penalty for ignoring a non-compliant sign...? Compliant should be reduced from a class C to a civil infraction.

[C-dub]

Kind of related to the idea of sign placement... I was a movie theater in Round Rock a while back where the (compliant) 30.06 sign was inside the door on the wall a few steps inside the building. Having not seen the sign until I was actually inside for a few mins, I returned to my car to disarm. But I was wondering that since the sign wasn't placed on the door or outside at the entrance, would it be a technically enforceable sign.

IMHO, it is enforceable. A 30.06 is not required to be at every entrance like 30.07 or even at an entrance at all.

[thetexan]

Kind of related to the idea of sign placement... I was a movie theater in Round Rock a while back where the (compliant) 30.06 sign was inside the door on the wall a few steps inside the building. Having not seen the sign until I was actually inside for a few mins, I returned to my car to disarm. But I was wondering that since the sign wasn't placed on the door or outside at the entrance, would it be a technically enforceable sign.

IMHO, it is enforceable. A 30.06 is not required to be at every entrance like 30.07 or even at an entrance at all.

Correct. Different location requirements for 30.06 and 30.07. But that deals with the scope of the prohibition. In the case of 30.07 it also deals with notification.

With 30.06 you have been NOTIFIED...

When.....and only when...

A compliant sign has been conspicuously and visibly posted SOMEWHERE on the property


With 30.07 you have been NOTIFIED....

When and only when....

A compliant sign has been conspicuously and visibly posted AT EACH ENTRANCE to the property.

Ok...now we know when we have been notified. But notified of what?! Of a prohibition that applies to only a building (or particular portion of a premises) or of a prohibition that applies to the entire "property"?

That is a matter of scope. I maintain that the phrase "enter on this property" means just that.

However, I'm starting to see that one can argue, rather logically, that the legislature recognizes limited scope based on posting location by the la gauge in 411.203(d-1)

tex

[jkurtz]

However, I'm starting to see that one can argue, rather logically, that the legislature recognizes limited scope based on posting location by the la gauge in 411.203(d-1)

tex

I was just about to bring that up. The legislature has obviously, at least in the case of campus carry, recognized that a valid 30.06 sign only applies to a specified portion of the the property, not the entire property. The same can be seen with a government building that contains offices used by the court, which can be posted, without posting the whole building. Whether or not the later is actually abided by is a different discussion.

[TreyHouston]

I've said this many times and I'll say it again.
I have been to many locations to eat and the The sign has been in the most awkward places you would never even think to look. Why should I be held legally accountable when I didn't even see the sign! 30.06 signs need to be on every door of every entrance to the building period. As stated before I like the 07 and 06 sign being in different colors.

[Soccerdad1995]

I've said this many times and I'll say it again.
I have been to many locations to eat and the The sign has been in the most awkward places you would never even think to look. Why should I be held legally accountable when I didn't even see the sign! 30.06 signs need to be on every door of every entrance to the building period. As stated before I like the 07 and 06 sign being in different colors.

You are not held legally accountable if the signage is not conspicuously posted. That is a factual decision for a court. But your risk of a jury finding the signage "conspicuous" clearly goes down the sign gets harder to see. The requirement has nothing to do with whether you actually saw the sign. So if you see an inconspicuously posted sign, you can still legally carry, but if you do not see a conspicuously posted sign, then you cannot legally carry.

The easiest fix for all of this? Just remove the criminal penalty for missing a sign. If you refuse to leave after being asked to leave then and only then you are guilty of trespass. Same penalty regardless of why you are asked to leave.

[TreyHouston]

I've said this many times and I'll say it again.
I have been to many locations to eat and the The sign has been in the most awkward places you would never even think to look. Why should I be held legally accountable when I didn't even see the sign! 30.06 signs need to be on every door of every entrance to the building period. As stated before I like the 07 and 06 sign being in different colors.

You are not held legally accountable if the signage is not conspicuously posted. That is a factual decision for a court. But your risk of a jury finding the signage "conspicuous" clearly goes down the sign gets harder to see. The requirement has nothing to do with whether you actually saw the sign. So if you see an inconspicuously posted sign, you can still legally carry, but if you do not see a conspicuously posted sign, then you cannot legally carry.

The easiest fix for all of this? Just remove the criminal penalty for missing a sign. If you refuse to leave after being asked to leave then and only then you are guilty of trespass. Same penalty regardless of why you are asked to leave.

Agreed...

[thetexan]

The easiest fix for all of this? Just remove the criminal penalty for missing a sign. If you refuse to leave after being asked to leave then and only then you are guilty of trespass. Same penalty regardless of why you are asked to leave.

Except that that would not be in keeping with the 30.05 general trespass process of notification which 30.06 and 30.07 are extensions of.

With this logic when a cop pulls you over for speeding you don't get a ticket unless he first asks you to slow down and you subsequently fail to do so.

Conspicuous is clear enough in meaning. It must be reasonably likely to come to the attention of the intruder ( using the 30.05 definition). It either is or isn't as a matter of fact as determined by a jury. If it is then you need not to have seen the sign to have been notified (assuming it was compliant and clearly visible to the public).

This is why I'm starting to reconsider my mind on the interpretation. If I enter a mall entrance with no sign, even though there are other conspicuously posted signs, there is no sign reasonably likely to come to my attention at my entrance. Therefore I have not been notified.

Or have I by virtue of some or any conspicuous sign placed anywhere.

It is becoming clearer that conspicuous relates the the intruder at the entrance of the intruder.

However, if it is conspicuous, you are trespassing at the point you pass the sign. No other warning is necessary to consummate the crime.

Tex

[Soccerdad1995]

The easiest fix for all of this? Just remove the criminal penalty for missing a sign. If you refuse to leave after being asked to leave then and only then you are guilty of trespass. Same penalty regardless of why you are asked to leave.

Except that that would not be in keeping with the 30.05 general trespass process of notification which 30.06 and 30.07 are extensions of.

With this logic when a cop pulls you over for speeding you don't get a ticket unless he first asks you to slow down and you subsequently fail to do so.

Conspicuous is clear enough in meaning. It must be reasonably likely to come to the attention of the intruder ( using the 30.05 definition). It either is or isn't as a matter of fact as determined by a jury. If it is then you need not to have seen the sign to have been notified (assuming it was compliant and clearly visible to the public).

This is why I'm starting to reconsider my mind on the interpretation. If I enter a mall entrance with no sign, even though there are other conspicuously posted signs, there is no sign reasonably likely to come to my attention at my entrance. Therefore I have not been notified.

Or have I by virtue of some or any conspicuous sign placed anywhere.

It is becoming clearer that conspicuous relates the the intruder at the entrance of the intruder.

However, if it is conspicuous, you are trespassing at the point you pass the sign. No other warning is necessary to consummate the crime.

Tex

As you know, I disagree with the premise that is present in current law that a private property owner should be able to conditionally grant permission to enter based on whether someone is carrying an unseen inanimate object. I think that is causing a large part of the challenge here. I know that you have a different perspective on this point.

And I agree that it comes down to whether the signage is "conspicuous". But the other part of that is that it posted conspicuously in a manner that is likely to come to the attention of the public (paraphrasing a bit). To take the mall example, if there are conspicuous signs posted at some, but not all, entrances. Yes there are "conspicuous" signs, but the property owner has knowingly placed them such that they are likely to not come to the attention of a large percentage of the public that visits that mall. Does this meet the posting requirement in the law?

[C-dub]

And I agree that it comes down to whether the signage is "conspicuous". But the other part of that is that it posted conspicuously in a manner that is likely to come to the attention of the public (paraphrasing a bit). To take the mall example, if there are conspicuous signs posted at some, but not all, entrances. Yes there are "conspicuous" signs, but the property owner has knowingly placed them such that they are likely to not come to the attention of a large percentage of the public that visits that mall. Does this meet the posting requirement in the law?

And to take that a little bit further ... a mall has placed a large compliant sign at every MALL entrance, but individual department stores with external entrances have not posted any signs prohibiting handguns. The mall has done its part and IMHO, that meets the notification requirements. I don't like it, but I think it does.

[thetexan]

And I agree that it comes down to whether the signage is "conspicuous". But the other part of that is that it posted conspicuously in a manner that is likely to come to the attention of the public (paraphrasing a bit). To take the mall example, if there are conspicuous signs posted at some, but not all, entrances. Yes there are "conspicuous" signs, but the property owner has knowingly placed them such that they are likely to not come to the attention of a large percentage of the public that visits that mall. Does this meet the posting requirement in the law?

The use of the "conspicuousness" requirement is in 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07. It places great emphasis on and is an essential requirement to the consummation of notification, which, in turn, is an essential, necessarily present element for the crime of trespass to have occurred. Since 30.05 spells out conspicuousness in a very usable definitive form ("...reasonably likely to come to the attention of the intruder...") it relates the "conspicuosity" of the sign to the observing intruder. It seems that "clearly visible to the public" is an unnecessary addition, in that, if it is conspicuous then it must, by definition, be reasonably likely to come to an intruder's attention. Stated another way, how can a conspicuous sign reasonably likely to come to the attention of a perspective intruder NOT be clearly visible to the public. Can we imagine a situation where there is a conspicuous sign not clearly visible to the public. Or, can we imagine a sign clearly visible to the public not being conspicuous? So I think the conspicuous factor is the driving force, not the clearly visible factor. Or, stated even another way, conspicuous and clearly visible to the public seem to be one in the same....effectively.

So, I tend to believe, now after analyzing this, that an entrance must be conspicuously posted for it to have any meaning in the context of 30.05, 30.06 or 30.07. And I think the additional language of "at each entrance" was added by the legislature to clear this up. Otherwise, under the above theory, a 30.06 or 30.07 sign has no effect if it can't come to the conspicuous attention to the people the prohibition is intended for, ie, those whose armed entrance the owner is trying to prevent. It seems to me that 30.06 should have had the same change. So I take the added language as the legislature admitting that occasional postings at some rather than all entrances is, for the purpose of stopping armed entry, less than 100% effective....legally.


tex