TABC BLUE IS NO LONGER A VALID SIGN.... Under HB 1927 it was removed, so it now has zero bearing on anything... To repeat what I said earlier TABC Blue was only for unlicensed carry in a place that sold or served alcohol under 51%.... Whereas 30.05 is a more general sign for no unlicensed carry period.
Logic would tell me that you are correct. But I have several nagging questions about it.
1. The sign is almost universally not removed. Almost every store, including Wal-Mart, that had it up before Constitutional Carry passed still has it up. I know that most businesses are not anxious to have their store fronts posted with useless signs so my simple question is: why is it still up? There has been more than ample time to remove them
2. There are the "usual suspects" in the anti-gun crowd like Sprouts Farmers Market that have not posted 30:05 signs. These businesses had 30:07 and added 30:06 in place before that Open Carry bill went into effect. If they are still that militant about rejecting citizen carry, why aren't they taking action against a potentially larger group of people who might carry without a license? I have seen other places like Whole Foods extend their "word salad" signs which merge 30.06 and 30.07 sign language into a paragraph now include 30.05 so there is at least some recognition in the market place that such language is necessary.
I saw one other post in this thread that said that nothing is settled until there is a trial and appeal. Even that does not appear to be valid any longer. We have too many DA offices where the power to administer the law is no longer the driving factor. They pick and choose what they want to pursue whether there is valid statute or not. As evidence, i would offer the Rittenhouse matter. I have little hope that if I got into a gun related situation, not even a use of my gun, that it would be handled according to the law and not according the the possible political advantage of the moment. I'm appalled that the Texas Legislature left this matter this unclear but I guess, given the environment that I described, it really doesn't matter. I was cynical before and I'm doubly so now.
Taken straight from the TABC website
Red Handgun Warning Sign
Alcoholic beverage retailers that derive 51% or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption must post the red sign. The red sign has 51% in large red letters superimposed over a warning that says possession of a handgun on the premises is unlawful. The sign is displayed by establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption but without a food and beverage certificate and whose alcohol sales constitute more than 50% of gross receipts.
Blue signs are no longer required under state law.
K.Mooneyham wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:42 pm Can someone point out where in the law that statement has been made? And before anyone wants to throw the "beat the rap but not the ride" thing out, I have my LTC. I just want to know how that statement is accurate. I know what the law says, and unfortunately they put the words "substantially similar" in there. However, have we seen anyone ARRESTED ("the ride"), subsequently charged with a violation of PC 30.05 for walking past a "gunbuster" sign, and then CONVICTED ("the rap") for walking past that sign? Have there been any cases where someone has been ARRESTED for walking past, but then not charged? If there is even ONE case where either of these has happened, I would love to read about it. The infamous leftwing activist Saul Alinsky alluded to making a thing scarier than the thing itself. So, what I am pointing out is that unless that has happened, arrest and/or conviction, then it is just OPINION about those gunbuster signs, even though it may be a well-intentioned opinion. And obviously I'm not going to be the "test case" because, again, I have my LTC. I just don't want to give things away to the antis that shouldn't be given away.
EDITED TO ADD THE TEXT OF THE RELEVANT SECTION OF PC 30.05:
c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
The problem stems from the way the code is written when combined with the Code Construction Act (Government Code chapter 311). This law tells you how to read any terms in any Texas law. Section 311.016(1) says that may is discretionary or grants permission or a power. It does not make something required. So, one interpretation of Penal Code section 30.05 is that if they post a sign that uses the language specified you are legally notified that your entry while carrying a firearm (without a license) is without the effective consent of the owner. That makes you guilty of criminal trespass. But by not using the word SHALL in the law, this does not make it mandatory as the only way to notify a person that their entry is not allowed. There is the clearly and obviously legal way of telling them orally. But, there is also nothing saying other signs would not also provide legal notice. So, then you end up with the legal question "is a gunbuster sign (circle with a gun with a slash through it) enough notice to tell the mythical average, reasonable man that he cannot enter with a gun? Considering other trespass notices that are specifically allowed in Texas (like a fence designed to keep people out or animals in, or a purple painted mark on a fence or tree), I think it might be reasonable to conclude that the legislature would normally allow something as simple as a gunbuster sign.
The opposite interpretation is also very reasonable. By putting in the specific wording to use in 30.05, plus doing the same in 30.06 and 30.07, it is possible a court would decide that the law should be taken as the specified sign is the only way to notify a person in writing. This happens to be the opinion I thin is correct, but I cannot tell anyone to go by that thought. I have to let them know how the law could be taken by prosecutor and a court and let them make their own decision on the risk. Unfortunately, as with so many disagreements in modern life, this has come down to being something someone states their belief in and no one takes the time to explain how it is just an opinion and could be taken otherwise by a court.
So, as I stated way back when this bill first passed into law, it will need "cleanup" in a future session to remove these potentially dangerous ambiguities. (One of) the points of having written law is so that everyone will be able to know and understand what has been abrogated, and the penalties for violation of that law. Hammurabi had harsh penalties, but at least (if one could read) they would know which things in his kingdom were not allowed versus just going on the whims of the local authorities. This law, judging by your obviously well-thought out interpretation, is nothing if not ambiguous.