Could an "Ammo-Busters" Sign Work?

[ScottDLS]

I've been wondering whether a generic Ammo-Busters sign might get some CHL convicted for violating Texas PC 30.05. Here's my concern:

- Prior to 1997 it was the opinion of the Texas AG and many others that any sign signaling that property owners' didn't want "guns" meant that a CHL could be convicted of a class A misdemeanor under PC 30.05 for carrying onto the premises or property. Circle slash Beretta, No Weapons, Tiny sticker w/ gun and frowny face...Theoretically fair game.

- In 1997 Texas PC 30.06 was passed and actually there was still no Defense to 30.05 contained therein, so theoretically the same old (non)sign requirements would apply. I guess the argument could be made that 30.06 specified the requirements for barring CHL's therefore rendering 30.05 moot.

- However, by 2001 a "Defense" had appeared in 30.05 for CHL carrying a handgun if the only reason for exclusion was carrying a handgun. Only a "Defense" so you can still take the ride...but I digress.

NOW:
What if someone puts up a Circle "/" cartoon of a bullet?

Presumably that would clearly signal to everyone that: "Entry onto this property with live firearm ammunition of any kind, carried in any manner, is prohibited. Violators will be prosecuted under Texas Penal Code 30.05 (Criminal Trespass)".

Or a sign to that effect could be posted.

So anyone carrying a "loaded" gun, or even loose ammo would be guilty of at least a class B misdemeanor, class A if you had ammo and a handgun. I'm afraid we're going to start seeing tiny 5 point print signs with the verbiage above, or little yellow frowny faces superimposed over 5.56mm ammo silhouettes, everywhere. Government buildings, mini marts, theaters, daycare centers.

I personally wouldn't want to be the Test Case. I don't have enough money or time and I'm worried about a Peace Officer having a bad day or a liberal Austin prosecutor.

[jmra]

I think you've been wondering too much.
This would be very low on my list of things to wonder about. It would never make my list of things to worry about.

[Pawpaw]

I think the flaw in your logic is that carrying ammunition is not illegal.

What if a business put up a "no nose picking" sign. If they saw you picking your nose, do you think they would have any luck in getting you arrested for ignoring their sign?

[jmra]

I think the flaw in your logic is that carrying ammunition is not illegal.

What if a business put up a "no nose picking" sign. If they saw you picking your nose, do you think they would have any luck in getting you arrested for ignoring their sign?

If you caught someone picking their nose you could ask them to leave and if they refused you could call police. The police could issue a no trespass against them which could cause them issues if they returned. But I don't think you'll have luck getting someone arrested for picking their nose.

[anygunanywhere]

Take that finger, mean and hostile. Stick it in that waiting nostril…..


Anygunanywhere

[esxmarkc]

Take that finger, mean and hostile. Stick it in that waiting nostril…..
Anygunanywhere

Never heard that one!

[The Annoyed Man]

What is "ammunition"? That ball-bearing in your pocket is ammunition if you have a slingshot in your back pocket......and so is your pocket change and that eraser you stole from work. What about when an eejit just walks right into your punchlines jaw-first? That's ammunition too.

[ScottDLS]

I think the flaw in your logic is that carrying ammunition is not illegal.

What if a business put up a "no nose picking" sign. If they saw you picking your nose, do you think they would have any luck in getting you arrested for ignoring their sign?

Trespassing is illegal. The same law used for a no-guns sign is just as valid for a no nose picking sign. Class B misdemeanor for booger-picking! My property rights trump your freedom to pick (or pack).

And there's not even a Defense to Prosecution in 30.05 for picking!

[gljjt]

It is not about picking your nose it is about trespassing. Even with the defense to prosecution in 30.05, wouldn't it work the same way with one subtle difference?

Picking nose: no picking nose sign on door. Owner observes nose picking. Police called unbeknownst to picker. Police arrive, tell picker, picker leaves, no trespassing.

Concealed Carry: no guns sign on door. Owner somehow observes gun. Police called unbeknownst to gun owner. Police arrive, confirm CHL carry status. No trespassing as there is a defense and cops know it. Not until the owner orally tells the CHL holder of his no guns policy, now a 30.06 event, and the owner doesn't leave, would it become trespass. One could argue that the police could act on the owners behalf, I don't know, but even if so I would think that would require the owner to explicitly request that.

Is this correct?

[ScottDLS]

It is not about picking your nose it is about trespassing. Even with the defense to prosecution in 30.05, wouldn't it work the same way with one subtle difference?

Picking nose: no picking nose sign on door. Owner observes nose picking. Police called unbeknownst to picker. Police arrive, tell picker, picker leaves, no trespassing.

Concealed Carry: no guns sign on door. Owner somehow observes gun. Police called unbeknownst to gun owner. Police arrive, confirm CHL carry status. No trespassing as there is a defense and cops know it. Not until the owner orally tells the CHL holder of his no guns policy, now a 30.06 event, and the owner doesn't leave, would it become trespass. One could argue that the police could act on the owners behalf, I don't know, but even if so I would think that would require the owner to explicitly request that.

Is this correct?

No defense in 30.05 to picking. Picker had notice by no-nose picking sign. Police arrive and arrest trespasser. Just like if it was a valid 30.06 sign.

[gljjt]

It is not about picking your nose it is about trespassing. Even with the defense to prosecution in 30.05, wouldn't it work the same way with one subtle difference?

Picking nose: no picking nose sign on door. Owner observes nose picking. Police called unbeknownst to picker. Police arrive, tell picker, picker leaves, no trespassing.

Concealed Carry: no guns sign on door. Owner somehow observes gun. Police called unbeknownst to gun owner. Police arrive, confirm CHL carry status. No trespassing as there is a defense and cops know it. Not until the owner orally tells the CHL holder of his no guns policy, now a 30.06 event, and the owner doesn't leave, would it become trespass. One could argue that the police could act on the owners behalf, I don't know, but even if so I would think that would require the owner to explicitly request that.

Is this correct?

No defense in 30.05 to picking. Picker had notice by no-nose picking sign. Police arrive and arrest trespasser. Just like if it was a valid 30.06 sign.

I think you are right! I would hope they would just make the picker leave though. I would hate to spend tax $$$ prosecuting pickers!!!

[The Annoyed Man]

It is not about picking your nose it is about trespassing. Even with the defense to prosecution in 30.05, wouldn't it work the same way with one subtle difference?

Picking nose: no picking nose sign on door. Owner observes nose picking. Police called unbeknownst to picker. Police arrive, tell picker, picker leaves, no trespassing.

Concealed Carry: no guns sign on door. Owner somehow observes gun. Police called unbeknownst to gun owner. Police arrive, confirm CHL carry status. No trespassing as there is a defense and cops know it. Not until the owner orally tells the CHL holder of his no guns policy, now a 30.06 event, and the owner doesn't leave, would it become trespass. One could argue that the police could act on the owners behalf, I don't know, but even if so I would think that would require the owner to explicitly request that.

Is this correct?

No defense in 30.05 to picking. Picker had notice by no-nose picking sign. Police arrive and arrest trespasser. Just like if it was a valid 30.06 sign.

I think you are right! I would hope they would just make the picker leave though. I would hate to spend tax $$$ prosecuting pickers!!!

Ok, I am just surprised as heck that nobody has posted this yet. I think it answers all the questions about "the pick":
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=RU3Q4nRWq7I[/youtube]

[JP171]

It is not about picking your nose it is about trespassing. Even with the defense to prosecution in 30.05, wouldn't it work the same way with one subtle difference?

Picking nose: no picking nose sign on door. Owner observes nose picking. Police called unbeknownst to picker. Police arrive, tell picker, picker leaves, no trespassing.

Concealed Carry: no guns sign on door. Owner somehow observes gun. Police called unbeknownst to gun owner. Police arrive, confirm CHL carry status. No trespassing as there is a defense and cops know it. Not until the owner orally tells the CHL holder of his no guns policy, now a 30.06 event, and the owner doesn't leave, would it become trespass. One could argue that the police could act on the owners behalf, I don't know, but even if so I would think that would require the owner to explicitly request that.

Is this correct?

No defense in 30.05 to picking. Picker had notice by no-nose picking sign. Police arrive and arrest trespasser. Just like if it was a valid 30.06 sign.

The law does NOT tell you what is allowed rather it prohibits, therefore picking is not a crime in and of it self no matter what you post on a sign, nope the police will ask the person to leave and tell them if they come again the picker goes to jail, no matter how many times you told them to leave

[Keith B]

A CHL does not get out of a 30.05 just for being a CHL. However, we DO get the exemption if the soul reason for the tresspassing charge was because you're were carrying concealed with a license. The 30.05 charge would only be applicable as a Class C misdemanor at most. As for a 'no ammo' sign, a 5 point sign would not be valid per 30.05 as they must be noticiable.

I think we would still get the exemption as the intent of the posting would be to try and prohibit concealed carry and it would be clear that was their goal and we would have the defense to prosecution.

[ScottDLS]

It is not about picking your nose it is about trespassing. Even with the defense to prosecution in 30.05, wouldn't it work the same way with one subtle difference?

Picking nose: no picking nose sign on door. Owner observes nose picking. Police called unbeknownst to picker. Police arrive, tell picker, picker leaves, no trespassing.

Concealed Carry: no guns sign on door. Owner somehow observes gun. Police called unbeknownst to gun owner. Police arrive, confirm CHL carry status. No trespassing as there is a defense and cops know it. Not until the owner orally tells the CHL holder of his no guns policy, now a 30.06 event, and the owner doesn't leave, would it become trespass. One could argue that the police could act on the owners behalf, I don't know, but even if so I would think that would require the owner to explicitly request that.

Is this correct?

No defense in 30.05 to picking. Picker had notice by no-nose picking sign. Police arrive and arrest trespasser. Just like if it was a valid 30.06 sign.

The law does NOT tell you what is allowed rather it prohibits, therefore picking is not a crime in and of it self no matter what you post on a sign, nope the police will ask the person to leave and tell them if they come again the picker goes to jail, no matter how many times you told them to leave

Trespass is a crime. Carrying a concealed/open rifle is not a crime. However, it has been argued quite strenuously that if you walk or drive past a NO GUNS posted property sign with a long gun, you are guilty of trespass. Why is it different for NO AMMO (or nose picking)? What recourse do I have as a private property owner to prohibit rifle (or ammo) carry on my premises if I can't just post a 'buster sign or 30.05 notice specifying the conduct to be prohibited?