Hypothetical Question on 30.07

[ScooterSissy]

I just listened (again) about how onerous it's going to be for businesses to have two "big ugly signs", and had a thought.

Current law allows a business owner to verbally ask a customer to leave, without posting a 30.06. Obviously, a business owner wouldn't know who is carrying a concealed weapon, so if they really want to keep concealed guns out, they would just about have to post.

However, would not open carry be a different situation? Couldn't a business owner post a sign, any size color or contrast level they want, that simply says "If we see you with a gun, you will be asked to leave", and then enforce it? Obviously, someone ignoring such a sign would not be subject to the same penalty if a business owner put up a legitimate 30.07 sign, but it would solve the "big ugly sign" problem. It would be much the same as a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, but would make the intent clear that the business owner does not want someone in the the business with a gun, and that the person will (likely) be asked to leave.

[RoyGBiv]

Couldn't a business owner post a sign, any size color or contrast level they want, that simply says "If we see you with a gun, you will be asked to leave

Yes..
They can do that now, too. It's just harder to spot a concealed gun, but they could communicate their intent in the manner you describe.

[ScottDLS]

OK I've talked a "bit" about Texas trespass law in the past.... Haha see my posts to see how ScottDLS thinks about 30.05.

But let's get right down to it. We have a 1995 opinion from an anti-gun Texas AG (Morales) "stating" that any "sign" that said "no gun"s or... a saddy face with tears on a Colt silhouette on postage stamp, immediately makes you guilty of a class A misdemeanor if you walk past (even if you don't see it). Now we don't in the last 18 years apparently have any successful prosecutions of CHL's for 30.05 or 30.06.

In 1997 we had the clarification of 30.06 to address trespass by CHL. It is very explicit. 30.05 is not really. So for example if there's a "no gum chewing" sign at your open to the public supermarket (postage stamp size of course)... and you've got a Chiclet in..... you are immediately guilty of a class B ? Yep. Unless you're a cop in which case your are exempted from 30.05/30.06. This here in Texas where we are SO interested private property rights. I can prohibit ANYTHING on my business.....oh sorry except for a cop carrying a machinegun in my business. He better not be chewing gum. He can beat the rap, but not the (proverbial) "ride".

Yet Brutus was an honorable man....

[C-dub]

A sign saying that they will ask you to leave is not the same as actually asking you to leave. I cannot believe that such a sign would constitute notice sufficient to then charge someone with trespassing. As RoyGBiv stated and I'm sure you're aware, that can be done now according to 30.06 and a sign stating that they will ask us to leave does not constitute notice. Someone still must ask or tell us to leave.