TexasCHLforum.com

Well to circle it back to the original topic. I am deterred from carrying past a 30.06 sign that is as described in the statute and posted on property that is not owned or leased by a governmental entity. I am deterred from carrying anywhere where it is otherwise illegal, with or without a sign (i.e. courthouse, premises of a school, etc.).

I am not deterred from lawful carrying by possibility of arrest by an ignorant or misinformed LEO. I am not deterred by the demonstrably incorrect opinion of a DPS attorney that has no bearing on prosecutions in county court. I am not deterred by factually incorrect claims that ISD's and Central Appraisal Districts are not governmental entities. I am not deterred from carrying by the potential cost of having to prove myself right in court any more than I am deterred from any other legal activity.

I have been arrested before, though not for CCW, and not in Texas. While the charges were ultimately dismissed it was a wholly unpleasant experience that I do not desire to repeat. However, I will not allow fear of that experience to dissuade me from exercising my legal right to carry a concealed handgun with a license. I don't care if I'm not going to beat the ride. I continue to carry concealed in any number of locations where misinformed government officials have (wrongly) suggested that I cannot.

I carry a .380 in my front pocket in an Uncle Mike's nylon holster. It's a little harder to get to than IWB carry, but pretty well concealed and arguably unlikely to be "made". I also carry a 9mm SIG P226 in my car...sometimes right past the 30.05 postings at Love Field parking garage. Haven't been caught yet.

This whole mess about prosecuting someone because a sign is "close enough" just makes me ill. It's like I could be ticketed for going 55mph in a 55mph zone because that's close enough. I'm very disappointed that the DPS and anyone else has taken that stance. I, certainly, will probably not be given that luxury if I ever require it.

Hey everybody, I'm new here... Allow me to share my interpretation of this topic.

Assuming the "test case" scenario where a CHL holder is 'made' but not somehow violating concealment requirements (lets ignore that part).

Here are the most pertinent facts:
Fact: CHL holders, when informed, must comply with property owner rules, written, posted or verbal. (if not a fact, please correct me)
Fact: There is a legal standard for the communication of those rules. One being the legal standard for visibility for a 30.06 sign.

OK, wherever it is, the 30.06 sign is not 'spec' and you get caught.

Scenario 1. You argue: "I saw the sign, but the sign is invalid, it does not meet the requirements of the law."
Scenario 2. You argue: "I never saw any sign. I later learned that the posted sign does not meet the legal standard for visibility and as such, I did not see it."

Which scenario has a legal standing? Scenario #1 means you were aware of the property rules but chose to ignore them, consequences may follow. Scenario #2 means you were unaware of the property rules and since the posted sign was invalid it would be reasonable for anyone to not see the posted sign.

The only legal way past an invalid sign is to never see it.. which is a valid legal argument. An invalid sign still conveys meaning, but only if you see it. This is my postulation based on these facts, I believe it is correct.

A property owner only needs to inform CHL holders of their desire to prevent guns on the property, ANY sign will do. However, there is a legal requirement for visibility or communication of that intent. Gun buster signs and improper 30.06 signs do not meet that legal requirement. BUT (a very big but), if you SEE an improper sign of ANY kind, then you have been legally informed. On the other hand, if you do NOT see a fully spec 30.06 sign, then you have no legal defense.

So, in conclusion, the entire argument about 'up to spec' signage, is moot. If you SEE any sign, then you know the intent and should comply. Forgive me if this is all just the unspoken obvious... Maybe it's just assumed that no one would ever admit to seeing an invalid sign.

Personally, I've never noticed an improper 30.06 sign and I've never seen a gun buster sign... Do they exist where I live? I wouldn't know, never seen one. I have seen some valid 30.06 signs, they don't get my business (to the best of my ability).

And a funny side note; I was at a gun store/shooting range and a lady was there looking to buy a 30.06 sign to put in her store! HA! The gun store guys asked her if she thought that would make her store safer. They then tried to explain the dangerous truth behind the "Gun Free Zone" concept. I would like to think she left with a better understanding of the world and chose not to run off CHL customers.

-Rick
I am, most certainly, NOT a lawyer, attorney or anyone that should ever give legal advice.

@Rick -

I think you have brought up a number of good points in your analysis and I like your hypothetical "test case". Here are my thoughts. Oh, and as you may have seen from my previous posts, my opinions are many and varied...and worth what you paid for them (if not less).

When I choose to carry, I make my best effort to follow the law as I understand it, and as it has been applied in the few cases where it has come up. I am less concerned about the intent/desires/opinions of property owners or public officials, unless they are legally relevant. In your test case scenarios there are two laws at play that could conceivably result in a criminal prosecution. However, I don't believe prosecution for either would be successful.

The first statute is Texas PC 30.05 "Criminal Trespass" and the second is PC 30.06 "Trespass by a CHL Licensee". You have dispensed with 46.035 based on your hypothetical "accidental exposure", so I won't go into that.

Let's start with 30.05...

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; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
...

So let's say you walk up to a building you see a sign that says NO TRESPASSING on the door. That's notice that "entry is forbidden". So if you went in you'd be violating 30.05. Let's say you walk into a store and you see a list of "rules"... NO SKATEBOARDS, NO BALL CAPS, NO GUNS. I guess you could argue that if you had any of those items, then you received notice to depart. I'm not convinced that the trespass law is designed to allow for criminal enforcement of a list of rules, but for the sake of argument, let's say it does.

Also, let's say you were carrying a concealed handgun and you have a CHL, but no ball cap, and no skateboard. Here's the problem with prosecuting you under 30.05... you have a statutory defense.

PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS
...
...
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.
...

While a Defense is not the same thing as the law being inapplicable, it precludes successful prosecution unless the prosecution can refute "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defense to prosecution existed. As a sidebar, carrying WITH a CHL, was only a Defense to Prosecution under 46.02 until 1997.

So my argument is that a Licensee can not be successfully prosecuted under 30.05 if the reason for his exclusion from the property was that he was carrying a concealed handgun. This is regardless of what type of "notice" he received, even a valid 30.06 notice still doesn't get you prosecuted for 30.05.

All right, now that a 30.05 prosecution is negated, lets see what can get you under 30.06.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN, (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

So you walk into a store past a gunbusters sign, or a NO CONCEALED GUNS OR SKATEBOARDS, or a 30.06 sign in 6 point, Times New Roman font, on the ceiling. My argument is that you haven't received notice. The reason is that "notice" is specifically defined in the statute, and none of the above scenarios meets the definition. Nor do any of the signs described in Rick's post. The reason I say this is the definition of notice.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN,
...
...
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
...
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

I just don't see how it can be argued that you have received notice by written communication based on seeing a sign that clearly doesn't meet the statutory definitions. And you surely don't receive notice if you don't see the sign.

Now for oral notice, there is no specific wording required. So if the owner says "No guns in here, you have to leave...." you could be violating 30.06. Or if he just said, "YOU, get out...." then 30.05 (whether you had a gun or not).

So that's my thought on the law. No doubt you could get arrested for some of the scenarios, but I don't think prosecution would be successful. Not aware of any cases to the contrary, but if they come up I'd like to hear about them.

-Scott

Scott just that in.

Rick & Scott,

Great Stuff! Very good.

Take that and make up your own mind.

Personally, I have never carried past a properly posted and compliant 30.06 sign. They are hard to miss.

I have carried past “Gun Busters”, “No Guns”, “No Illegal Guns”, etc. Signs. I don’t even look for them, anymore.

On one occasion, I entered an establishment, only to be confronted with a 30.06 sign, posted inside (not visible from outside). I turned around and left.

My attitude might change if I am (wrongfully) arrested, but I consider that to be very unlikely and an acceptable risk.

The law is interpretation by people which means it can get forgotten, ignored or abused (which is why a good lawyer can make a difference). If I were a prosecutor intent on getting a conviction, this is the logic I would present to the judge.

Simply stated:
1. Seeing an invalid sign is communication of intent. If you saw it, you know what it means.
2. The concept of a valid sign (30.06), exists solely to convey notice in a way that a reasonable person would understand.
3. Once this notice has been conveyed (by any means), requirements for valid communication are irrelevant, since clearly, communication has already occurred.
4. Not seeing an invalid sign is very possible, any reasonable person might not see such an invalid sign. This is why the 30.06 sign has a written standard for visibility.

These are the main points and I don't think they are wrong. My reasoning relies on the "reasonable person" concept which has a strong history in the courts. This is a possible avenue of attack by a prosecutor and the DPS seem to agree. The DPS state; a CHL holder will be arrested even if the 30.06 sign is not up to specifications.

I have only presented how I would prosecute such a case. It looks reasonable and depending on the judge, might get a conviction. There are as many interpretations as there are people. This is one. So... if you see such a sign, for Christs sake do not try to educate the property owners (probably, the only way to get caught). You probably never saw the sign, I know I didn't.

Rick
Still not a lawyer, but I kicked in operations research (Go Bearkats!)

Marksman1911 wrote:The law is interpretation by people which means it can get forgotten, ignored or abused (which is why a good lawyer can make a difference). If I were a prosecutor intent on getting a conviction, this is the logic I would present to the judge.

Simply stated:
1. Seeing an invalid sign is communication of intent. If you saw it, you know what it means.
2. The concept of a valid sign (30.06), exists solely to convey notice in a way that a reasonable person would understand.
3. Once this notice has been conveyed (by any means), requirements for valid communication are irrelevant, since clearly, communication has already occurred.
4. Not seeing an invalid sign is very possible, any reasonable person might not see such an invalid sign. This is why the 30.06 sign has a written standard for visibility.

These are the main points and I don't think they are wrong. My reasoning relies on the "reasonable person" concept which has a strong history in the courts. This is a possible avenue of attack by a prosecutor and the DPS seem to agree. The DPS state; a CHL holder will be arrested even if the 30.06 sign is not up to specifications.

I have only presented how I would prosecute such a case. It looks reasonable and depending on the judge, might get a conviction. There are as many interpretations as there are people. This is one. So... if you see such a sign, for Christs sake do not try to educate the property owners (probably, the only way to get caught). You probably never saw the sign, I know I didn't.

Rick
Still not a lawyer, but I kicked ass in operations research (Go Bearkats!)

Marksman1911 - Welcome to the forum. My only hope is that if I am ever on trial you will be the prosecutor.

GOP wrote:Interesting. Everyone so far has voted the "correct" way. I can't imagine anyone on this forum "breaking the law" or letting a non-compliance sign deter them from carrying. For the record, we have a restaurant in Victoria that has flip-flopped on a 51% sign for the last few years. Sometimes it's up, sometimes it's down. There where times I carried without noticing it was up. It has been down for some time now, well over 6 months, and there's no way it was legal. This is a true restaurant, the bar is small and doesnt stay busy.

From what I undertand about 51% and restaurant's is that in any given month a restaurant can exceed the 51% barrier. Does not happen much.

ricor wrote:

GOP wrote:Interesting. Everyone so far has voted the "correct" way. I can't imagine anyone on this forum "breaking the law" or letting a non-compliance sign deter them from carrying. For the record, we have a restaurant in Victoria that has flip-flopped on a 51% sign for the last few years. Sometimes it's up, sometimes it's down. There where times I carried without noticing it was up. It has been down for some time now, well over 6 months, and there's no way it was legal. This is a true restaurant, the bar is small and doesnt stay busy.

From what I undertand about 51% and restaurant's is that in any given month a restaurant can exceed the 51% barrier. Does not happen much.

I don't think that an actual accounting is necessary. It's the type of license that the business has that counts.

I voted "gun busters is enough to deter my entrance," and that's because unless I have no choice, which is very rare, anyone with a gun busters sign isn't going to get my money. If I have to go in I'll disarm. I'm going to obey the law and go unarmed if I have to enter for some reason, but I'm not walking past a 30.06 sign unless I have to (e.g. it's a job requirement). A bar is a different matter, since that's a business that doesn't have a choice, and we're prohibited from carrying there anyway. But to me, a 30.06 sign, or a gun busters sign, is a "we don't want your business" sign.

WildBill wrote:I don't think that an actual accounting is necessary. It's the type of license that the business has that counts.

The law says the 51% status is "as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission" so I agree.

CaptWoodrow10 wrote:

karder wrote:I will turn around at a gunbusters sign. I don't discourage anyone from following the letter of the law, but my personal choice is to not enter. I am a business owner and I will respect the wishes of the business I am entering. If they don't want me there, then so be it, I will take my money elsewhere. I choose not to support those businesses and would rather patronize businesses who don't try and infringe upon my rights.

Then how do you get gas? Every gas station that I go to has a gun busters sign on the door.

I've never seen a place selling gas that has a gun busters sign or a 30.06 sign. Maybe some of the places I've gotten gas have such signs, but since I rarely have any reason to enter the store, I am unaware of them. However, the obvious answer is: don't go into the store (and if I saw such a sign I'd go buy my gas somewhere else anyway). So far, traveling over a fairly wide portion of the state, I've seen: one 30.06 sign in Austin, one 30.06 sign in Taylor, one gun busters sign in Martha, and one gun busters sign in Victoria.

Marksman1911 wrote:The DPS state; a CHL holder will be arrested even if the 30.06 sign is not up to specifications

Rick, where did you see or hear that this is the DPS position? That was said in a CHL Instructor renewal class some time ago, but it was wrong and I posted an official "clarification" from a DPS Captain.

TPC §30.06 is unique in Texas jurisprudence. It specifies the exact language that must be used by including the phrase " a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: . . ." A sign that complies with TPC §30.06 must have that same language in English and Spanish.

Now if we're getting into 3/4" tall letters instead of 1" letters, we treading on more dangerous ground, but I am aware of a case in Houston (Harris County) that was thrown out because the letters were not "block letters at least one inch in height."

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:but I am aware of a case in Houston (Harris County) that was thrown out because the letters were not "block letters at least one inch in height."

^^^^^^^ Do tell Charles!