TexasCHLforum.com

bottom line it was not a legally posted sign unless poster was verbal directed to leave there should have been no problem. The law clearly defines what a legal 30.06/30.07 sign is.

^^^^^^^^^^^
This is correct.

While I certainly understand that even a non-compliant sign conveys the wishes of the establishment, per the letter of the law, a non-compliant sign has no force of law. Only when asked to leave by someone with apparent authority does the position of the establishment become clear and have force of law (and only then IF the actor refuses to leave).

The police should have NO part in asking/demanding the actor leave, that is not their job. That is the job of the establishment. ONLY if the actor refuses to leave....has a trespass been committed, thus opening the situation for the need of law enforcement.

IF establishments learn they can post small non-compliant signs and then just a call the police to handle the rest, then you can bet they will do so.

Quite naturally....law enforcement will grow weary of this and bad things are bound to come of it. INSTEAD, establishments should be made to comply with the clear definition of the signage required. That way....if someone enters, they are clearly and IMMEDIATELY trespassing.

As far as continuing to enter a place of business (displaying a non-compliant sign) is concerned, I think that is fool hardy at best. But it is yet unclear whether or not the courts would look at the entry as a 'Separate Event' each and every time (requiring verbal notice each time) or if they would fall on the side of the Merchant....who will claim their intent should have been clear the first time.

I know what I would do, but these things are definitely not black and white at this juncture.

They may have had an "incorrect" sign up . . . but the intent of the sign was to notify oc folk to not oc in the restaurant. If you know the businesses intent I think that means one has been notified to not oc there. I wonder what pushing the envelope will really accomplish.

So what it's going to (or has already) come down to is that any sign of any size or any type that expresses the business owner's intent that he does not want open carry will be enforceable by default, despite the law's specific requirements for the 30.07 sign.

I guess I hadn't considered that before, but seems pretty plain to me now.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mayor wrote:looks like an 8.5x11. I'd have told them i didn't notice something so small, apologized and left.

They gave me no warning when I went in. Cops got there beforwe I was able to order...

You have been verbally warned now, so when you enter carrying openly again, you will have committed a Class A Misdemeanor. Something tells me Luby's, the police and the DA will prosecute to the full extent of the law. You will face one year in jail, a $4,000 fine and loss of your LTC for seven years.

Chas.

Now there's an interesting thought!

You walk into a place OCing and they tell you verbally you can't wear a gun in there! Have you been 06 notified, 07 notified or both? And is it possible to be notified as to one but not the other? What would that look like?

tex

IsraelisJewish wrote:They may have had an "incorrect" sign up . . . but the intent of the sign was to notify oc folk to not oc in the restaurant. If you know the businesses intent I think that means one has been notified to not oc there. I wonder what pushing the envelope will really accomplish.

No, it doesn't!!!!

The very same rule that uses language like "identical" states..."you have been notified WHEN..."

It does not say you have been notified when you get the feeling they don't want you in there because of some legally non compliant sign or sheet of paper.

thatguyoverthere wrote:So what it's going to (or has already) come down to is that any sign of any size or any type that expresses the business owner's intent that he does not want open carry will be enforceable by default, despite the law's specific requirements for the 30.07 sign.

I guess I hadn't considered that before, but seems pretty plain to me now.

If that is indeed true, then it will have to be something for the courts to work out, or perhaps the AG to issue an opinion on (but I won't hold my breath for that one). Without something official to clarify the situation, it would seem that the whole point of creating 30.07 was moot.

thetexan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mayor wrote:looks like an 8.5x11. I'd have told them i didn't notice something so small, apologized and left.

They gave me no warning when I went in. Cops got there beforwe I was able to order...

You have been verbally warned now, so when you enter carrying openly again, you will have committed a Class A Misdemeanor. Something tells me Luby's, the police and the DA will prosecute to the full extent of the law. You will face one year in jail, a $4,000 fine and loss of your LTC for seven years.

Chas.

Now there's an interesting thought!

You walk into a place OCing and they tell you verbally you can't wear a gun in there! Have you been 06 notified, 07 notified or both? And is it possible to be notified as to one but not the other? What would that look like?

tex

I'm curious about this also, posted the same question in another thread. I know many have suggested that they would simply walk out to the car and cover up before going back in, but it might not be that simple.

thetexan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mayor wrote:looks like an 8.5x11. I'd have told them i didn't notice something so small, apologized and left.

They gave me no warning when I went in. Cops got there beforwe I was able to order...

You have been verbally warned now, so when you enter carrying openly again, you will have committed a Class A Misdemeanor. Something tells me Luby's, the police and the DA will prosecute to the full extent of the law. You will face one year in jail, a $4,000 fine and loss of your LTC for seven years.

Chas.

Now there's an interesting thought!

You walk into a place OCing and they tell you verbally you can't wear a gun in there! Have you been 06 notified, 07 notified or both? And is it possible to be notified as to one but not the other? What would that look like?

tex

Yep; there is no specific language requirement for oral notification. If someone in apparent authority over the business tells you, "No guns are allowed here," then you have been given effective notice under both 30.06 and 30.07. IANAL, but I also believe you can be given oral notification for 30.07 without it affecting your ability to carry concealed; e.g., "You can't openly carry your gun here unless you're a law enforcement officer"; "You'll need to keep your gun concealed when in the store."

They may have had an "incorrect" sign up . . . but the intent of the sign was to notify oc folk to not oc in the restaurant.

^^^^^^^^^^

I believe this is correct...most of the time. However, I can imagine that certain establishments might purposely display a non-compliant sign to satisfy insurance needs or unofficial company policies with the express intent of allowing patrons to enter with no penalty.

The only way for someone to know for certain...(the intent of the establishment) is for them to post a compliant sign and/or to verbally notify. Pretty simple. Merchants need to do their part and if they don't, the police need to remind them to do so.

thetexan wrote:

IsraelisJewish wrote:They may have had an "incorrect" sign up . . . but the intent of the sign was to notify oc folk to not oc in the restaurant. If you know the businesses intent I think that means one has been notified to not oc there. I wonder what pushing the envelope will really accomplish.

No, it doesn't!!!!

The very same rule that uses language like "identical" states..."you have been notified WHEN..."

It does not say you have been notified when you get the feeling they don't want you in there because of some legally non compliant sign or sheet of paper.

I don't think he was suggesting that you have received legal notification. I think he was saying that you know there is going to be an issue when they see you walk in OCing. As stated previously this is different than walking past a non-compliant 30.06 sign because no one sees the concealed weapon thus there shouldn't be an expectation of a confrontation.

A lot of people seem to be concerned about the legality of the sign. My guess would be that even as they allowed the OP to leave without further incident, they also informed restaurant management that their sign should be upgraded to meet legal requirements. A new one will be in its place soon.

flintknapper wrote: The police should have NO part in asking/demanding the actor leave, that is not their job. That is the job of the establishment. ONLY if the actor refuses to leave....has a trespass been committed, thus opening the situation for the need of law enforcement.

IF establishments learn they can post small non-compliant signs and then just a call the police to handle the rest, then you can bet they will do so.

Flintknapper has nailed my thoughts on this matter with these two gems.

I didn't believe it until both Keith and Charles stated it. I don't know how or when or understand why law enforcement has the authority to speak for a business about their policies unless they were hired employees of that business.

And if all a business has to do is call the police if they see someone carrying past any type of anti gun sign and the police tell the person they are not allowed to carry in there I foresee everyone taking down every 30.06 and 30.07 compliance sign and putting up plain ole gunbuster signs and then just silently calling the police to do the dirty work of oral notification for them.

karatedad wrote:A lot of people seem to be concerned about the legality of the sign. My guess would be that even as they allowed the OP to leave without further incident, they also informed restaurant management that their sign should be upgraded to meet legal requirements. A new one will be in its place soon.

I would hope and bet that's true.

Well he does have a picture of a Gold Concealed Carry Badge

That tells me everything !

o b juan wrote:Well he does have a picture of a Gold Concealed Carry Badge

That tells me everything !

I just seen that.