TexasCHLforum.com

I've followed a lot of threads on 30.06 over the years here on Texas CHL Forum. A lot of commentary focuses on the definition of "notice" in the law and the specifications for written notice. The statute is very specific on what constitutes written "notice". However, there is a lot of discussion on the definition of "contrasting colors" and "conspicuously posted", English and Spanish, etc.

My input after spending time reading the law is that maybe we should be focusing more on "receiving" notice. I think one could argue that the detailed specifications for signs and written notice in the law were put there to emphasize that you have to "receive" the proper notice before you are trespassing.

In a criminal case the prosecution generally must prove the elements of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". So in the case of improperly worded signs, or signs that are too small, or not in Spanish...one is tempted to argue (successfully in my view) that the definition of "notice" was not established. I think a better argument, would be... "prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendant RECEIVED notice...". If the sign is too small, or wrongly worded, or posted somewhere where you probably didn't see it, I think it would be very difficult to prove that you received the notice.

To paraphrase the late Johnnie Cochrane... "If the sign doesn't fit (too small), you must acquit..."

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:
...

My approach is very simple. If I come across a non-compliant 30.06 sign and it is not convient for me to disarm then I walk past the sign,but only once.

I focus on intent. Not so much because of legal ramifications but because the owner/tenant does not want me there and, IMHO, has created an unsafe environment for myself and others. Why would I care to give this person my hard earned money?

I am somewhat surprised that an elected official hasn't proposed that 30.06 signs must have a state seal in order to be valid. This way all valid 30.06 signs would have to be purchased from the state at $100 a pop. Would be a revenue source for the state and posting a non-compliant sign of course would result in a $10,000 dollar fine.

...now there's an idea...if the business wants to decide that, though we paid OUR money and went through the training and bought the license, we're not good enough to carry in their store...let them spend THEIR money for the sign to keep us out...it'd cut WAY down on the signs in place...

jmra wrote:My approach is very simple. If I come across a non-compliant 30.06 sign and it is not convient for me to disarm then I walk past the sign,but only once.

I focus on intent. Not so much because of legal ramifications but because the owner/tenant does not want me there and, IMHO, has created an unsafe environment for myself and others. Why would I care to give this person my hard earned money?

I am somewhat surprised that an elected official hasn't proposed that 30.06 signs must have a state seal in order to be valid. This way all valid 30.06 signs would have to be purchased from the state at $100 a pop. Would be a revenue source for the state and posting a non-compliant sign of course would result in a $10,000 dollar fine.

Good idea! I can dig it.

OTOH, we're fortunate to have our Texas 30.06 sign. In other states any 'ol {no guns' allowed} sign or symbol suffices as notice.

jmra wrote:
I am somewhat surprised that an elected official hasn't proposed that 30.06 signs must have a state seal in order to be valid. This way all valid 30.06 signs would have to be purchased from the state at $100,000 a pop.

Fixed it. Good idea otherwise.

jmra wrote:I am somewhat surprised that an elected official hasn't proposed that 30.06 signs must have a state seal in order to be valid. This way all valid 30.06 signs would have to be purchased from the state at $100 a pop. Would be a revenue source for the state and posting a non-compliant sign of course would result in a $10,000 dollar fine.

That makes it too easy to post a sign. I'm all for making it as inconvenient as possible to post a valid sign.

As it is now, to post a sign they have to go and read the statutes and get a sign made up. Most of these businesses seem to be incapable of understanding what constitutes effective notice, so they either post an invalid sign (paying for it to be made up, which can't be cheap) or they have to go and get a lawyer to tell them what kind of sign is legally binding, which costs way more than $100. This results in very few places properly posted.

If the state were to create a one-stop shop for valid §30.06 signs, I expect we would see more valid postings.

hirundo82 wrote:

jmra wrote:I am somewhat surprised that an elected official hasn't proposed that 30.06 signs must have a state seal in order to be valid. This way all valid 30.06 signs would have to be purchased from the state at $100 a pop. Would be a revenue source for the state and posting a non-compliant sign of course would result in a $10,000 dollar fine.

That makes it too easy to post a sign. I'm all for making it as inconvenient as possible to post a valid sign.

As it is now, to post a sign they have to go and read the statutes and get a sign made up. Most of these businesses seem to be incapable of understanding what constitutes effective notice, so they either post an invalid sign (paying for it to be made up, which can't be cheap) or they have to go and get a lawyer to tell them what kind of sign is legally binding, which costs way more than $100. This results in very few places properly posted.

If the state were to create a one-stop shop for valid §30.06 signs, I expect we would see more valid postings.

Although I started this as a joke, I have to disagree. The fact is you don't have to do much research at all. All you really have to do is show a printer a pic of a sign (many valid ones out there) and you're done. Having worked with printers before, I can assure you that the cost is minimal.

Why do I think this would be a good idea? Simple - The law gives the right of a privately owned business to decide that they do not want CC on their property. By making a state approved sign available through the state we remove much of the confusion that currently exist. There would no longer be any question as to whether or not this sign is valid or not. If it has the seal, it is valid. If it doesn't have the seal you can ignore it or report them and they would be fined. Laws should not be made difficult to understand or difficult to abide by whether you are the person CC'ing or the business owner who does not want you in his building.

One thing that this would change is the newest method of posting. Many of the new signs I have seen are white decals on clear glass. It is not as "ugly" as a regular sign which many of these places would not post because of their appearance.

Of course the best way to deal with the whole thing is to change the law so that a CHL can carry anywhere an off duty cop can.

Trespass by a license holder isn't confusing. It is very clear as to what constitutes a valid sign. Most businesses apparently don't care enough to do the research to get a valid sign (and you are right--it is minimal research), and I don't want to make it any easier for them.

The only place I can see an official sign making a difference is the threatened arrests for carrying past a valid sign. I don't think it would make a difference in that situation because:
1) it is already very clear what is a valid sign and yet some LEOs threaten to arrest if the sign is "close enough"--what is to stop them from doing the same with a non-official sign
2) arrests under §30.06 are vanishingly rare already (I've never heard of one)

hirundo82 wrote:arrests under §30.06 are vanishingly rare already (I've never heard of one)

This thread is about the one example that I know of. The woman was arrested, but ultimately the DA did not prosecute.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12754&hilit=bedford&start=105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

hirundo82 wrote:Trespass by a license holder isn't confusing. It is very clear as to what constitutes a valid sign. Most businesses apparently don't care enough to do the research to get a valid sign (and you are right--it is minimal research), and I don't want to make it any easier for them.

The only place I can see an official sign making a difference is the threatened arrests for carrying past a valid sign. I don't think it would make a difference in that situation because:
1) it is already very clear what is a valid sign and yet some LEOs threaten to arrest if the sign is "close enough"--what is to stop them from doing the same with a non-official sign
2) arrests under §30.06 are vanishingly rare already (I've never heard of one)

The difference is obvious to me. A state seal would remove any question about legality or intent. Police understand what a seal means. It also would remove a lot of wiggle room for a judge. If you think a judge or jury are going to rule your way because the letters were 1/2 inch tall then you have a lot more faith in the system than I do.

...so the law is just about "us" and not "them"?....no, we have to do XXXX and THEY have to do XXXX...if they don't...they have a problem...and we have a defense against prosecution...otherwise, they could say/do anything...and we wouldn't know when we were violating a law just because they said we were...law restricts us...and protects us...1/2" letters mean no violation...it's the LAW...

Since there seems to be only one documented case for an arrest for a 30.06 sign violation and the DA refused to press charges, it seems that the law is working well. Why change something that isn't broken?

WildBill wrote:Since there seems to be only one documented case for an arrest for a 30.06 sign violation and the DA refused to press charges, it seems that the law is working well. Why change something that isn't broken?

I agree. Tinkering with this has no upside...

Guys, it was a joke. It was never meant to be taken seriously.

jmra wrote:Guys, it was a joke. It was never meant to be taken seriously.

Sorry, I didn't read from the beginning of thread.