rotor wrote: srothstein wrote:
skeathley wrote:"Gun-buster" refers to the gun in a circle, the intl symbol for no guns. By itself, it has no legal status in Texas. "No guns", "no weapons", "no firearms", etc. are all non-conforming signs, and have no force of law in Texas, including with knives.
I disagree on this. The signs are legal in Texas and can be enforced. They are not applicable to a person with an LTC carrying a pistol, but are all legal under Penal Code section 30.05 for everyone else or for other weapons.
What would be enforced? What are the size requirements? What other weapons? What percentage of the sign needs to be red? Does the sign have to have specific borders like in Illinois? How about long guns? How does the public know what a Beretta in a red circle with a slash specifically means? I know this has no effect on LTC holders but how about a gun owner bringing a gun into a hotel room where such a sign is posted outside? Especially if there is no wording on the sign. This can be enforced by law enforcement?
In order to be convicted of trespass under 30.05 you would have to be given notice that your entrance to the property was prohibited. I don't know how a sign with a circle slash pictogram meets that requirement. Particularly in a location open to the public. I am aware that 22 years ago AG Morales gave an opinion that 30.05 could be used to exclude handgun carriers, presumably licensed or otherwise, via a sign. No specification was given for the sign in the opinion, so I'm not sure where the idea of a pictogram came from. As far as I can tell there is no other evidence of 30.05 being enforced without explicit notice given that your entry was prohibited, not to be inferred from a list of rules or desires or a cartoon.
Anyway, I've always thought the opinion was dubious, especially since as written it would have applied to active peace officers whether on duty or not. But regardless, it became moot 2 years later in 1997 when 30.06 was passed. The form for excluding handgun carry was then explicitly specified. It actually wasn't until 2003 that the exclusion for CHL and LEO was added to 30.05, though in my opinion it wasn't necessary as related to SIGNS.
I agree with Scott. Under 30.05 any required notice to invoke the no trespassing must prohibit THE PERSON from entering.
For example, these two versions are different legally...
"All persons carrying any weapons may not enter", and...
"No weapons allowed" do not say the same thing.
In the first case any person of the specified class is prohibited from entering thus meeting the requirement of prohibiting entry of THE PERSON.
In the second case you are not prohibiting entry of the person but describing a prohibited behavior by a person, that of carrying a weapon. If I violate that by carrying a weapon I have merely violated a policy against a specified behavior. Same with "no smoking allowed" or "dinner jackets must be worn".
Let's say I enter without a dinner jacket...what are you going to do? If you want me to leave you must convey that by giving notice that I must leave. NOW I have been notified. If you say " sir you must put on a jacket NOW" and I don't then there we are....me in violation of the no jacket policy STILL sitting there jacketless and you still needing to say the magic words..."leave".
30.05 is crystal clear....the notice must give notice that entry on the property [by the person, sic] is prohibited. So wording is everything.
"No (insert your favorite item here) allowed" and
"No persons with (insert your favorite item here) may enter this property" say two entirely different things when seen through the requirements of 30.05. In the former no person is prohibited from entry, but rather a thing or behavior is prohibited. In the latter, a person or specific class of person is prohibited.