Remember, both signs have, for statutory compliance, the requirement of conspicuousness. The legislature evidently thought that giving 30.07 the additional requirement of postings at each entrance would help solve the conspicuousness problem seemingly inherent with the 30.06 statute by the lack of a multi-entrance posting requirement.
30.05, the parent trespass section which defers to 30.06 and 30.07 for dealing with licensed handguns, gives a very clear meaning of the idea of conspicuousness when it uses the phrase "reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden".
It is not the fact that the 30.07 sign is posted at each entrance that prohibits you. It is the CONSPICUOUSNESS of that posting that makes the sign compliant and thus prohibits you. If the 30.07 sign is posted with 10 signs at each entrance but none of them are conspicuous then you have not, by definition, been notified, simply because none of them are compliant as to posting.
The same with 30.06. You have been notified when a COMPLIANTLY designed and POSTED (conspicuous) 30.06 sign is posted. One 30.06 sign posted on one of 10 entrances may be clearly visible to the public (another requirement of compliance) but it will not be reasonably likely to come to the attention of a possible intruder entering at one of the other non-posted entrances.
This is if we take the 30.05 language and intent as a working definition of conspicuous.
tex
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Another signage question”
- Wed May 31, 2017 9:35 am
- Forum: New to CHL?
- Topic: Another signage question
- Replies: 15
- Views: 10680
- Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:06 am
- Forum: New to CHL?
- Topic: Another signage question
- Replies: 15
- Views: 10680
Re: Another signage question
30.07 signs must be posted at each entrance to the PROPERTY.
30.06 does not have the 'at each entrance' requirement but does use the word PROPERTY.
"Conspicuous" is always a debatable subject as to what that means exactly. Since there is no legal definition that my research has found common canons of statutory interpretation leaves its definition to 'its common meaning and usage'. So what does 'conspicuous' mean as it relates to signage? There have been raging debates here on this subject, in many of which I participated. There is a vital clue hidden in the text of 30.05 which I believe clarifies the definition of conspicuous.
All three sections, 30.05, 30.06, 30.07, are trespassing rules of various kinds with 30.06 and 30.07 being specific to trespassing with handguns. All three sections have several things in common...
1. That a trespass occurs when one enters onto or remains on another's property without the effective consent of the owner after notification
2. Notification, which includes...
....a. oral notification
....b. written notification
....c. signage notification
....d. some form of required conspicuousness and clear visibility to the public of the signage
and in all three sections, very importantly...
....e. that the definition of having been notified sufficient to satisfy the mechanics of each section relating to signage depends ONLY ON THE PROPER compliance and posting of the signage. Nothing in the sections, as written, requires any action or lack of action on the part of the actor to observe the signage as part of the fulfillment of having been notified.
We may THINK we have to see the sign. It may SEEM OBVIOUS that the sign must have been seen to have been notified. We may INTERPRET that the actor must see the sign. But, as written, there is no REQUIREMENT in the statutes that the signage actually be seen by the actor for the actor to have been notified by rule.
In fact, 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07 go out of their way to define notification, and in all three sections notification, as it relates to signs, is solely dependent on the proper posting and compliance of the sign. This is not unlike driving down the highway and not seeing a 55 mph speed limit sign because an 18 wheeler was between you and the sign. You are still required to drive 55 mph and failure to see the sign is unnecessary to determine that you are guilty of violating the sign. In the case of 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 you have been notified none the less according to the recipe for notification under all three sections.
One can take this even farther. If I have been notified due to the compliance of the statutory definition of notification as I walk in the front door, then I, by the same logic, have been notified if I am 50 ft from the door...since my proximity to the actual signage is not a part of the definition or requirements of notification. And if I am just stepping out of my car I am still in a state of having been notified because of those same rules of notification. And if I am notified as I exit my vehicle then why not as I sit in my living room. In other words, the world has been put on proper notice that a trespass will occur under certain conditions by the act of properly posting compliant signage as per statute...whether or not the world ever sees the sign notification or not!
AS LONG AS THE SIGNS ARE (in all three sections by one definition or the other,) CONSPICUOUS AND VISIBLE.
30.06 and 30.07 use the word conspicuous. The arguments rage and continue.
Here is how 30.05 defines its requirement for visibility...
"...a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, (notice the choice of placement) reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden."
This is a very good definition of 'conspicuous' as it relates to intrusive entry. If we refine that definition for any sign for any purpose, such as, 'LIMIT 2 PER CUSTOMER', the definition might read...'a sign or signs posted in such a way that they are reasonably likely to come to the attention of the persons for whom the message thereon is intended.'
If we use this definition we find in 30.05 and plug it in to 30.06 and 30.07, we have a clearer understanding of what the legislators probably meant when they choose to use 'displayed in a conspicuous manner...' after having used the phrase '...reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders...' in the previous trespassing section.
So, in short, and as counter intuitive as that may seem, it is clear that the fact that you actually see the sign is not a prerequisite of your having been properly and legally notified. Must you drive around the property to find the signs before you enter? You shouldn't have to if the signs are properly conspicuous and reasonably likely to come to your attention. A small compliant sign on the entrance you enter into, IF IT IS LEGALLY CONSPICUOUS....HAS MET THE DEFINITION OF CONSPICUOUSNESS and, if it is clearly visible to the public (or in the case of 30.05 reasonably likely to come to the attention of an intruder), YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED, and it doesn't matter if you see it or not.
If a single, huge, compliant 50 foot billboard posted somewhere on the parking lot IS CONSPICUOUS...IT HAS MET THE DEFINITION OF CONSPICUOUSNESS and, if it is clearly visible to the public (or in the case of 30.05 reasonably likely to come to the attention of an intruder), YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED, and it doesn't matter if you see it or not (as long as it was reasonably likely to come to your attention using my 30.05 interpretation of conspicuousness). It would follow that as the more complex and convoluted the design of a structure is the more signage is necessary and is directly proportional to the size and placements of the signs. A very complicated mall structure might need 20 small signs or one gigantic billboard in the parking lot...
as far as meeting the requirements of notification in 30.05, 30.06, or 30.07 are concerned.
And remember, there are two posting requirements...
1. in 30.05, posted on the PROPERTY or ENTRANCE to the PROPERTY (notice that it says PROPERTY, not doors)
2. posted on the PROPERTY in 30.06(notice that it doesn't say where on the property)
3. posted at each entrance to the PROPERTY IN 30.07 (notice that it doesn't specify that entrance to THE PROPERTY = doors)
and that
1. in the case of 30.05 the signs are ..." reasonably likely to come to the attention of an intruder...
2. in the case of 30.06 and 30.07 the signs are posted conspicuously and 'clearly visible to the public'.
My intent here is not to suggest what one does in any particular circumstance. Nor does this disregard the discretion of lower trial courts to impose their interpretations of this or any statute at trial. My intent is to bring attention to the basics of what the statute says and only what the statute says as a study, free from added interpretations or embellishments.
hope this helps.
tex
30.06 does not have the 'at each entrance' requirement but does use the word PROPERTY.
"Conspicuous" is always a debatable subject as to what that means exactly. Since there is no legal definition that my research has found common canons of statutory interpretation leaves its definition to 'its common meaning and usage'. So what does 'conspicuous' mean as it relates to signage? There have been raging debates here on this subject, in many of which I participated. There is a vital clue hidden in the text of 30.05 which I believe clarifies the definition of conspicuous.
All three sections, 30.05, 30.06, 30.07, are trespassing rules of various kinds with 30.06 and 30.07 being specific to trespassing with handguns. All three sections have several things in common...
1. That a trespass occurs when one enters onto or remains on another's property without the effective consent of the owner after notification
2. Notification, which includes...
....a. oral notification
....b. written notification
....c. signage notification
....d. some form of required conspicuousness and clear visibility to the public of the signage
and in all three sections, very importantly...
....e. that the definition of having been notified sufficient to satisfy the mechanics of each section relating to signage depends ONLY ON THE PROPER compliance and posting of the signage. Nothing in the sections, as written, requires any action or lack of action on the part of the actor to observe the signage as part of the fulfillment of having been notified.
We may THINK we have to see the sign. It may SEEM OBVIOUS that the sign must have been seen to have been notified. We may INTERPRET that the actor must see the sign. But, as written, there is no REQUIREMENT in the statutes that the signage actually be seen by the actor for the actor to have been notified by rule.
In fact, 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07 go out of their way to define notification, and in all three sections notification, as it relates to signs, is solely dependent on the proper posting and compliance of the sign. This is not unlike driving down the highway and not seeing a 55 mph speed limit sign because an 18 wheeler was between you and the sign. You are still required to drive 55 mph and failure to see the sign is unnecessary to determine that you are guilty of violating the sign. In the case of 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 you have been notified none the less according to the recipe for notification under all three sections.
One can take this even farther. If I have been notified due to the compliance of the statutory definition of notification as I walk in the front door, then I, by the same logic, have been notified if I am 50 ft from the door...since my proximity to the actual signage is not a part of the definition or requirements of notification. And if I am just stepping out of my car I am still in a state of having been notified because of those same rules of notification. And if I am notified as I exit my vehicle then why not as I sit in my living room. In other words, the world has been put on proper notice that a trespass will occur under certain conditions by the act of properly posting compliant signage as per statute...whether or not the world ever sees the sign notification or not!
AS LONG AS THE SIGNS ARE (in all three sections by one definition or the other,) CONSPICUOUS AND VISIBLE.
30.06 and 30.07 use the word conspicuous. The arguments rage and continue.
Here is how 30.05 defines its requirement for visibility...
"...a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, (notice the choice of placement) reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden."
This is a very good definition of 'conspicuous' as it relates to intrusive entry. If we refine that definition for any sign for any purpose, such as, 'LIMIT 2 PER CUSTOMER', the definition might read...'a sign or signs posted in such a way that they are reasonably likely to come to the attention of the persons for whom the message thereon is intended.'
If we use this definition we find in 30.05 and plug it in to 30.06 and 30.07, we have a clearer understanding of what the legislators probably meant when they choose to use 'displayed in a conspicuous manner...' after having used the phrase '...reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders...' in the previous trespassing section.
So, in short, and as counter intuitive as that may seem, it is clear that the fact that you actually see the sign is not a prerequisite of your having been properly and legally notified. Must you drive around the property to find the signs before you enter? You shouldn't have to if the signs are properly conspicuous and reasonably likely to come to your attention. A small compliant sign on the entrance you enter into, IF IT IS LEGALLY CONSPICUOUS....HAS MET THE DEFINITION OF CONSPICUOUSNESS and, if it is clearly visible to the public (or in the case of 30.05 reasonably likely to come to the attention of an intruder), YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED, and it doesn't matter if you see it or not.
If a single, huge, compliant 50 foot billboard posted somewhere on the parking lot IS CONSPICUOUS...IT HAS MET THE DEFINITION OF CONSPICUOUSNESS and, if it is clearly visible to the public (or in the case of 30.05 reasonably likely to come to the attention of an intruder), YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED, and it doesn't matter if you see it or not (as long as it was reasonably likely to come to your attention using my 30.05 interpretation of conspicuousness). It would follow that as the more complex and convoluted the design of a structure is the more signage is necessary and is directly proportional to the size and placements of the signs. A very complicated mall structure might need 20 small signs or one gigantic billboard in the parking lot...
as far as meeting the requirements of notification in 30.05, 30.06, or 30.07 are concerned.
And remember, there are two posting requirements...
1. in 30.05, posted on the PROPERTY or ENTRANCE to the PROPERTY (notice that it says PROPERTY, not doors)
2. posted on the PROPERTY in 30.06(notice that it doesn't say where on the property)
3. posted at each entrance to the PROPERTY IN 30.07 (notice that it doesn't specify that entrance to THE PROPERTY = doors)
and that
1. in the case of 30.05 the signs are ..." reasonably likely to come to the attention of an intruder...
2. in the case of 30.06 and 30.07 the signs are posted conspicuously and 'clearly visible to the public'.
My intent here is not to suggest what one does in any particular circumstance. Nor does this disregard the discretion of lower trial courts to impose their interpretations of this or any statute at trial. My intent is to bring attention to the basics of what the statute says and only what the statute says as a study, free from added interpretations or embellishments.
hope this helps.
tex