51% Sign Legality?

This forum is for general legislative discussions not specific to any given legislative session. It will remain open.

Moderator: carlson1

Post Reply

Topic author
CalAlumnus
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2018 3:42 pm

51% Sign Legality?

#1

Post by CalAlumnus » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:53 am

I'm hoping to get some clarity on when 51% signs are binding...

Government Code 46.035 (b)(1) prohibits carry at 51% locations.

Government Code 46.035(k) provides: "It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (b)(1) that the actor was not given effective notice under Section 411.204, Government Code."

Government Code Section 411.204 provides: "The sign required under Subsections (a) and (b) must give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the number '51' printed in solid red at least five inches in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

Many 51% locations I've seen only have English signs posted. Does this mean that someone who carries in such a location would have a defense to prosecution?

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4828
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: 51% Sign Legality?

#2

Post by Jusme » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:06 am

Not unless you can prove you don't speak English. :mrgreen:

Seriously though, if there is a big red 51% sign posted, it would behoove you not to be caught carrying. I have entered an establishment, and not seen any signs, until I was well inside the door, and they were posted above the bar area, of the restaurant. I promptly left. I then checked the TABC website, and found out that their signs were incorrect. They should have been posted with Blue TABC signs. I put in a complaint with the TABC.

YMMV but I would not rely on a technicality, like sign language, to try and "get by" with anything. Being arrested, charged with UCW, and having my LTC revoked, on the "hope" that the judge or jury, would see things my way, is too large, of a risk. There are too many other establishments to get what I want. JMHO
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7652
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: 51% Sign Legality?

#3

Post by RoyGBiv » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:24 am

^^ Exactly this. :iagree:
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4554
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: 51% Sign Legality?

#4

Post by bblhd672 » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:33 am

Jusme wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:06 am
Not unless you can prove you don't speak English. :mrgreen:

Seriously though, if there is a big red 51% sign posted, it would behoove you not to be caught carrying. I have entered an establishment, and not seen any signs, until I was well inside the door, and they were posted above the bar area, of the restaurant. I promptly left. I then checked the TABC website, and found out that their signs were incorrect. They should have been posted with Blue TABC signs. I put in a complaint with the TABC.

YMMV but I would not rely on a technicality, like sign language, to try and "get by" with anything. Being arrested, charged with UCW, and having my LTC revoked, on the "hope" that the judge or jury, would see things my way, is too large, of a risk. There are too many other establishments to get what I want. JMHO
:iagree: Clarity: You correctly identified the sign, don’t carry there. Use the TABC app to alert the TABC about the improper signage.
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager

User avatar

oohrah
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: McLennan County

Re: 51% Sign Legality?

#5

Post by oohrah » Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:07 am

And I can tell you from personal experience that TABC will act. I even got a call from an agent asking for more info on a report I registered with the app.
USMC, Retired
Treating one variety of person as better or worse than others by accident of birth is morally indefensible.


jordanmills
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:42 am

Re: 51% Sign Legality?

#6

Post by jordanmills » Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:46 pm

Jusme wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:06 am
Not unless you can prove you don't speak English. :mrgreen:

Seriously though, if there is a big red 51% sign posted, it would behoove you not to be caught carrying. I have entered an establishment, and not seen any signs, until I was well inside the door, and they were posted above the bar area, of the restaurant. I promptly left. I then checked the TABC website, and found out that their signs were incorrect. They should have been posted with Blue TABC signs. I put in a complaint with the TABC.

YMMV but I would not rely on a technicality, like sign language, to try and "get by" with anything. Being arrested, charged with UCW, and having my LTC revoked, on the "hope" that the judge or jury, would see things my way, is too large, of a risk. There are too many other establishments to get what I want. JMHO
It's not a technicality. It's not meeting a clear and fairly objective standard for giving required notice that is a condition for a charge to apply.

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4510
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 51% Sign Legality?

#7

Post by ScottDLS » Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:13 pm

jordanmills wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:46 pm
Jusme wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:06 am
Not unless you can prove you don't speak English. :mrgreen:

Seriously though, if there is a big red 51% sign posted, it would behoove you not to be caught carrying. I have entered an establishment, and not seen any signs, until I was well inside the door, and they were posted above the bar area, of the restaurant. I promptly left. I then checked the TABC website, and found out that their signs were incorrect. They should have been posted with Blue TABC signs. I put in a complaint with the TABC.

YMMV but I would not rely on a technicality, like sign language, to try and "get by" with anything. Being arrested, charged with UCW, and having my LTC revoked, on the "hope" that the judge or jury, would see things my way, is too large, of a risk. There are too many other establishments to get what I want. JMHO
It's not a technicality. It's not meeting a clear and fairly objective standard for giving required notice that is a condition for a charge to apply.
:iagree:


It's kind of like saying carrying with a LTC is a technicality because the 46.15 non-applicability has been ruled a Defense to Prosecution. :rules:
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4828
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: 51% Sign Legality?

#8

Post by Jusme » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:33 pm

jordanmills wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:46 pm
Jusme wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:06 am
Not unless you can prove you don't speak English. :mrgreen:

Seriously though, if there is a big red 51% sign posted, it would behoove you not to be caught carrying. I have entered an establishment, and not seen any signs, until I was well inside the door, and they were posted above the bar area, of the restaurant. I promptly left. I then checked the TABC website, and found out that their signs were incorrect. They should have been posted with Blue TABC signs. I put in a complaint with the TABC.

YMMV but I would not rely on a technicality, like sign language, to try and "get by" with anything. Being arrested, charged with UCW, and having my LTC revoked, on the "hope" that the judge or jury, would see things my way, is too large, of a risk. There are too many other establishments to get what I want. JMHO
It's not a technicality. It's not meeting a clear and fairly objective standard for giving required notice that is a condition for a charge to apply.

Maybe it's not a "technicality" but, to me the risk is greater, than the " possible" reward. I don't possess, the funds necessary, to risk being arrested, jailed, for an indeterminate amount of time, while my family suffers, from my lack of income, while I await, my day in court, to show, my expertise, on the actual wording on the law.
There are alternatives, to getting, an establishment, to comply with the letter of the law, without, risking my freedom, reputation, and employment. JMHO
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

Post Reply

Return to “General Legislative Discussions”