stroo wrote:I have seen a "No Weapons" sign along with 30.6/30.07 signs.
But was it a valid 30.05
sign? Again, I'm not a lawyer ... but In my layman's opinion "No (people of a certain race/age/gender)" or "No Ice cream" "No tobacco products" (prohibiting a CONCEALED snuff can in a pocket) may not be
valid 30.05 signs
Signs below are posted as examples without comment on their validity
This topic was discussed previously, I like how Scott put it http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 5#p1078739
thetexan wrote:I'm sorry I made an edit which makes my post not what you said.
"In fact I maintain that once notification was given in the form of that sign you violated 30.05a1 in that you had notice that the entry was forbidden and that walking through the door consumated the trespass in which case he did not even need to tell you again."
This is not the way 30.05 has been interpreted to date as far as I am able to tell. As an owner who opens his business to the public, you do not automatically gain the criminal power of the state to exclude people based on arbitrary criteria. The SIGN requirements in 30.05 are designed to exclude people from entering the property at all in the case of private property (NO TRESPASS, purple paint, fence, etc.). Enforcing the "rules" that you specify can be initiated by oral notice to the person that is violating them, or by written notice that the individual is NO LONGER allowed on the property for whatever reason (usually in presence of a peace officer).
Violating the NO WEAPONS, NO HATS, NO BRIEFS (only boxers),
NO COPS, or NO Republicans signs
isn't an automatic Class B or A...or hasn't ever been held to be as far as I know.
In fact, that's one of the reasons for the 30.06/7 sign requirements being so specific about what constitutes notice that a "behavior" is prohibited.
Finally: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 0#p1079799
" a jury would ultimately decide "
LucasMcCain wrote:I got an answer back from my lawyer. I will post it here in its entirety. It's not quite as cut and dried as I would like, but I think it's about as detailed as we are likely to get. Hope this helps.
There is not a special criminal trespass sign for the carrying of a long gun, as there is for the carrying of a handgun by a license holder under TPC 30.06 and 30.07. For that reason, someone who trespasses with a long gun would likely be charged for trespass under TPC 30.05.
For property that is not open to the public, if you enter or remain on the property of another without effective consent, then any notice that entry is forbidden provided for under 30.05(b)(2) would be sufficient.
TPC 30.05(b)(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land; or
(E) the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry.
Given that the trespasser in your scenario is carrying a long gun, an offense under this section would be a Class A misdemeanor under TPC 30.05(d)(3)(B).
For property that is open to the public, “notice” would likely require:
TPC 30.05(b)(2)(A) – oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner (that entry on to the property with a firearm or long gun is prohibited); or
30.05(b)(2)(C) – a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden (with a firearm or long gun).
As to the specific language necessary to communicate that entry is forbidden if someone is carrying a long gun (“no guns,” “no firearms,” “gun buster,” etc.), a jury would ultimately decide if the language used gave the defendant sufficient notice.
On offense under this section would be a Class A misdemeanor under TPC 30.05(d)(3)(B).
That means, unless it states 30.05 and is a valid 30.05 sign where they intend 30.05 to apply and it states 30.05 applies (and there is no exemption nor exception such as exists for those licensed to carry handguns) THEN I'd need to ask the jury in order to make an informed decision whether to obey or disregard a sign prior to entering.
So, to me if language which is "Vague Ambiguous and overly broad" such that I cannot tell if 30.05 applies or not
..it is probably merely a wish that I don't spit tobacco juice in their potted plant does not indicate whether I must return to my car and remove my snuff can from my pocket or if I'm ok as long ad it's concealed and I don't brandish the can or fire off any spits into the plants... If I don't know what the sign means, whether it's a wish like a ghostbuster sign or if 30.05 was intended to apply, I cannot make a decision to comply or not .. kind of like a sign on private property that we must all drive on the left side of the parking lot aisles, Police won't write a citation, the sign has no force of law for that, it may be a rule or a wish they concocted. Again IANAL