Gun shows posted 30.06 / 30.07

[Soccerdad1995]

OK, here's something I just thought of and I would like to get y'all's opinion.

Let's say a gun show is posted with valid 30.06 and 30.07 signage, and is not held on government owned property. There are officers at the door checking guns that you bring in for sale. They verify the guns are unloaded, zip tie them, and then allow you to place the gun in a case that you can carry throughout the venue. They also allow you to remove the gun from the case to show it to prospective buyers.

If you have a LTC, then how are you not violating 30.06? I believe that carrying a gun in a case that is in your hand meets the definition of carrying concealed (if not that solves a host of other 30.06 issues). Is it because you are not carrying under the authority of your LTC while at the gun show, so the 30.06 sign never applies in the first place? Or is it possible to get conditional verbal authority that overrides a 30.06 restriction, but only so long as you follow the conditions laid out by the owner? If you then violate those conditions, could you be charged with a 30.06 violation if you were willing to leave if / when asked?

Basically, I am wondering whether a 30.06 sign could be enforced at all in such a situation where representatives of the Gun Show management are openly allowing people to carry weapons in spite of the signage?

[bmwrdr]

The only difference is a concealed handgun is assumed to be loaded and the checked in gun is checked an unloaded.

[warnmar10]

The only difference is a concealed handgun is assumed to be loaded and the checked in gun is checked an unloaded.

Is that distinction in the law or the lore?

[Liberty]

I believe that A 30.06/07 sign can be overruled by some in authority of the premises and I assume of the event.

[Soccerdad1995]

I believe that A 30.06/07 sign can be overruled by some in authority of the premises and I assume of the event.

So does that invalidate the 30.06 sign as a whole meaning I can no longer be arrested if someone happens to see my CC gun? They could presumably still ask me to leave, but it would be a huge difference if there was no longer a risk of a criminal violation without first being asked to leave.

And if it matters, assume that I am carrying concealed and also bringing a gun in for sale. Does the "overruling" not then apply to me as a whole with respect to the 30.06 sign?

[flechero]

assume that...

You can't reason this... if reason applied to the situation, the "rules" would be different.

The only assumption that I'd make in this case is that the ride would not be worth the cost, even if you eventually beat it. I leave my weapon in the car or unload and carry in as if I were selling.

[Soccerdad1995]

assume that...

You can't reason this... if reason applied to the situation, the "rules" would be different.

The only assumption that I'd make in this case is that the ride would not be worth the cost, even if you eventually beat it. I leave my weapon in the car or unload and carry in as if I were selling.

Ah, the "RIDE (oh the horror!!!!!). Well I choose to not live my life in fear of a wrongful arrest. I'm not that worried about being wrongfully arrested or charged for a variety of reasons, including the fact that a "ride" is unlikely for an offense with a max $200 fine, and besides that there is no way to completely avoid the risk of arrest for something that is not illegal. A LEO could arrest me right now as I am sitting in my office because they wrongfully believe that wearing shoes is illegal. Yes, some LEO's are ignorant. Fortunately, most aren't, But even if they are that ignorant, there isn't much I can do other than seek compensation after the fact. I choose instead to live my life enjoying all of my freedoms to the maximum extent that I am allowed to do so in compliance with the law.

For this thread, I am just concerned with whether one would in fact be in violation of section 30.06 in the above scenario. I realized others might also be afraid of various monsters under their beds. But that is an endless and unavoidable topic that isn't really something you can fully avoid.

[Lynyrd]

I will not get into an argument about your scenario. But I will offer this as a comparison. I work behind 30.06/30.07 signs, and yet I carry every day legally, and with the permission of my employer. I actually have written consent. If you walk into the building where I work carrying your weapon you are guilty of criminal trespass, yet I am not. Same sign, different set of rules for different people. The owner of the property has chosen this to be his weapons policy, and since he owns the property he gets to decide.

How is that different from a gun show held on privately owned property? I'll let the lawyers argue about that question. But the similarity is that the property owner has the right to decide who can carry on their property and who cannot.

[Soccerdad1995]

I will not get into an argument about your scenario. But I will offer this as a comparison. I work behind 30.06/30.07 signs, and yet I carry every day legally, and with the permission of my employer. I actually have written consent. If you walk into the building where I work carrying your weapon you are guilty of criminal trespass, yet I am not. Same sign, different set of rules for different people. The owner of the property has chosen this to be his weapons policy, and since he owns the property he gets to decide.

How is that different from a gun show held on privately owned property? I'll let the lawyers argue about that question. But the similarity is that the property owner has the right to decide who can carry on their property and who cannot.

I agree with your post completely. The thing I disagree with is letting fear of "the ride" keep you from doing things which are completely legal. There are a lot of people on this forum who fall into that trap. And once we are there, further discussion is pointless since any legal activity could possibly increase your chances of being arrested for something that is not illegal.

I am similarly not worried about cases where I might violate the owners / operators policies and be asked to leave. They have the right to ask me to leave for any reason (I am not a member of a protected class), and I respect that. I will always leave when asked. I just don't want to violate the law prior to being asked to leave.

In your work example, that is black and white. The law says that your employer can give you verbal authority which overrides the 30.06 sign. In the same way, the gun show operator can give people verbal (or possibly written) authority which overrides the 30.06 signage. This is obviously the case since the officers doing the zip tying are not issuing everyone a citation for having just carried past the 30.06 sign. My question is whether that verbal authority negates the 30.06: A) In general for everyone who visits the show; B) Only for those people who are actually bringing guns that are zip tied; or C) Only for those specific guns that are actually being zip tied, but not for any other gun that same person may be carrying concealed.

I can see A or B being possibilities under the law, but I can't see how the law allows for C, unless it is possible to allow conditional overrides of a valid 30.06 sign. If that were the case, then a store owner could post a valid 30.06 sign and another sign right next to it saying that you have permission to carry past that sign so long as you are compliant with the store's dress code prohibiting hoodies, or whatever. While this is an interesting idea, I don't think this is consistent with the law.

[twomillenium]

PC 30.05 Criminal Trespass defines the trespass that occurs without "effective consent". IMO Effective consent is given when the firearm has been checked and ziplocked so that it cannot be used in this condition. Effective consent is given as long as the conditions presented by the owner or those in authority are followed. Since the 06 and 07 signs are present at entrance then that would mean no concealed or open carry that is not in the conditions authorized by the event.

[Soccerdad1995]

PC 30.05 Criminal Trespass defines the trespass that occurs without "effective consent". IMO Effective consent is given when the firearm has been checked and ziplocked so that it cannot be used in this condition. Effective consent is given as long as the conditions presented by the owner or those in authority are followed. Since the 06 and 07 signs are present at entrance then that would mean no concealed or open carry that is not in the conditions authorized by the event.

I thought that PC30.05 did not apply to LTC holders if the reason for the trespass was the carrying of a handgun. Wasn't this the whole reason that 30.06 was passed the first place? Because of fears that a generic "gun buster" sign could run afoul of 30.05?

ETA the relevant text from 30.05

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:


(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden;  and


(2) the person was carrying:


(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,  [FN1]+ to carry a handgun;  and


(B) a handgun:


(i) in a concealed manner;  or


(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

[rotor]

Hypothetical question. A 30.06/07 is posted and you walk into a business open carrying. Does a LEO have the ability to ticket you right then and there for carrying past the sign? Now if this is a red 51% sign that is a felony and a ride (I assume) but what about walking past that 06/07 sign? Does it require the property owner/ business owner to make the complaint first? As noted, some people have written permission to carry past an 06/07 sign. So, is it an automatic trespass crossing that sign that can be acted on by LEO without the property owner first asking the LEO to proceed?
That information to me would be valuable in knowing how one can carry a gun into a posted gunshow.

[flechero]

assume that...

You can't reason this... if reason applied to the situation, the "rules" would be different.

The only assumption that I'd make in this case is that the ride would not be worth the cost, even if you eventually beat it. I leave my weapon in the car or unload and carry in as if I were selling.

Ah, the "RIDE (oh the horror!!!!!). Well I choose to not live my life in fear of a wrongful arrest. I'm not that worried about being wrongfully arrested or charged for a variety of reasons, including the fact that a "ride" is unlikely for an offense with a max $200 fine, and besides that there is no way to completely avoid the risk of arrest for something that is not illegal. A LEO could arrest me right now as I am sitting in my office because they wrongfully believe that wearing shoes is illegal. Yes, some LEO's are ignorant. Fortunately, most aren't, But even if they are that ignorant, there isn't much I can do other than seek compensation after the fact. I choose instead to live my life enjoying all of my freedoms to the maximum extent that I am allowed to do so in compliance with the law.

For this thread, I am just concerned with whether one would in fact be in violation of section 30.06 in the above scenario. I realized others might also be afraid of various monsters under their beds. But that is an endless and unavoidable topic that isn't really something you can fully avoid.

I could live without the condescension, thank you.

I have lived and walked in a lot of gray area in my life but there are a few places where the "risk" of a wrongful ride or other consequence outweighs the risk in carrying. Since I live in Bell county and there is a rich history of poor CHL treatment, combined with about 2 dozen sherrif's deputies at the small gun shows (including the parking lots) I feel less risk walking into the show and back out without my carry gun loaded. Under other circumstances, different behavior applies.

If any of this gunshow signage was cut and dried we wouldn't have any threads on it... let alone one or two a month. And it's been proven over and over that many shows are posted improperly. THat doesn't stop the metal detectors or the leo's from making people comply. Asfor compensation for a wrongful arrest... best of luck with that! Most are very fortunate not to have other charges added to cover the initial error.

[BBYC]

I won't give my money to a movie theater that posts anti-LTC signs, so I sure wouldn't give my money to a gun show that posts. It's rare enough to find anything cheaper at a gun show than online these days anyway.

Legally, I don't see where the anti-LTC sign law makes a distinction between loaded or unloaded, revolver or semi-auto, etc. If a business charges an entry fee and lets you in after paying, that is pretty effective consent to enter.

[Soccerdad1995]

assume that...

You can't reason this... if reason applied to the situation, the "rules" would be different.

The only assumption that I'd make in this case is that the ride would not be worth the cost, even if you eventually beat it. I leave my weapon in the car or unload and carry in as if I were selling.

Ah, the "RIDE (oh the horror!!!!!). Well I choose to not live my life in fear of a wrongful arrest. I'm not that worried about being wrongfully arrested or charged for a variety of reasons, including the fact that a "ride" is unlikely for an offense with a max $200 fine, and besides that there is no way to completely avoid the risk of arrest for something that is not illegal. A LEO could arrest me right now as I am sitting in my office because they wrongfully believe that wearing shoes is illegal. Yes, some LEO's are ignorant. Fortunately, most aren't, But even if they are that ignorant, there isn't much I can do other than seek compensation after the fact. I choose instead to live my life enjoying all of my freedoms to the maximum extent that I am allowed to do so in compliance with the law.

For this thread, I am just concerned with whether one would in fact be in violation of section 30.06 in the above scenario. I realized others might also be afraid of various monsters under their beds. But that is an endless and unavoidable topic that isn't really something you can fully avoid.

I could live without the condescension, thank you.

I have lived and walked in a lot of gray area in my life but there are a few places where the "risk" of a wrongful ride or other consequence outweighs the risk in carrying. Since I live in Bell county and there is a rich history of poor CHL treatment, combined with about 2 dozen sherrif's deputies at the small gun shows (including the parking lots) I feel less risk walking into the show and back out without my carry gun loaded. Under other circumstances, different behavior applies.

If any of this gunshow signage was cut and dried we wouldn't have any threads on it... let alone one or two a month. And it's been proven over and over that many shows are posted improperly. THat doesn't stop the metal detectors or the leo's from making people comply. Asfor compensation for a wrongful arrest... best of luck with that! Most are very fortunate not to have other charges added to cover the initial error.

First off, I apologize for the condescension.

I just get very tired of the fear that a lot of folks here have about being arrested for things that are not illegal. Yes, there are ignorant LEO's out there who might make an honest mistake and cite someone for a crime they didn't commit. Yes there are also power hungry LEO's who will cite or otherwise harass law abiding folks because they are on a power trip. But I maintain my faith that the majority of LEO's fall into neither category and will not arrest someone who is obeying all laws. If we feel that these "bad apple" LEO's are more than a minority, then other action may be appropriate. Far too many of our citizens choose to live in fear of our LEO servants, IMHO. When this fear is taken to the extreme, people will be afraid to get out of bed for fear of being arrested. And you may be right that we have little recourse or hope for fair compensation in those cases of government / LEO over reach. All I can say is that when people believe that they have no possibility for justice within the system, they will eventually change the system, one way or the other. But we are getting pretty far afield here.

Getting back to the point of my OP, I think a lot of the gun show related legal issues are actually cut and dried. It is not illegal for me to carry a concealed gun into a gun show that is held at the GRB convention center in Houston, for example, because that facility is government owned. This is true regardless of any signage that may be present. By contrast, I don't think the issue I asked about in my OP is cut and dried. Which is why I asked the question about the law.