Concealed Rifle Carry passed this sign?

[thetexan]

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."

[ScottDLS]

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.

[NotRPB]

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.

At least it sounds right to me.




I think you'd at the very least need to add language to the sign to have 30.05 apply.

[thetexan]

Your logic is faulty. You agree that once one has entered the building and have been told to leave by the owner then failure to do so constitutes trespass, yet, being told that entry is forbidden prior to the fact has no prohibitive authority.

If the owner can legally insist that one leave as a result of one not respecting the owners's stipulated conditions of his presence on the owner's property then it follows that the owner can enforce that stipulation prior to entry by notification that failing to meet those certain stipulated conditions constitutes unwelcomeness and thereby trespass.

30.05 is clear that the owner may give notice that entry is not allowed (prior to entry) and, after entry, may give notice to leave. Both events have the same thing in common...the owner's unwillingness to allow your presence. The reason the owner gives to REQUIRE your leaving can be the very same reason he REQUIRES you not to enter.

The only question remains is the method of notification. If he gives oral notice to leave once you are inside he can, by the same reasoning, give that notice by holding up a sign in front of your face that reads "No Shirtless Patrons...GET OUT NOW!"

And by the same reasoning he can stand outside and inform you "You can't come in without a shirt!". If you defy his requirement after that notification you ARE trespassing. And,by the same reasoning the owner can simply hold up a sign in front of your face which reads "You can't come in without a shirt!". Defying that notification constitutes trespass. In either case failure to comply with the owners wishes and his withholding of his consent or effective consent to entry constitutes 30.05 trespass by definition.

All that's left is to do is to determine the legally acceptable reasons that may be used by an owner to withhold entry. Both the federal and state governments have made a list of unacceptable reasons to discriminate so most of that work has already been done.

If the owner doesn't want weapons he may so stipulate and give notice accordingly. Keep in mind if that stipulation is intended to prohibit carry licensed handguns the the law requires that notification to be in the form of 30.06/.07. I find no statutory requirement for the signage language used to prohibit red heads, shirtless or shoeless patrons, weapons (other than carry licensed handguns) or hats.

Arguments that this allows the owner to keep out police????? Please. Reductio ad adsurdum.

So again, the "No Weapons" language in addition to the 30.06/.07 notifies any persons wishing entry into the owner's property that the owner's consent or effective consent concerning other weapons IS NOT GIVEN and any defiance of that owner's requirement to entry constitutes 30.05 trespass which gives the owner the right to press charges and thus may result in your criminal arrest.

tex

[rotor]

thetexan argument is very good. I don't know who is right now. But, the picture next to the no weapons sign shows a knife and a handgun slashed out. It does not show a rifle. So in this case can we interpret the no weapons sign to mean no knives or handguns? More debate.

[casp625]

Your logic is faulty. You agree that once one has entered the building and have been told to leave by the owner then failure to do so constitutes trespass, yet, being told that entry is forbidden prior to the fact has no prohibitive authority.

If the owner can legally insist that one leave as a result of one not respecting the owners's stipulated conditions of his presence on the owner's property then it follows that the owner can enforce that stipulation prior to entry by notification that failing to meet those certain stipulated conditions constitutes unwelcomeness and thereby trespass.

30.05 is clear that the owner may give notice that entry is not allowed (prior to entry) and, after entry, may give notice to leave. Both events have the same thing in common...the owner's unwillingness to allow your presence. The reason the owner gives to REQUIRE your leaving can be the very same reason he REQUIRES you not to enter.

The only question remains is the method of notification. If he gives oral notice to leave once you are inside he can, by the same reasoning, give that notice by holding up a sign in front of your face that reads "No Shirtless Patrons...GET OUT NOW!"

And by the same reasoning he can stand outside and inform you "You can't come in without a shirt!". If you defy his requirement after that notification you ARE trespassing. And,by the same reasoning the owner can simply hold up a sign in front of your face which reads "You can't come in without a shirt!". Defying that notification constitutes trespass. In either case failure to comply with the owners wishes and his withholding of his consent or effective consent to entry constitutes 30.05 trespass by definition.

All that's left is to do is to determine the legally acceptable reasons that may be used by an owner to withhold entry. Both the federal and state governments have made a list of unacceptable reasons to discriminate so most of that work has already been done.

If the owner doesn't want weapons he may so stipulate and give notice accordingly. Keep in mind if that stipulation is intended to prohibit carry licensed handguns the the law requires that notification to be in the form of 30.06/.07. I find no statutory requirement for the signage language used to prohibit red heads, shirtless or shoeless patrons, weapons (other than carry licensed handguns) or hats.

Arguments that this allows the owner to keep out police????? Please. Reductio ad adsurdum.

So again, the "No Weapons" language in addition to the 30.06/.07 notifies any persons wishing entry into the owner's property that the owner's consent or effective consent concerning other weapons IS NOT GIVEN and any defiance of that owner's requirement to entry constitutes 30.05 trespass which gives the owner the right to press charges and thus may result in your criminal arrest.

tex

Using that logic, any business could place a "no trespassing" sign at the entrance to their business. Everyone who enters the business reads the sign but enters anyway. The owner then indiscriminately decides that every third person entering is "trespassing" and calls the cops without any other notification. The owner states he wants to press charges, so a trespassing charge should stick, yes?

[Scott in Houston]

thetexan argument is very good. I don't know who is right now. But, the picture next to the no weapons sign shows a knife and a handgun slashed out. It does not show a rifle. So in this case can we interpret the no weapons sign to mean no knives or handguns? More debate.

What we're witnessing is what would be argued by each side in court. Essentially, there is no right or wrong answer yet. It hasn't been tried and there's no real precedent for this.

The nuance that I believe 'thetexan' is missing is the difference between a publicly available property, like a hospital, and a typical private property owned by someone such as a residence.
The signs mean much more when it's a fenced property.

But when you're a publicly available property, there's no way that any reasonable person can say that a "not hats" sign would justify an arrest based on the sign alone, under 30.05. The same standard would apply to "no weapons" or or other similar warnings.

However, if someone jumps a fence or enters a gate to a private property residence and is carrying a gun, a call to the police would likely result in an arrest and an additional charge for being armed while doing so. There's no expectation or assumption that a verbal notice or confrontation would be warranted... You cannot say that for publicly available properties.

That's a nuance that would have to be argued in front of a jury and/or judge to determine the real answer.
Personally, since the odds are so slim that you'd be 'caught' carrying a rifle, I'm willing to risk it with the payoff being able to defend myself and family if needed.

I believe I'd win at trial and I'd rather have that trial than a funeral to bury a family member or have them bury me!

[goose]

And,by the same reasoning the owner can simply hold up a sign in front of your face which reads "You can't come in without a shirt!". Defying that notification constitutes trespass.
tex

What if it is a smallish sign? Down in the corner of the entry way, not in particularly contrasting colors. Does that meet the requirements of 30.05 as stipulated in section with the five methods for posting a property? What if it is mixed in with all of the Chamber of Commerce, Lions Club and ADT Security monitoring stickers? Are we expected to look through all of the signage and marketing hype on the entry way to some stores? Has a person ever been committed of trespass for not wearing a shirt inside a property with a "No Shoes, No Shirt" sign, without having been asked to leave?

[NotRPB]

thetexan argument is very good. I don't know who is right now. But, the picture next to the no weapons sign shows a knife and a handgun slashed out. It does not show a rifle. So in this case can we interpret the no weapons sign to mean no knives or handguns? More debate.

What we're witnessing is what would be argued by each side in court. Essentially, there is no right or wrong answer yet. It hasn't been tried and there's no real precedent for this.

The nuance that I believe 'thetexan' is missing is the difference between a publicly available property, like a hospital, and a typical private property owned by someone such as a residence.
The signs mean much more when it's a fenced property.

But when you're a publicly available property, there's no way that any reasonable person can say that a "not hats" sign would justify an arrest based on the sign alone, under 30.05. The same standard would apply to "no weapons" or or other similar warnings.

However, if someone jumps a fence or enters a gate to a private property residence and is carrying a gun, a call to the police would likely result in an arrest and an additional charge for being armed while doing so. There's no expectation or assumption that a verbal notice or confrontation would be warranted... You cannot say that for publicly available properties.

That's a nuance that would have to be argued in front of a jury and/or judge to determine the real answer.
Personally, since the odds are so slim that you'd be 'caught' carrying a concealed<(<Added by notRPB, hope you don't mind Scott) rifle, I'm willing to risk it with the payoff being able to defend myself and family if needed.

I believe I'd win at trial and I'd rather have that trial than a funeral to bury a family member or have them bury me!

Thanks Scott you woke my mind this morning.

Difference between a "business" and "private" residence/agricultural land etc

The term "business INVITEE" comes to mind with businesses
https://www.google.com/#q=business+invitee

ISSUE:
How can an invitee, one who was invited, be a trespassing, since they were invited?

I don't have Texas Pattern Jury Charges handy, here's Vermont for "business Invitee" and trespasser definitions
http://www.vtbar.org/UserFiles/Files/We ... bility.htm
Vermont Civil Jury Instruction Committee

Plain English Jury Instructions

Section 5. Premises Liability

5.0 Premises Liability—Definition of “business invitee,” “licensee,” and “trespasser.”

This is a case of premises liability. From a legal point of view, it makes a difference whether [name of plaintiff] was a “business invitee,” a “licensee,” or a “trespasser.”

A “business invitee” is someone who entered or remained on a person’s property for a business purpose.

A “licensee” is someone who came onto or remained on someone’s property for his own reasons and for no benefit to the owner of the property.

A “trespasser” is someone who came onto or remained on someone’s property without permission from the owner or without a legal reason to be there.

Anyone have easy access to Texas Pattern Jury Charges ?
probably look in
Texas Pattern Jury Charges

Malpractice, Premise & Products
65 Premises Liability – Definitions and Instructions
66 Premises Liability – Theories of Recovery
and
Criminal – Property Crimes
4 Burglary and Criminal Trespass
Those would be the instructions and definitions received by a jury which would decide, and that may answer this issue, or at least shed a better light on the discussion.

It may even be available online to some persons https://www.google.com/#q=Texas+Pattern+Jury+Charges

[thetexan]

Using that logic, any business could place a "no trespassing" sign at the entrance to their business. Everyone who enters the business reads the sign but enters anyway. The owner then indiscriminately decides that every third person entering is "trespassing" and calls the cops without any other notification. The owner states he wants to press charges, so a trespassing charge should stick, yes?

Yes he could be 'indiscriminate'. But that indiscriminate application of the trespass rule itself would be grounds, I believe, for a law suit. I believe the owner would have to apply whatever screening he chose to apply consistently and ubiquitously for it to hold up in court. Even then the court may find that discriminating against a particular thing may be unreasonable. But that unreasonableness would stand or fall on its own merit at trial under the spotlight of presenting evidence to a 'reasonable' jury. It would be the thing used to trigger trespass that would be on trial, not the theory of 30.05 trespass itself or the owner's right to invoke 30.05 at his discretion or the mechanism of applying 30.05 as per ..."without effective consent and the person: (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or (2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.".

The nuance that I believe 'thetexan' is missing is the difference between a publicly available property, like a hospital, and a typical private property owned by someone such as a residence. The signs mean much more when it's a fenced property.

30.05 does not differentiate between private or public property. There is government owned (publicly owned) property and private property. The Microsoft campus is private property. McDonnalds is private property. Your house is private property. The 30.05 triggering mechanism starts when "the person enters or remains on in property of another". Some property allows public access like McDonnalds, Microsoft, etc and there are certain rules that govern how the owner must interact with that public. McDonnalds may refuse entry to persons with no shirt under their ownership sovereignty using the rules of 30.05 (in Texas) and within the constraints of the 'other' rules allowed by law.

This is all an interesting and friendly debate and it serves to hone our understanding to a fine edge. My original point was that usually we teach students to disregard any icons, pictures, extra wording on 30.06/.07 signs as not germane to the prohibition instructed in those signs and their mandated language. Then it occurred to me that the "No Weapons" language on that sign probably, by itself, constituted its own prohibition under the 30.05 trespass theory.

By the way, there is plenty of case law to study covering trespass.

tex

[ScottDLS]

(a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Entry” means the intrusion of the entire body.
(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;

Like 30.06 the NOTICE requirement in 30.05 is a key element. The person has to enter the property after HAVING NOTICE that the ENTRY was forbidden. Not passing by a list of rules in 12pt font...Not passing a pictogram of a Beretta...Not a two word declaration "no weapons". What does that mean anyway? No weapons are present? No weapons allowed as defined in PC 46.02 (handguns, illegal knives)? No scalpels?

The sign or signs need to indicate that entry on the property is forbidden, not declare a list of the owners' likes and dislikes. Maybe if a conspicuous sign were posted referencing PC 30.05 and that entry was forbidden under particular circumstances, you might have a case that notice was provided. (PER TXPC 30.05 ENTRANCE ONTO THIS PROPERTY IS FORBIDDEN TO PERSONS CARRYING CONCEALED LONG GUNS). It's not really what the sign requirement was aimed at, but it might fly.

However a generic: "No fat chicks allowed at Kappa Alpha" or a "circle slash cops sign", is a stretch as notice under PC 30.05, for notice that entry is forbidden to females of size, or Peace Officers.

Take a look at the attached sign for something that might be enforceable.

[LucasMcCain]

If the owner wanted to notify all persons entering that no hats were allowed then a sign to that effect would suffice. The same for requiring cell phones to be turned off. If "No Weapons" does not so notify then what would notify because clearly the owner has that right to do so and to be specific?

In short, how does an owner exercise his right prohibit weapons and how does he notify persons entering his sovereign property of that prohibition if a sign that states "NO WEAPONS" doesn't do it? (again we are talking about non Subchapter H licensed guns since 30.06/.07 are specifically required for those.

tex

There is actually an example of that specifically. I don't know if all courtrooms have them, but the Fort Worth courthouse has this prohibition posted outside its courtrooms. There is a little sign next to the door that says something to the effect of "all hats must be removed before entering the courtroom." An acquaintance I used to have named Brian wore a hat into one of the courtrooms when he and I were there in support of a friend. He was told to remove his hat, leave, or be arrested. Brian had recently suffered a burn that had made a mess of his hair (he never would tell me what happened) and so he left to avoid arrest. Could the bailiff have simply arrested Brian as soon as he walked in? I don't see anything in the law saying otherwise. As soon as he entered the room, he was trespassing, as he had been notified by way of a sign that he was violating a condition of entry. If you can be arrested for wearing a hat past a "no hats" sign, does it really seem like a stretch to think you could be arrested for carrying a gun past a "no weapons" sign?

By the way, I've asked my lawyer for as specific an answer to this issue as possible. I'll post here when I get an answer.

[ScottDLS]

Don't forget to ask him about the "no fat chicks" and "no concealed briefs" signs too...

[thetexan]

(a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Entry” means the intrusion of the entire body.
(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;

Like 30.06 the NOTICE requirement in 30.05 is a key element. The person has to enter the property after HAVING NOTICE that the ENTRY was forbidden. Not passing by a list of rules in 12pt font...Not passing a pictogram of a Beretta...Not a two word declaration "no weapons". What does that mean anyway? No weapons are present? No weapons allowed as defined in PC 46.02 (handguns, illegal knives)? No scalpels?

[1]The sign or signs need to indicate that entry on the property is forbidden, not declare a list of the owners' [2] likes and dislikes. Maybe if a conspicuous sign were posted referencing PC 30.05 and that entry was forbidden under particular circumstances, you might have a case that notice was provided. (PER TXPC 30.05 ENTRANCE ONTO THIS PROPERTY IS FORBIDDEN TO PERSONS CARRYING CONCEALED LONG GUNS). It's not really what the sign requirement was aimed at, but it might fly.

However a generic: "No fat chicks allowed at Kappa Alpha" or a "circle slash cops sign", is a stretch as notice under PC 30.05, for notice that entry is forbidden to females of size, or Peace Officers.

Take a look at the attached sign for something that might be enforceable.

IMG_0741.JPG

[1] If a sign stating "NO WEAPONS" does not indicate that entry on the property with a weapon (and this would indicate non 30.06/.07 covered weapons) is forbidden then what words out of the dictionary might the owner have to use to get that point across? If a sign that says "NO KAPPA ALPHA" doesn't express the condition of permissible entry then what sign would the owner have to post?

We are discussing two different issues, what constitutes the two notifications spoken of in 30.05 and what are the reasons for withholding consent or effective consent that are legally acceptable. These are two distinctly different topics.

Once notice is given that entry onto the owner's property is forbidden for WHATEVER reason (other than those items specifically disallowed by law) one cannot thereafter enter without violating the owner's [2] likes and dislikes, which is his sovereign privilege (within the limitations allowed by law). What are reasons an owner invokes his right to enforce trespassing violations if not as an expression of his likes and dislikes. The owner may, for no other reason than a particular dislike, forbid entry onto his property. As long as the owner's application of his entrance rule (this is my interpretation now) is consistently applicable to all would-be entrants, I don't see any problem with violating any rule. But this is the second topic.

The owner's sovereign entitlement to withhold consent or effective consent for entry onto his property is absolute (within the above referred to limits of the law). 30.05 says only that the person HAD NOTICE. 30.05 goes on to state..."(2) “Notice” means:(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;..."

The debate seems to be that one form of signage or language is or is not acceptable for the purpose of 30.05 notification. There are simply no requirements in this regard in the statute.

If one walks past a sign that the owner posts to restrict entry (assuming the person does not meet the restriction) he is trespassing on the property and subject to legal enforcement action. If the owner then informs him to get out... that he is violation of the restriction as posted outside...and he does not leave, I maintain that that person has committed a second 30.05 violation of trespass by virtue of a second enumerated 30.05 event.

If a Kappa Alpha believes his civil rights have been violated by the restriction then he may file suit. The very nature of the suit presupposes that the KA was given notice by what???...THE SIGN.... and that that restriction to entry expressed by the sign was a violation of his civil right to enter. He may claim that the sign was not proper notice. The owner's defense attorney will then wave....

(2) “Notice” means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

(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;

in the plaintiff's face and might also mention that (A) above gives the owner the right to stand outside and simply tell the KA that he can't come in. Notice of the restriction, (whether the restriction is permissible or not is a matter of law) has been properly given.

If I saw a sign that only said "NO WEAPONS" and I felt particularly feisty that day I might just walk right in with my openly carried handgun just to make a point that "NO WEAPONS" signage has no effect on LTC carry. But I would not try to carry my rifle inside because it is a weapon not covered by .06/.07 and thus would come under the generic restriction of 'NO WEAPONS".

I have made my point and it's reasoning stands or falls on its own merit that the reader may judge. I give you the last word.

tex

[goose]

There is actually an example of that specifically. I don't know if all courtrooms have them, but the Fort Worth courthouse has this prohibition posted outside its courtrooms. There is a little sign next to the door that says something to the effect of "all hats must be removed before entering the courtroom." An acquaintance I used to have named Brian wore a hat into one of the courtrooms when he and I were there in support of a friend. He was told to remove his hat, leave, or be arrested. Brian had recently suffered a burn that had made a mess of his hair (he never would tell me what happened) and so he left to avoid arrest. Could the bailiff have simply arrested Brian as soon as he walked in? I don't see anything in the law saying otherwise. As soon as he entered the room, he was trespassing, as he had been notified by way of a sign that he was violating a condition of entry. If you can be arrested for wearing a hat past a "no hats" sign, does it really seem like a stretch to think you could be arrested for carrying a gun past a "no weapons" sign?

By the way, I've asked my lawyer for as specific an answer to this issue as possible. I'll post here when I get an answer.

So your friend walked into a court of law, trespassing by your interpretation, but wasn't arrested. Seems to me that maybe he wasn't trespassing. If anyone should be arrested for trespassing by your interpretation, shouldn't it be someone expressing contempt of court by trespassing into a judge's court room?

Or, your friend was given verbal notice to comply or leave before arrest was an option for the bailiff. To me, your example is a perfect example for the other side of the debate. He wan't trespassing until given notice by the bailiff. In a court of law, mind you.