Can it ever be ok to carry when there's a valid 30.06 sign?

[propellerhead]

What if there was a 30.06 sign and the owner of the business or the person in charge of security verbally tells you it's ok to carry there? Will the verbal notice override the sign?

No specific case. Just curious how it works.

[Kalrog]

Yes there are. If you are in charge of the premises you could carry, but then you aren't talking about carrying under H. 411.

[Venus Pax]

I wouldn't rely on verbal permission. You couldn't prove it if you needed to do so.

[Liko81]

Written notice by a person with authority to make/enforce said rule on the property (owner or authorized agent) is the only surefire way to get around a valid 30.06 sign. Verbal authority can be denied later, and pleading ignorance is no excuse if the sign was, in the opinion of the officer, well-posted.

Now, an improper 30.06 sign carries no weight whatsoever. If the text is too small, incorrect, not printed in contrasting colors, or not posted in a place readily visible BEFORE entry into the building, you can walk right in and they have to TELL you to leave before you're in any trouble.

[Rex B]

Now, an improper 30.06 sign carries no weight whatsoever. If the text is too small, incorrect, not printed in contrasting colors, or not posted in a place readily visible BEFORE entry into the building, you can walk right in and they have to TELL you to leave before you're in any trouble.

I don't know if the "Before entry" rule is statutory. I think the law reads something like "..at all entrances".
The sign at the Ft Worth Zoo is prominent and correct, but you cannot see it until you have paid admission and walked through the entry breezeway. Then it's posted beside the boardwalk into the main part of the park. That is about 30 feet at least from the actual entry.

Besides being an illegal posting of a property owned by a government entity, that is.

[Liko81]

Now, an improper 30.06 sign carries no weight whatsoever. If the text is too small, incorrect, not printed in contrasting colors, or not posted in a place readily visible BEFORE entry into the building, you can walk right in and they have to TELL you to leave before you're in any trouble.

I don't know if the "Before entry" rule is statutory. I think the law reads something like "..at all entrances".
The sign at the Ft Worth Zoo is prominent and correct, but you cannot see it until you have paid admission and walked through the entry breezeway. Then it's posted beside the boardwalk into the main part of the park. That is about 30 feet at least from the actual entry.

Besides being an illegal posting of a property owned by a government entity, that is.

"At the entrance" means exactly that. The doorway, controlled entry point or other threshold beyond which you are on the premises of a business or other entity that wishes to ban guns is the entrance, and the sign must be visible before you cross that point to be valid. Otherwise, you've paid for your movie, given the ticket to the attendant and are on your way to the snack bar when you see the sign posted near the ramp to the actual theaters. You now have to leave according to your logic, and they don't give you a refund once that ticket's torn. Bull. If correct signage is not posted prominently so it is visible BEFORE YOU ENTER then the sign does not meet the guidelines.

[seamusTX]

Please read the law. It does not say anything about the number or location of signs other than "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" and "on the property."

- Jim

[longtooth]

Arrest waiting to happen.
"No officer I dont ever remember saying that."

[Liko81]

Please read the law. It does not say anything about the number or location of signs other than "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" and "on the property."

- Jim

Your wish is my command:

(B) a sign posted on the property that: (i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish; (ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and (iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.

Let's move a little further up in the statute:

§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the
license holder: (1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent; and (2) received notice that: (A) entry on the property by a license holder
with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or (B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

It would seem you're right. According to the letter of the law the sign can be anywhere in the building as long as it is in a public area and cconspicuously placed, and once it is read by you, you have been given notice and must depart. However, you are not given notice until you have been in the area where the sign is conspicuously placed such that having been in that area you could not fail to see it, so it doesn't carry force of law until you fail to heed it. From a practical standpoint, those who are serious about banning guns would place the correct sign at the entrances, thus entrance constitutes failure to heed the sign and is prima facie evidence of a 30.06 violation. That is far more cut-and-dried than posting it next to the TABC sign, the liquor licenses and various motivational posters for the staff, where a judge/jury may or may not conclude it is conspicuously placed even if it is correct.

[seamusTX]

According to the letter of the law the sign can be anywhere in the building as long as it is in a public area and cconspicuously placed, and once it is read by you, you have been given notice and must depart. However, you are not given notice until you have been in the area where the sign is conspicuously placed such that having been in that area you could not fail to see it, so it doesn't carry force of law until you fail to heed it.

I don't see that the law requires you to have seen or read the sign.

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

This clause is unusual in omitting phrases like "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly."

As I see it, one sign posted anywhere in a 200,000-square-foot mall is sufficient.

From a practical standpoint, those who are serious about banning guns would place the correct sign at the entrances, thus entrance constitutes failure to heed the sign and is prima facie evidence of a 30.06 violation.

I agree, but I think 30.06 needs a little tweaking to get there.

Unfortunately, as Charles has enlightened us, once the Lege puts a bill in play, it becomes subject to undesireable tinkering.

- Jim

[pt145ss]

As I see it, one sign posted anywhere in a 200,000-square-foot mall is sufficient.

From a practical standpoint, those who are serious about banning guns would place the correct sign at the entrances, thus entrance constitutes failure to heed the sign and is prima facie evidence of a 30.06 violation.

I agree, but I think 30.06 needs a little tweaking to get there.

Unfortunately, as Charles has enlightened us, once the Lege puts a bill in play, it becomes subject to undesireable tinkering.

- Jim

In a previous thread "another 30.06 question" Charles addressed this question and basically said that seeing the sign is the controlling factor as to whether the sign is effective or not. I am not arguing one way or the other I am just asking for clairifcation between the two responses. (the quote below is from the other thread)

If you saw one, then it's effective notice. If you didn't see one, then you haven't been given effective notice.

Look at it this way. What you saw or didn't see is controlling, not which entrance you used (assuming the one you used didn't have a 30.06 sign.)

Chas.

[Keith B]

Notice comes in many forms. I feel it is like Charles said. If I make a conscious effort to ascertain there is a 30.06 sign when I enter a business, then I have done my job. If they have it in an obscure place (even if it can be seen by the public, but not readily visible), but I have not seen the sign, then I have not been given notice.

However, if you are called on the carpet, and you have valid knowledge that the business is posted and you try to claim you never saw the sign (whether you did or didn't) then in my opinion that is not a defense.

A good example is having knowledge that a mall is posted on some doors, but not others and trying to say you only entered and exited through the doors that weren't posted.

As for permission to carry where there is a 30.06, I would want it in writing from someone who has the authority to permit carry and would want that with me if I was carrying in that location to show security or LEO if challenged.

[pt145ss]

This is similar to a scenario I posed in the Alamo Draft House (ADH) thread. For argument sake, let suppose that the ADH has a legal 30.06 sign posted in the ticket booth. As a patron, I stand off to the side (smoking) while my wife purchases the tickets at the booth. I never approach the ticket booth and I never see the sign. With tickets in hand, we enter ADH and I am armed.

To the letter of the law, the sign is legal, but have I been given effective notice?

Another scenario: I’m in town visiting a friend. While my friend is at work, I go to the local Macy’s. I enter through the men’s department (which is not posted 30.06) and purchase some items (never leaving the men’s department). As I leave Macy’s the detectors go off. They search my bags and my person and find my gun. The cops are called and the Loss prevention guys say that I am criminally trespassing because there is a legal 30.06 sign in the cosmetics department. Was I giving effective notice?

[shaggydog]

This is similar to a scenario I posed in the Alamo Draft House (ADH) thread. For argument sake, let suppose that the ADH has a legal 30.06 sign posted in the ticket booth. As a patron, I stand off to the side (smoking) while my wife purchases the tickets at the booth. I never approach the ticket booth and I never see the sign. With tickets in hand, we enter ADH and I am armed.

To the letter of the law, the sign is legal, but have I been given effective notice?

Another scenario: I’m in town visiting a friend. While my friend is at work, I go to the local Macy’s. I enter through the men’s department (which is not posted 30.06) and purchase some items (never leaving the men’s department). As I leave Macy’s the detectors go off. They search my bags and my person and find my gun. The cops are called and the Loss prevention guys say that I am criminally trespassing because there is a legal 30.06 sign in the cosmetics department. Was I giving effective notice?

The answer is........we will find out at your trial.

[Keith B]

The answer is........we will find out at your trial.

Very possible outcome. I think it is going to depend on the situation, the business and who responds. The whole issue turns to a defense scenario now.

If you GENUINELY did not see the sign, made an effort to look for them, and had no previous hint that the business MIGHT be posted, then you should have a valid defense. The police may let it drop, and the business may not push the issue and you would be free to go and not return to that business, armed or not. However, they may well arrest you, and you might be charged. The prosecutor may decide not to follow through. They may follow through, go to trial, and you get acquitted. Or you may get convicted.

Since there are not a lot of test cases, I prefer to not push the envelope and be one more for the record books.