I'm with ya on the gun-in-slashed-circle alone: I doubt that would stand up as "notice" under PC §30.05(2). But I can't think of a "gunbuster" I've seen that didn't include text, as well, even if it were as limited as, "No firearms allowed on this property."ScottDLS wrote:I'm not convinced that a circle/slash/gun sticker constitutes sufficient notice that entry is prohibited under 30.05. Have there been any successful prosecutions?
IANAL, but PC §30.05 begins with a definition of criminal trespass: 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 had notice that the entry was forbidden, or received notice to depart but failed to do so."
Emphasis is mine, but what it shows is that the statute specifically requires an understanding of consent to enter another's property. And other than the items regarding fencing and purple paint, the only requirement for effective notice is that it be "oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner." There is no specific language or presentation requirements as the are in §30.06
In other words, presence on or in private property isn't open and carte blanche. If he gives notice, the owner can disallow you from being on or in his property for any reason whatsoever (excluding certain protected groups/classes).
So, in my non-professional opinion, the gun-in-slashed-circle thing is useless other than as an attention-getter, but if the sign contains text that in any way clearly conveys a meaning of notice to forbid entry, that it's actionable. 'Course, it's a defense to prosecution that someone is carrying concealed under GC Subchapter H, Chapter 411.
Overall, the point is pretty much moot since a good-guy CHL isn't affected by the gunbuster sign (unless he is told orally that guns are not allowed on the premises), and the bad guy Stop-and-Robber could care less about the threat of a misdemeanor. He's there to commit a felony.
For some interesting reading about opinions on this issue by then Attorney General, Dan Morales, shortly after Senate Bill 60 (the Texas CHL law) was enacted, check this:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... hl/AGO.HTM