TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

shaggydog wrote: 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.

I would agree. The only reason for asking is because here we have two intelligent and concise individuals with two different opinions (at least they appear to be different to me). I am interested in how the two will reconcile the different responses. Maybe there is a small nuance that I am missing or not understanding between the two responses.

pt145ss wrote:

Keith B wrote:

shaggydog wrote: 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.

I would agree. The only reason for asking is because here we have two intelligent and concise individuals with two different opinions (at least they appear to be different to me). I am interested in how the two will reconcile the different responses. Maybe there is a small nuance that I am missing or not understanding between the two responses.

I think the nuance is whether or not you are lucky enough not to get charged. I don't think whether or not that you GENUINELY saw the sign makes much of a difference. I don't think you would get out of a speeding ticket just because you didn't see the sign. Look at the recent case with the nurse's aide posted in the forum. The employer, police and DA all decided to pursue this case. Maybe the DA will decide not to procecute or maybe she will be found not guilty, but her life is forever changed. Me, I wouldn't gamble on having a "compassionate" LEO or procecutor.

WildBill wrote: I think the nuance is whether or not you are lucky enough not to get charged. I don't think whether or not that you GENUINELY saw the sign makes much of a difference. I don't think you would get out of a speeding ticket just because you didn't see the sign. Look at the recent case with the nurse's aide posted in the forum. I wouldn't gamble on having a "compassionate" LEO or procecutor.

I don't disagree. The variables here are way too much to play 'what if'. Each case would be different.

As for seeing the sign, I look for speed limit signs and know where they should be posted. If I can prove the speed limit sign was on the opposite side of the highway and turned backward to me, then I may have a defense. The same should go for a 30.06 sign, they should be posted where they are hard to miss. The argument you didn't see it may or may not be taken as an excuse, just depends on the case. However, if it is staring you in the face as you walk through the door and you claim to not see it, then shame on you!

As for the nurses aide, I think they are standing on the fact she supposedly was given 'proper' notice in the company policy, so in turn arrested her for criminal trespass. Signage alone was not the issue with her.

EDIT: BTW, we are starting to drift off topic quite a bit, so need to stick to the validity of given permission to carry under 30.06.

Keith B wrote:As for the nurses aide, I think they are standing on the fact she supposedly was given 'proper' notice in the company policy, so in turn arrested her for criminal trespass. Signage alone was not the issue with her.

Keith - My reference to the nurse's aide situation was not concerning proper signage. My point is that one should not count on lieniency from an employer, police or DA.

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:As for the nurses aide, I think they are standing on the fact she supposedly was given 'proper' notice in the company policy, so in turn arrested her for criminal trespass. Signage alone was not the issue with her.

Keith - My reference to the nurse's aide situation was not concerning proper signage. My point is that one should not count on lieniency from an employer, police or DA.

Ahh, sorry, misinterpreted that. And I agree with you. They will usually cover themselves no matter what, even at your expense.

WildBill wrote:I think the nuance is whether or not you are lucky enough not to get charged. I don't think whether or not that you GENUINELY saw the sign makes much of a difference. I don't think you would get out of a speeding ticket just because you didn't see the sign. Look at the recent case with the nurse's aide posted in the forum. The employer, police and DA all decided to pursue this case. Maybe the DA will decide not to procecute or maybe she will be found not guilty, but her life is forever changed. Me, I wouldn't gamble on having a "compassionate" LEO or procecutor.

Nor would I. But I think there is considerable difference between the letter of the law and the spirit. The spirit of the law is to give a business that does not want concealed carry on the premises the means to do so without reciting 30.06 to everyone who walks in the door. It is NOT intended to be a trap; A business posting in a manner that places you in violation of the posting before you're made aware of it and then uses that technically correct signage to press charges and argue effective notice violates the spirit of the law. It could be argued, if the business is rabidly pressing charges with existing signage, that they WANTED you to come in carrying so they could catch you. That would be similar to a county or city posting a speed limit sign behind a tree where it is not visible unless you stop the car and get out to look at it. Such practices are illegal and grounds not only for dismissal of the ticket but for charges filed against the jurisdiction by the STATE for entrapment, and such precedents exist in Florida and Texas case law regarding exactly that scenario where "speed traps" are ruled an illegal abuse of the law. I think any judge would see this flagrant misuse of the signage as a similar trap, but a judge would have to see it; based on the letter of the law there is ample cause to issue a summons or arrest and to prosecute.

The first scenario PT145ss posed is reasonable use of signage. The business expects people who want in to go to the box office first, and the main entrances are right next to the box office (it's this way in most theaters, and I grew up in Jollyville so I know the LCP Alamo Drafthouse's front). It is therefore a totally logical place to put signage with this sort of purpose. Failure to see the sign in this situation would imply at least some conscious effort to avoid being given effective notice even if you have a reasonable, logical explanation for why you didn't go to the box office ("we pre-booked", "my wife bought the tickets while I parked").

The second scenario is the aforementioned trap. If there is one sign visible only with binoculars from your point of entry if at all, and never conspicuous to a reasonable man in the area to which you confined your activities, you were not given effective notice even though the law specifies that the existing signage constitutes same and makes no mention of your having to see it or being reasonably able to fail to see it for it to be effective. You would probably have to argue this in front of a judge, but I think a logically-stated argument to this effect with a few pictures clearly showing the lack of visible signage from your viewpoint on entry and while shopping would definitely be reasonable doubt. It has yet to be tested, and if you get a hanging judge who rules based on the letter of the law or instructs a jury to rule to that effect a conviction is very possible as well.

One other circumstance that I don't think has been brought up. I don't have the law in front of me, but I believe that if the property in question is owned or leased by a government entity, it cannot be posted 30.06 (and if it is, I'd assume it's not valid).