TexasCHLforum.com

AFCop wrote:Keith,

True your statement is, however noone can expect you to know that one entrance that is properly posted if the rest are not. humans are creatures of habit and I know I consistently park in the same places, use the same entrances, etc. Now, that doesn't mean you couldn't get charged but I do not think it would go very far.

This is true, but the proof would be on you to prove you didn't know about the signage and on them to prove you did. So, if you have ANY inkling that the facility is legally posted anywhere, then best not to tempt fate IMO.

jamullinstx wrote:Do I recall that the most recent session of the legislature modified the requirement to specify that 30.06 signs must be at each entrance? Or am I confusing that with the change in the posting requirements for 51% signs? In either case, if this change is true, it won't take effect until September, IIRC.

The only change I am aware of is that if the 51% location is not posted with a 51% sign, then it will be a defense to prosecution. This is not in effect yet, but starts September 1 this year.

jamullinstx wrote:Do I recall that the most recent session of the legislature modified the requirement to specify that 30.06 signs must be at each entrance? Or am I confusing that with the change in the posting requirements for 51% signs? In either case, if this change is true, it won't take effect until September, IIRC.

The new bill only affects bars with 51% signs, There was nothing passed about or concerning 30.06

jamullinstx wrote:Do I recall that the most recent session of the legislature modified the requirement to specify that 30.06 signs must be at each entrance? Or am I confusing that with the change in the posting requirements for 51% signs? In either case, if this change is true, it won't take effect until September, IIRC.

The change is for 51% signs

Keith B wrote:

AFCop wrote:Keith,

True your statement is, however noone can expect you to know that one entrance that is properly posted if the rest are not. humans are creatures of habit and I know I consistently park in the same places, use the same entrances, etc. Now, that doesn't mean you couldn't get charged but I do not think it would go very far.

This is true, but the proof would be on you to prove you didn't know about the signage and on them to prove you did. So, if you have ANY inkling that the facility is legally posted anywhere, then best not to tempt fate IMO.

Actually, I don't think YOU have to prove anything; except in things like civil forfeiture (an odious process to be sure) the burden of proof is on the prosecution - IANAL, but it seems to me that they have to prove 1) that the definition of "conspicuous" includes signs posted where they are NOT likely to be seen by a significant number of people entering through normal access means; or 2) that you knew about it anyway.

HankB wrote:Actually, I don't think YOU have to prove anything; except in things like civil forfeiture (an odious process to be sure) the burden of proof is on the prosecution -IANAL, but it seems to me that they have to prove 1) that the definition of "conspicuous" includes signs posted where they are NOT likely to be seen by a significant number of people entering through normal access means; or 2) that you knew about it anyway.

Legally, this is true. Reality is a different story. IANAL, but if you were arrested you would have to hire one to defend yourself.

It's like this at Grapevine Mills Mall in Grapevine. Each of the neighborhood entrances are posted but not on the doors entering the mall. It's on the brick wall on the side of the doors, so you wouldn't see it unless y ou were looking for it. But the enterance from the ice rink into the mall is not posted at all!!! I'm sure a lot of CHLers dont see the neighborhood enterance signs. And anyone entering from the ice rink would definitely not see any 30.06...They make the situation very confusing....

-Slamfire- wrote:Thanks for all the great replies, it was more of a gray area then I thought.

I guess it would come down to a jury to decide if not all entrances having 30.06 signage "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". I could see that going either way.

This is why I think it will hinge on what you knew. Most people forget that in addition to the notice being posted, it must be received. If you have received notice, you are breaking the law. So, in the case specified, you would be legal until you found out about the proper notice posted on the main door. In the case of Grapevine Mills mall (and similar malls), you would be breaking the law if you knew the primary entrances were posted. In both cases, the notice met the requirements by being conspicuous to the public and by having been received by you.

The discussions on what can be proven and who has that burden deal with the realities of court cases. This, to me, is different from the question of if you broke the law. The fact that we have court shows this difference. If there were no difference between breaking the law and being proven, the arrest would constitute conviction and only sentencing would be left.

Well said Steve

srothstein wrote:

-Slamfire- wrote:Thanks for all the great replies, it was more of a gray area then I thought.

I guess it would come down to a jury to decide if not all entrances having 30.06 signage "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". I could see that going either way.

This is why I think it will hinge on what you knew. Most people forget that in addition to the notice being posted, it must be received. If you have received notice, you are breaking the law. So, in the case specified, you would be legal until you found out about the proper notice posted on the main door. In the case of Grapevine Mills mall (and similar malls), you would be breaking the law if you knew the primary entrances were posted. In both cases, the notice met the requirements by being conspicuous to the public and by having been received by you.

The discussions on what can be proven and who has that burden deal with the realities of court cases. This, to me, is different from the question of if you broke the law. The fact that we have court shows this difference. If there were no difference between breaking the law and being proven, the arrest would constitute conviction and only sentencing would be left.

. . . unless you used a different entrance the next time, didn't see a sign, and figured they had changed their policy. It could happen. You have no burden to check every entrance. If you know they have a valid sign, then it is valid for THAT visit IMO. The next day - maybe they have new management. I don't know. I just figured they changed the policy because I didn't see a sign on this door.

The violation is trespassing. Most likely, you'll be informed of the 30.06 posting and given the chance to leave if you entered the business through a door that wasn't posted, happened to talk to a LEO, and he happened to ask to see your license for some reason, thus making you reveal your identity as a CHL holder.

Like most everybody else, IANAL. . . and I'm not paying for yours if you need one.

dicion wrote:

Catfight wrote:Even if they dont have a valid sign and its apparent that the signage they have indicates they do not want people with guns on property, common sense should be your guide.

Yes.. common sense that if they Really didn't want the guns there, they'd take the 10 seconds to research a PROPER sign and post it properly.

Sorry, invalid signs don't exist to me. I'd walk right past em.

The law is specific in saying EVERY entrance must be properly posted. So, I also ignore invalid postings. That does not mean I do not understand ignorant departments and LEOs may hassle me. I understand that as well as I understand how to get information out to the public about false arrest and how lacking LEOs and their leadership may be of the law. Yes, it would suck but the only way anyone will know I am carrying is if I have to defend myself or another innocent. A tyrants greatest ally is "the bluff".

And no, I don't have the money to fight either.

shootthesheet wrote: The law is specific in saying EVERY entrance must be properly posted.

Can you quote the statute where it states that EVERY entrance must be properly posted? I have not been able to ascertain this information you so adamantly espouse.

The law does not say that every entrance must be posted. As a matter of fact, the posting doesn't even have to be at any entrance. What the law says is that the sign must be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public." http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; [pp. 34]