Is Verbal Notice Monitored?

[ScottDLS]

I took verbal notice to be good for that encounter/visit. I think if you were given verbal notice on say Monday. You come back a week later, still no sign so you OC into the store, they would have to give you notice again. I don't remember seeing anywhere that once given notice, you can't carry there again.

Charles Cotton made a post that basically stated that verbal notice was forever.

I tend to believe him. http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... l#p1036591

Yep. Neither 30.05 through 30.07 give any implication that effective notice is applicable to only the current, or a given, visit to the establishment. Once you have received effective notice, you have received effective notice.

To the OP: Could you keep coming back into an establishment after having received oral notice, each time wearing a new disguise, and get away with it? Maybe. Would it be legal or ethical for you to do so? No. Doesn't matter if there's an oral-notice database. As an LTC holder, you are obligated--and expected by your peers--to follow the law.

BTW, a pet peeve. "Verbal" means "relating to or in the form of words." That's either written or spoken words. Either or.

That's why the term "verbal" appears nowhere in Section 30 of the Texas Penal Code. Section 30 makes it clear there are two forms of notice: written or oral.

Both are verbal.

If there is no time limit for 06/07 (or 05) "oral" notice then then why is there one for written notice (including signs)? The language of the law makes no clear distinction as to the time frame of the notice.

So if saw valid 30.06 notice at Grapevine Mills Mall in 2001, am I still prohibited from carrying in there today, even after they took it down in January? What if a store manager told me not to open carry then store was sold to a new owner who liked OC? If they don't post a sign, how am I to know what their desires are today?

I would take verbal (yeah...yeah...oral) notice in the context it was given.....

"You're scaring the kids here today with that nickel plated .44mag, cover up or go out....and come back with a 9mm or smaller" is different than "The owner, Mr. Jones, says no open carry in his store, ever..."

...but then you read that Mr. Grisham bought the place and told (the same) manager that only OC is allowed and no CC.

As a practical matter, the person in control of a property will need to make clear the duration of their notice if they have any expectation of prosecuting you if you come back. Better to verbalize the notice with a properly worded sign than to oralize
it with the necessary specificity as to time frame.

[rotor]

Some places that were previously not posted now have 30.06/07 signs. Some have removed them. If a place that previously had a sign and now it is gone would that mean you could never carry there for eternity? You go to a restaurant now and they say no open carry. They have no sign. Does that mean you can't carry at that location forever? Business may change hands, especially a restaurant. I personally would not use a restaurant that forbid concealed carry but I am more tolerant of the open carry ban. I don't know though that there is an obligation of the individual to talk to management before entering to find out what their policy is if they don't post signs. It would seem more logical to me that if they want to ban open or concealed carry that they post a sign. ScottDLS post above I pretty much agree with and he beat me to the punch.

[Skiprr]

Look. I'm not a lawyer. But use some common sense, search Charles's posts on this issue, and read the Penal Code.

If an establishment removes 30.06/30.07 compliant signs, is your notice per those those signs no longer effective? I'd say absolutely yes. You're free to carry. Your earlier notification has been revoked.

If you have received oral notification that you cannot carry, a change in signage does not affect that notification. Unless you subsequently are told you can carry, that notification remains in effect.

A reason not to push the envelope.

BTW, chuckle as you may about "verbal" and "oral," but the laws of the State of Texas will out..and you'd better know the difference between the two.

[ScottDLS]

Look. I'm not a lawyer. But use some common sense, search Charles's posts on this issue, and read the Penal Code.

If an establishment removes 30.06/30.07 compliant signs, is your notice per those those signs no longer effective? I'd say absolutely yes. You're free to carry. Your earlier notification has been revoked.

If you have received oral notification that you cannot carry, a change in signage does not affect that notification. Unless you subsequently are told you can carry, that notification remains in effect.

A reason not to push the envelope.

BTW, chuckle as you may about "verbal" and "oral," but the laws of the State of Texas will out..and you'd better know the difference between the two.

Your points above are a reasonable interpretation, but they are not necessarily explicit in the language of the statute. Charles has spoken to the intent of the statutes and I assume he has good knowledge, since I believe he was involved in passing it (30.06) in 1997.

However, the interpretation of the specific language has really not been tested in 19 years, as demonstrated by nobody having been convicted of it. Additionally, notice in the 30.05 trespass statute on which the 30.06 was patterned hasn't, in practice, been interpreted in the way that is being suggested.

Almost always the practice is for a police officer to come out and DOCUMENT, in writing, a proprietor's oral notice for someone to "get out". That before arresting them on a state class B for ignoring the...no loitering, no drinking, no spitting, etc. signs that you see right behind all the 'ne'er do wells, hanging out at the local kwik-e-mart day after day.

If you warned orally by an employee not to OC, say in a Whataburger, I really don't think it would be pushing the issue to CC in the same one the next day, or even OC in a DIFFERENT one. Also, as a practical matter with the penalty reduced and the desires of the owner/proprietor not being made explicit in a sign, I don't find it morally or legally reprehensible either.

Now excuse me while I go have an ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE (AD), from the armor piercing bullets, in my HIGH CAP assault CLIP, in a GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE, as I'm transporting my ARSENAL of WAR WEAPONS, despite being told VERBALLY that I should not...

[Skiprr]

Your choice, Scott.

Your choice. Not the law.

[WildBill]

However, the interpretation of the specific language has really not been tested in 19 years, as demonstrated by nobody having been convicted of it. Additionally, notice in the 30.05 trespass statute on which the 30.06 was patterned hasn't, in practice, been interpreted in the way that is being suggested.

Not too long ago I posted a reference to case law about effective notice relative to 30.05 Criminal Trespass.
As I recall the police arrested a person for trespassing two months after he initially received effective notice.
The appellate court ruled that the notice still applied and his conviction was upheld.
I am too tired to look it up right now, but I have no doubt that the same precedence would be applied to 30.06 and 30.07.

[rotor]

We can argue this all day and there are no correct answers. Anyone wants to keep a LTC out needs to have a sign. This whole oral warning thing is open to too much interpretation. I don't think any business is crazy enough to call law enforcement unless the person refused to leave after a warning (assuming open carry) given at that moment.

[ScottDLS]

However, the interpretation of the specific language has really not been tested in 19 years, as demonstrated by nobody having been convicted of it. Additionally, notice in the 30.05 trespass statute on which the 30.06 was patterned hasn't, in practice, been interpreted in the way that is being suggested.

Not too long ago I posted a reference to case law about effective notice relative to 30.05 Criminal Trespass.
As I recall the police arrested a person for trespassing two months after he initially received effective notice.
The appellate court ruled that the notice still applied and his conviction was upheld.
I am too tired to look it up right now, but I have no doubt that the same precedence would be applied to 30.06 and 30.07.

I remember that, but I'd like to know what the effective notice was the first time...I'll bet the police were called and wrote it up as a trespass warning. If it gets that far on the initial warning it's probably 'cause the guy argued with the owner.

[ScottDLS]

Since I've kind of been 'throwing up' all over this discussion...let me focus back on the original question and give my thoughts...(which are of course worth exactly what you paid for them, nothing).

Is oral notice monitored? My contention...NO. Not likely for 30.06, because...when has anyone EVER been orally warned for CONCEALED carry...That's why they call it CONCEALED. As a practical matter you have to be discovered for the issue to even come up...CONCEALED carry.

Since OC and 30.07...you're a lot more likely to get oral notice, but if you observe it, then it's very unlikely that the event will be recorded. Maybe on camera? But are they going to get the content of the oral notification too...not likely. So what if they just call the cops without giving you oral notice that OC is not OK...well then you haven't broken the law, assuming no sign, so what is the cop going to do? The law says you have to REMAIN on the property after RECEIVING effective notice for a crime to even be committed.

So my argument is that NO oral notice is not monitored for 30.05, 06, or .07 and I think I have a decent case for my contention that the duration of oral notice is dependent on the CONTENT of the notice, not a blanket "it's always forever". Since reasonable people can disagree on this I don't consider saying "That I might come back to a different Whataburger, or maybe even the same, one while CC'ing after receiving oral notice not to OC"... is advocating illegal activity.

While we're discussing our points of view we should be open to all angles. Considering the penalty for being wrong is now much less severe than it was previously, I feel more comfortable with my argument.

What I find interesting is that some who argue the other point of view in relation to 30.05/6/7, will then turn around and say they'll drive through a school zone with a loaded rifle or shotgun, or with a handgun under MPA, or in Vermont. Or sworn LEO's will say that they carry in school zones off duty...or under LEOSA...all of which are arguably federal felonies under the GFSZA.

I also think GFSZA is clearly unconstitutional and wouldn't stand, but are you willing to "take the ride" or "be the test case" or any of the other tired cliches that I sometimes (rudely) mock.

Hope that gives a better answer to my view on the OP question.

-Scott

[twomillenium]

Hypothetically speaking. Why would one even do business with someone who obviously doesn't want their business? I understand 07 notice and wonder what kind of behavior would call attention to someone properly CCing in order to receive verbal notice for 06.

[casp625]

If the police come by, and the proprietor remembers for you, you could lose your license. No "Class C" charge for blowing by verbal notice.

Remembering someone doesnt increase the charge... They would have to give you notice to leave and you failed to depart:

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property , the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

[Glockster]

Since I've kind of been 'throwing up' all over this discussion...let me focus back on the original question and give my thoughts...(which are of course worth exactly what you paid for them, nothing).

Is oral notice monitored? My contention...NO. Not likely for 30.06, because...when has anyone EVER been orally warned for CONCEALED carry...That's why they call it CONCEALED. As a practical matter you have to be discovered for the issue to even come up...CONCEALED carry.

Since OC and 30.07...you're a lot more likely to get oral notice, but if you observe it, then it's very unlikely that the event will be recorded. Maybe on camera? But are they going to get the content of the oral notification too...not likely. So what if they just call the cops without giving you oral notice that OC is not OK...well then you haven't broken the law, assuming no sign, so what is the cop going to do? The law says you have to REMAIN on the property after RECEIVING effective notice for a crime to even be committed.

So my argument is that NO oral notice is not monitored for 30.05, 06, or .07 and I think I have a decent case for my contention that the duration of oral notice is dependent on the CONTENT of the notice, not a blanket "it's always forever". Since reasonable people can disagree on this I don't consider saying "That I might come back to a different Whataburger, or maybe even the same, one while CC'ing after receiving oral notice not to OC"... is advocating illegal activity.

While we're discussing our points of view we should be open to all angles. Considering the penalty for being wrong is now much less severe than it was previously, I feel more comfortable with my argument.

What I find interesting is that some who argue the other point of view in relation to 30.05/6/7, will then turn around and say they'll drive through a school zone with a loaded rifle or shotgun, or with a handgun under MPA, or in Vermont. Or sworn LEO's will say that they carry in school zones off duty...or under LEOSA...all of which are arguably federal felonies under the GFSZA.

I also think GFSZA is clearly unconstitutional and wouldn't stand, but are you willing to "take the ride" or "be the test case" or any of the other tired cliches that I sometimes (rudely) mock.

Hope that gives a better answer to my view on the OP question.

-Scott

While in agreement with all of your points, perhaps this might be one of those times where printing could be the "give-away" for discovery that there was CC? Yes, no longer applicable to constituting a violation regarding CC, but I'm suggesting that what might be legally fine CC might still allow for someone to observe what they believe is the weapon and then give the notice. I envision a one-day of someone who takes the stand that they know they are meeting the legal requirements of CC, gets a 30.06 notification to leave based on that bulge (which might be anything) and so makes the claim of "what gun?" escalating into the property owner simply walking off and making the MWAG call and the LEO asking if the MWAG had been told to leave. But again, this is just a what-if about how concealed might technically be concealed, but irrelevant to what then happens as I agree with the the logic of all you have said.

[WildBill]

However, the interpretation of the specific language has really not been tested in 19 years, as demonstrated by nobody having been convicted of it. Additionally, notice in the 30.05 trespass statute on which the 30.06 was patterned hasn't, in practice, been interpreted in the way that is being suggested.

Not too long ago I posted a reference to case law about effective notice relative to 30.05 Criminal Trespass.
As I recall the police arrested a person for trespassing two months after he initially received effective notice.
The appellate court ruled that the notice still applied and his conviction was upheld.
I am too tired to look it up right now, but I have no doubt that the same precedence would be applied to 30.06 and 30.07.

I remember that, but I'd like to know what the effective notice was the first time...I'll bet the police were called and wrote it up as a trespass warning. If it gets that far on the initial warning it's probably 'cause the guy argued with the owner.

Yes it was the police that were called and they documented the contact. I don't recall if it was a warning or not.
The defense argued that since the notice was several months prior to the actual arrest, the notice was no longer valid.
The court did not agree.

[WildBill]

Since I've kind of been 'throwing up' all over this discussion...let me focus back on the original question and give my thoughts...(which are of course worth exactly what you paid for them, nothing).

Is oral notice monitored? My contention...NO. Not likely for 30.06, because...when has anyone EVER been orally warned for CONCEALED carry...That's why they call it CONCEALED. As a practical matter you have to be discovered for the issue to even come up...CONCEALED carry.

I believe that I have been given oral notice for 30.06.
I went to interview at a company in downtown Houston.
When I went into the lobby they asked me to watch a video.
In the video they stated that concealed carry was not allowed in the building.
Does the video count as oral notice?
They did have a log to sign after watching the video. That is a monitoring system.

[jkurtz]

How would notice be interpreted if two people, with seemingly equal authority, give contradicting statements? For example, if one manager is pro gun and doesn't have issues with people carrying, but another manager is anti gun and tells people they can't carry.