Question about "trespassing" and 30.06

[ScottDLS]

If I'm understanding correctly, then yes, those people in your example are technically in violation of 30.05 and could be arrested for trespassing. Obviously it will never happen for all sorts of reasons, but as far as I can tell, that is exactly where the logic leads. And as I said earlier, that just seems silly.

That's why I asked for clarification on this. I think if people (/cough/ legislators /cough/) realized what the law really said, and how ridiculous the examples can get, they might be more willing to take a look at it and rethink some things.

My argument was intended as hyperbole to hopefully point out where the logic would lead if followed to its conclusion. Since I'm not aware of any of the proverbial "test cases" for any of my ridiculous examples, I personally will behave as if such conduct is legal. A "don't ask, don't tell" policy, if you will....

[doncb]

I like the signs and understand that they were added for our benefit. I wish they had to be at every entrance like 30.07.

What I'd like to see is that any business that wants to post a 30.06 sign it should be required to be posted on the front door. Not to the side of the door. Not in an alcove. On the FRONT DOOR. Right out there so you can see it when you drive by. A nice big 2 foot by 3 foot sign. Right there on the front door.

[thetexan]

It's easy to give ridiculous examples to prove a point...and "proving" the point is a over generous allowance.

You forget that a large group of educated people whose job it is to create law did so with full authority when they wrote 30.05. The courts have historically acknowledged that the legislators understand the language and know how to say what they mean and mean what they say in wordcrafting law. 30.05 is unambiguous in its purpose and meaning and I suspect that is why it's hard to find case law dealing with problems with the language of the statute itself.

30.05 clearly says what it says and, notwithstanding other applicable laws or previous rulings, can be used AS WRITTEN to notify of an owner's sovereign decision to withhold his consent or effective consent to entry for any reason. ANY REASON. Not that ANY REASON is legally justified but that 30.05 does not deal with what is or isn't justified and is merely the tool used to establish the procedures for notification of withheld consent based on those reasons and criminalizing violations and defining exceptions.

In struggling to come up with an analogy it's like one arguing that you can't possibly drive under the 70 mph speed limit with your Learjet. The sign says 70 mph!!! And the rule does not take into account the fact that you and your Learjet can't or won't comply or whether is fair or not to restrict the Learjet. The sign's purpose is simply to notify of the rule. You and your Learjet can take it to court to decide if it's fair that you should be restricted to 70 mph while driving on the highway at 70 mph in your jet! But until you do you have been notified by someone who has the authority to make such notification and are in criminal violation of the rule if you do not comply.

My point is that it is not in the scope of 30.05 to establish what is a reasonable or lawful withholding of consent to entry. The scope of 30.05 is meticulously precise in that it...

1. Recognizes an owners right to withhold consent or effective consent.

2. Creates a mechanism for the owner to notify persons of that decision to withhold consent or effective consent.

3. Clearly defines what constitutes that "notification".

4. Creates a criminal offense and associated penalties for those persons who disregard the owner's wishes after having been notified, and

5. Provides exceptions to certain persons under specified conduct.

30.05, in and of itself, does not deal with what ought to be or what should be, or what is within the limits of current societal sensitivities, or what seems fair, or what is discriminatory or not. Those doctrine are found in other statutes and violations of those are dealt with accordingly. 30.05 is a prescribed mechanism and that mechanism is precise and easy to understand.

If someone uses it to publish his withholding of consent to entry to some group of people that is UNLAWFULLY discriminatory then the problem is with the violation of those statutes prohibiting such discrimination, not with a statute that is essentially one that specifies the rules for NOTIFICATION concerning withheld consent and associated penalties if violated by intruders.

More importantly, if not 30.05, then what does an owner use to guide his process of notification? If an owner wishes to withhold consent to entry to shirtless persons how does he do it if not according to 30.05? Whether or not he is allowed to prohibit shirtless persons is found elsewhere, not in 30.05. And like any other law one may not agree with one does not violate the law as a solution to remedy the error. That is strictly the purview of the courts.

To look at this in reverse...first search the entire law and determine what are all of the lawful reasons any private owner may use to withhold his consent to entry onto his property...then he will apply the procedures in 30.05 to make notification of his withheld consent, and persons entering onto that property will be held to the provisions of that statute, each one completely free to challenge the reason in court.

But the 30.05 mechanism itself is simple and easy to understand. And, bringing this back to 30.06 and .07...these are simple extensions of 30.05 concerning trespass with LTC carried handguns. The same elements are common to and present in each of the three.


Tex

[Soccerdad1995]

It's easy to give ridiculous examples to prove a point...and "proving" the point is a over generous allowance.

You forget that a large group of educated people whose job it is to create law did so with full authority when they wrote 30.05. The courts have historically acknowledge that the legislators understand the language and know how to say what they mean and mean what they say in wordcrafting law. 30.05 is unambiguous in its purpose and meaning and I suspect that is why it's hard to find case law dealing with problems with the language of the statute itself.

30.05 clearly says what it says and, notwithstanding other applicable laws or previous rulings, can be used AS WRITTEN to notify of an owner's sovereign decision to withhold his consent or effective consent to entry for any reason. ANY REASON. Not that ANY REASON is legally justified but that 30.05 does not deal with what is or isn't justified and is merely the tool used to establish the procedures for notification of withheld consent based on those reasons and criminalizing violations and defining exceptions.

In struggling to come up with an analogy it's like one arguing that you can't possibly drive under the 70 mph speed limit with your Learjet. The sign says 70 mph!!! And the rule does not take into account the fact that you and your Learjet can't or won't comply or whether is fair or not to restrict the Learjet. The sign's purpose is simply to notify of the rule. You and your Learjet can take it to court to decide if it's fair that you should be restricted to 70 mph while driving on the highway at 70 mph in your jet! But until you do you have been notified by someone who has the authority to make such notification and are in criminal violation of the rule if you do not comply.

My point is that it is not in the scope of 30.05 to establish what is a reasonable or lawful withholding of consent to entry. The scope of 30.05 is meticulously precise in that it...

1. Recognizes an owners right to withhold consent or effective consent.

2. Creates a mechanism for the owner to notify persons of that decision to withhold consent or effective consent.

3. Clearly defines what constitutes that "notification".

4. Creates a criminal offense and associated penalties for those persons who disregard the owner's wishes after having been notified, and

5. Provides exceptions to certain persons under specified conduct.

30.05, in and of itself, does not deal with what ought to be or what should be, or what is within the limits of current societal sensitivities, or what seems fair, or what is discriminatory or not. Those doctrine are found in other statutes and violations of those are dealt with accordingly. 30.05 is a prescribed mechanism and that mechanism is precise and easy to understand.

If someone uses it to publish his withholding of consent to entry to some group of people that is UNLAWFULLY discriminatory then the problem is with the violation of those statutes prohibiting such discrimination, not with a statute that is essentially one that specifies the rules for NOTIFICATION concerning withheld consent and associated penalties if violated by intruders.

More importantly, if not 30.05, then what does an owner use to guide his process of notification? If an owner wishes to withhold consent to entry to shirtless persons how does he do it if not according to 30.05? Whether or not he is allowed to prohibit shirtless persons is found elsewhere, not in 30.05. And like any other law one may not agree with one does not violate the law as a solution to remedy the error. That is strictly the purview of the courts.

To look at this in reverse...first search the entire law and determine what are all of the lawful reasons any private owner may use to withhold his consent to entry onto his property...then he will apply the procedures in 30.05 to make notification of his withheld consent, and persons entering onto that property will be held to the provisions of that statute, each one completely free to challenge the reason in court.

But the 30.05 mechanism itself is simple and easy to understand. And, bringing this back to 30.06 and .07...these are simple extensions of 30.05 concerning trespass with LTC carried handguns. The same elements are common to and present in each of the three.


Tex

So if I understand your post correctly, then you are saying that if I post a sign at my front door that clearly states "no Aggies allowed" and a person who I know to have graduated from Texas A&M walks right past that sign and enters my home, they will be in violation of 30.05 even if I do not say anything else to them, or ask them to leave, since my sign has already given them notice that they were not allowed to enter in the first place.

I'm not trying to challenge you in any way. I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying.

[ScottDLS]

It's easy to give ridiculous examples to prove a point...and "proving" the point is a over generous allowance.

You forget that a large group of educated people whose job it is to create law did so with full authority when they wrote 30.05. The courts have historically acknowledge that the legislators understand the language and know how to say what they mean and mean what they say in wordcrafting law. 30.05 is unambiguous in its purpose and meaning and I suspect that is why it's hard to find case law dealing with problems with the language of the statute itself.

30.05 clearly says what it says and, notwithstanding other applicable laws or previous rulings, can be used AS WRITTEN to notify of an owner's sovereign decision to withhold his consent or effective consent to entry for any reason. ANY REASON. Not that ANY REASON is legally justified but that 30.05 does not deal with what is or isn't justified and is merely the tool used to establish the procedures for notification of withheld consent based on those reasons and criminalizing violations and defining exceptions.

In struggling to come up with an analogy it's like one arguing that you can't possibly drive under the 70 mph speed limit with your Learjet. The sign says 70 mph!!! And the rule does not take into account the fact that you and your Learjet can't or won't comply or whether is fair or not to restrict the Learjet. The sign's purpose is simply to notify of the rule. You and your Learjet can take it to court to decide if it's fair that you should be restricted to 70 mph while driving on the highway at 70 mph in your jet! But until you do you have been notified by someone who has the authority to make such notification and are in criminal violation of the rule if you do not comply.

My point is that it is not in the scope of 30.05 to establish what is a reasonable or lawful withholding of consent to entry. The scope of 30.05 is meticulously precise in that it...

1. Recognizes an owners right to withhold consent or effective consent.

2. Creates a mechanism for the owner to notify persons of that decision to withhold consent or effective consent.

3. Clearly defines what constitutes that "notification".

4. Creates a criminal offense and associated penalties for those persons who disregard the owner's wishes after having been notified, and

5. Provides exceptions to certain persons under specified conduct.

30.05, in and of itself, does not deal with what ought to be or what should be, or what is within the limits of current societal sensitivities, or what seems fair, or what is discriminatory or not. Those doctrine are found in other statutes and violations of those are dealt with accordingly. 30.05 is a prescribed mechanism and that mechanism is precise and easy to understand.

If someone uses it to publish his withholding of consent to entry to some group of people that is UNLAWFULLY discriminatory then the problem is with the violation of those statutes prohibiting such discrimination, not with a statute that is essentially one that specifies the rules for NOTIFICATION concerning withheld consent and associated penalties if violated by intruders.

More importantly, if not 30.05, then what does an owner use to guide his process of notification? If an owner wishes to withhold consent to entry to shirtless persons how does he do it if not according to 30.05? Whether or not he is allowed to prohibit shirtless persons is found elsewhere, not in 30.05. And like any other law one may not agree with one does not violate the law as a solution to remedy the error. That is strictly the purview of the courts.

To look at this in reverse...first search the entire law and determine what are all of the lawful reasons any private owner may use to withhold his consent to entry onto his property...then he will apply the procedures in 30.05 to make notification of his withheld consent, and persons entering onto that property will be held to the provisions of that statute, each one completely free to challenge the reason in court.

But the 30.05 mechanism itself is simple and easy to understand. And, bringing this back to 30.06 and .07...these are simple extensions of 30.05 concerning trespass with LTC carried handguns. The same elements are common to and present in each of the three.


Tex

The law (30.05) provides for the REVOKING of consent to enter when it has already been granted, by being open to the public ("open" sign lit up on the door). It also deals with notification mechanisms for saying the that permission to enter is NOT GRANTED...No Trespassing Sign, Purple Paint Marks, written trespass notice (usually executed in presence of a LEO), oral notice.

What it doesn't do is automatically criminalize any unwanted conduct in advance.

NO AGGIES
NO THONGS
NO KNIVES
Circle with a line through a Beretta silhouette

Do these examples translate to?

PURSUANT TO TXPC 30.05 ENTRY UPON THESE PREMISES IS PROHIBITED TO ANY PERSON WEARING THONG UNDERWEAR, CARRYING A POCKET KNIFE (OR NAIL CLIPPERS OR A BUTTER KNIFE), OR ANYONE WHO HAS RECEIVED A DEGREE FROM OR IS CURRENTLY ATTENDING TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, OR IS CARRYING A CONCEALED LONG GUN.

If so, then you would be subject to arrest for a class B misdemeanor for walking past such a sign while engaging in the prohibited hidden conduct, regardless of whether the owner noticed and requested you to leave or not.

If the law was intended and were interpreted this way then it would provide a general criminal enforcement mechanism available IN ADVANCE to property owners for any activity or situation that they deemed objectionable. Just by placing a pictogram. Circle / Beretta means....you have to follow all the rules in the rule book (kept in back office) or you are trespassing.

Perhaps you can point to some examples where the law has been interpreted as above? Steve R suggested that some bikers had been trespassed from a bar that had a "no motorcycle gang clothing" for wearing patch jackets... But I wonder if they were prosecuted for walking past the sign or were told to leave and subsequently refused. Or maybe it was NO HELL'S ANGELS allowed. Would Mongols be OK?

If someone is to be prosecuted for a crime, the elements of the crime must be established at trial. Did you receive notice? Did you subsequently enter or remain without consent? You can say my examples are ridiculous, but what are we discussing here?

Does NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE mean no trespassing shirtless? Am I supposed to know that? Am I supposed to know that a line through a revolver sticker means carrying a pocket knife is trespassing? How about a concealed rifle?

My supposition is NO, therefore until proven otherwise, I will act as if such conduct is legal, because I have no definitive indication that it is not. If the conduct is hidden (like carrying a pocket knife) it is unlikely to ever become an issue. When one of my tenants gets arrested for violating my NO DEADBEATS sign, or when one of my colleagues gets convicted of a Class B for passing the NO PUNCHING IN LATE sign at my job, I may reconsider my position.

[WildBill]

[quote]What it doesn't do is automatically criminalize any unwanted conduct in advance.

NO AGGIES
NO THONGS
NO KNIVES
Circle with a line through a Beretta silhouette

Do these examples translate to? [/quote]

By themselves, these examples do not constitute conduct.
The act of trespassing is the [unlawful] conduct.

There are plenty of people in jail that thought that they could prove a point or outsmart the prosecutors, judge and jury.
I think that, when it is not perfectly clear, the benefit of the doubt goes with the State and the prospector, not the defendant.

[ScottDLS]

[quote]What it doesn't do is automatically criminalize any unwanted conduct in advance.

NO AGGIES
NO THONGS
NO KNIVES
Circle with a line through a Beretta silhouette

Do these examples translate to?

By themselves, these examples do not constitute conduct.
The act of trespassing is the [unlawful] conduct.

There are plenty of people in jail that thought that they could prove a point or outsmart the prosecutors, judge and jury.
I think that, when it is not perfectly clear, the benefit of the doubt goes with the State and the prospector, not the defendant. [/quote]

The benefit of the doubt always goes with the DEFENDANT per hundreds of years of common law, Constitutional law, and case law... It's the old saw "innocent until proven guilty"

[WildBill]

[quote]What it doesn't do is automatically criminalize any unwanted conduct in advance.

NO AGGIES
NO THONGS
NO KNIVES
Circle with a line through a Beretta silhouette

Do these examples translate to?

By themselves, these examples do not constitute conduct.
The act of trespassing is the [unlawful] conduct.

There are plenty of people in jail that thought that they could prove a point or outsmart the prosecutors, judge and jury.
I think that, when it is not perfectly clear, the benefit of the doubt goes with the State and the prospector, not the defendant.

The benefit of the doubt always goes with the DEFENDANT per hundreds of years of common law, Constitutional law, and case law... It's the old saw "innocent until proven guilty" [/quote]
Yeah, I think I remember reading about that in my Jr. High School Civics class.

[Scott Farkus]

So if I understand your post correctly, then you are saying that if I post a sign at my front door that clearly states "no Aggies allowed" and a person who I know to have graduated from Texas A&M walks right past that sign and enters my home, they will be in violation of 30.05 even if I do not say anything else to them, or ask them to leave, since my sign has already given them notice that they were not allowed to enter in the first place.

I'm not trying to challenge you in any way. I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying.

That's how I understand it. 30.06 would make no sense at all otherwise.

Now, there's also an issue of truly private (i.e. your house) vs. "private but open to the public" property (i.e. a business) but from what I can tell, 30.05 makes no distinctions between the two. That raises other issues and problems, I think, but is a different discussion.

[ScottDLS]

So if I understand your post correctly, then you are saying that if I post a sign at my front door that clearly states "no Aggies allowed" and a person who I know to have graduated from Texas A&M walks right past that sign and enters my home, they will be in violation of 30.05 even if I do not say anything else to them, or ask them to leave, since my sign has already given them notice that they were not allowed to enter in the first place.

I'm not trying to challenge you in any way. I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying.

That's how I understand it. 30.06 would make no sense at all otherwise.

Now, there's also an issue of truly private (i.e. your house) vs. "private but open to the public" property (i.e. a business) but from what I can tell, 30.05 makes no distinctions between the two. That raises other issues and problems, I think, but is a different discussion.

People are claiming 30.05 says this. 30.06 is very specific as to what constitutes NOTICE that you are trespassing. A proper sign will do it. 30.05 says nothing about a sign granting conditional authorization to be on property based on compliance with property owner's "rules". It's never been interpreted this way in the past as far as I can tell. You can put a "No Aggies" sign on your door and if you unknowingly let someone in who is an "Aggie", my contention is that person is not trespassing. If you tell him to leave after finding out he's an Aggie, or because he has a pocket knife, then he has to leave.

Where all this comes from is the debate in 1995 in the Legislature about the Concealed Handgun Law and whether a law was needed to make it illegal to carry on private property if the owner didn't wish it. Initially they didn't think they needed a specific law because a private property owner has always has the right to disallow entry to his property. The question came as to how you would notify someone that they didn't have permission to be on your property with a concealed handgun. In 1995 AG Dan Morales wrote an opinion saying that a "sign" would do...there was no specific format for the sign required, but presumably it had to be noticeable and get the point across. No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service; doesn't really tell me you don't want concealed handguns on in your store...arguably neither does a tiny sticker with a picture of a revolver and a knife, but the AG opinion was otherwise.

The signs that stood out to me back then were the ones that referenced 30.05 and said that licensed concealed handguns weren't allowed and were big enough and prominently posted enough to be noticeable. If I saw one of them, I didn't carry. In 1997 30.06 passed and cleared it up, defining exactly what constituted notice for prohibiting CHL. There was no exception in 30.05 for LEO state or Fed...until 2003, so presumably they couldn't carry past a circle slash Beretta sign or generic no-guns sign, on or off duty, that is if you believe AG Morales position still applied.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The law (30.05) provides for the REVOKING of consent to enter when it has already been granted, by being open to the public ("open" sign lit up on the door). It also deals with notification mechanisms for saying the that permission to enter is NOT GRANTED...No Trespassing Sign, Purple Paint Marks, written trespass notice (usually executed in presence of a LEO), oral notice.

While TPC §30.05, 30.06 and 30.07 all provide a mechanism for revoking effective consent after someone has entered the property without passing the appropriate sign, your implication that §30.05 is only a method of revocation and not prevention is wrong. If one posts a sign, §30.05 is a preventative measure. If no sign is posted and a person is told they cannot be on the property because ___________ (or if they are not given a reason), then §30.05 is a method of revocation of effective consent.

What it doesn't do is automatically criminalize any unwanted conduct in advance.

NO AGGIES
NO THONGS
NO KNIVES
Circle with a line through a Beretta silhouette

I have neither the time nor the desire to conduct comprehensive research to support a Forum argument. However, a cursory search revealed cases that show a specific person or people in general can be excluded from property for any reason whatsoever. (See Wilson v. State, 09-15-00412-C, 9th Cir. 10/19/2016). Obviously, one cannot prohibit entry onto certain property by persons because they are in a protected class. Wilson dealt with a citizen being barred from entering a city community center because the manager didn't like how he acted. Mr. Wilson was given a trespass warning, but the case is on point for two reasons. First, contrary to your argument, a person can be prohibited from entering for any reason. Secondly, this was true even though the community center is public property.

Do these examples translate to?

PURSUANT TO TXPC 30.05 ENTRY UPON THESE PREMISES IS PROHIBITED TO ANY PERSON WEARING THONG UNDERWEAR, CARRYING A POCKET KNIFE (OR NAIL CLIPPERS OR A BUTTER KNIFE), OR ANYONE WHO HAS RECEIVED A DEGREE FROM OR IS CURRENTLY ATTENDING TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, OR IS CARRYING A CONCEALED LONG GUN.

The answer is yes, if these prohibitions were posted on a sign, or if the person was given oral notice to leave is any of these factors applied. One need not reference any particular Penal Code section as you have done in your example. Of course, you resort to the absurd intentionally, but even then you fail to prevail on this issue.

If so, then you would be subject to arrest for a class B misdemeanor for walking past such a sign while engaging in the prohibited hidden conduct, regardless of whether the owner noticed and requested you to leave or not.

Yes. This is precisely the law if someone passed a 30.06 sign and enters with a concealed handgun. The Licensee would be guilty of Trespass by a License Holder the moment he/she walked past the sign without any instruction to leave and regardless whether the property owner ever know they were armed. Obviously, not being seen to be armed would mean the LTC would not be arrested or charged, but that has nothing to do with whether or not a crime had been committed. Use a 30.07 sign instead and the Licensee entered openly carrying a handgun. A crime has been committed at that point, even if the LTC is never told to leave and if the property owner never sees the LTC in his or her store.

If the law was intended and were interpreted this way then it would provide a general criminal enforcement mechanism available IN ADVANCE to property owners for any activity or situation that they deemed objectionable. Just by placing a pictogram. Circle / Beretta means....you have to follow all the rules in the rule book (kept in back office) or you are trespassing.

This makes utterly no sense. There is no "enforcement mechanism available IN ADVANCE" of someone committing a crime!! One cannot be arrested before they cross a no trespassing sign, whether it is a 30.05. 30.06 or 30.07 sign. The enforcement begins only after violation has occurred.

Once again, you resort to absurdity. Notice is the key. The "rule book kept in the back office" does not provide notice to someone who was unaware of its content. It does provide notice to someone like an employee (ex. Employee Handbook) who has read the "rule book" and later violates it by entering the property in violation of any prohibitions contained therein. A great example is §30.06 language in English only in an Employee Handbook.

If someone is to be prosecuted for a crime, the elements of the crime must be established at trial. Did you receive notice? Did you subsequently enter or remain without consent?

You finally admit that notice is the key. What you want to argue is that the basis upon which entry is prohibited matters, but it does not. In the Wilson case I cited, the city could have posted a sign that said "Cedrick Lamar Wilson do not enter" and Mr. Wilson would have had notice. The Wilson court even noted that Mr. Wilson need not be told why he cannot enter the community center.

Does NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE mean no trespassing shirtless? Am I supposed to know that?

No and I dealt with this in my first post. A sign that said "Do not enter without a shirt or shoes" would constitute notice. Do you argue that it does not?

Am I supposed to know that a line through a revolver sticker means carrying a pocket knife is trespassing? How about a concealed rifle?

That would be a fact question for the jury, but I would expect an appellate court to reverse a conviction for a knife. I would not be so brave as to try bringing a rifle into a building posted as you describe. You might win on that issue also, but again, you are essentially arguing a lack of notice, rather than legal unenforceability. The text of TPC §30.05 is clear, unambiguous and not limited as to the scope of conduct prohibited. Again, federal law does limit application based upon excluding people because they are in a protected class. Look at the Code section below; it is clear as the proverbial bell. Unlike §30.06 and §30.07, 30.05 is not limited to a specific reason for prohibiting entry.

Chas.

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) 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:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or

(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Where all this comes from is the debate in 1995 in the Legislature about the Concealed Handgun Law and whether a law was needed to make it illegal to carry on private property if the owner didn't wish it. Initially they didn't think they needed a specific law because a private property owner has always has the right to disallow entry to his property. The question came as to how you would notify someone that they didn't have permission to be on your property with a concealed handgun. In 1995 AG Dan Morales wrote an opinion saying that a "sign" would do...there was no specific format for the sign required, but presumably it had to be noticeable and get the point across. No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service; doesn't really tell me you don't want concealed handguns on in your store...arguably neither does a tiny sticker with a picture of a revolver and a knife, but the AG opinion was otherwise.

You could not be more wrong!! There was never a question as to whether TPC §30.05 could be used to prohibit entry to property by a Licensee carrying a concealed handgun. There was never any question about the sign, decal or any other form of notification that would be required to trigger TPC §30.05.

Please give me the AG Opinion by Morales that you reference. I have two Morales opinions dealing with concealed handguns, neither of which opine as you state. DM363 dealing with authority of a business or city to prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns by CHLs and DM364 dealing with the authority of cities and counties to prohibit handguns by Licensees in public parks are attached to this post. Perhaps I missed one, so please give me the number(s).

DM363's closing summary is set out below. Nothing in it dealt directly with signs, sign requirements, ambiguity, etc. There was no question in anyone's mind that anything that got the "no guns" message across was fine. This included no-gun decals both with and without any text. Here is the summary paragraph of DM363:

Senate Bill60 does not preclude private property owners from excluding license holders carrying concealed handguns from their premises under the criminal trespass statute, Penal Code, section 30.05. A license holder who enters or remains on property or in a building of another carrying a concealed handgun without effective consent to carry and who has had notice that concealed handguns are prohibited commits a criminal offense.

Note that the Morales AG Opinion refers to both entry or remaining on property after notice. The only notice one would receive prior to entering would be a physical notice of some type, whether a sign or decal. (Decals were the most common, with some having text referencing TPC §30.05 and some without any text. All but a very small percentage were very small.)

Before the end of the 1995 Legislative Session, we were working on what would become HB2909 in the 1997 Texas Legislative Session. Among other things, HB2909 created TPC §30.06, but it most certainly wasn't because business owners needed a criminal code provision that made it possible to prohibit concealed carry as you imply. TPC §30.06 was created to establish clear and conspicuous notice requirements for written notices, including signs. HB2909 also amended TPC §30.05 to exclude from its provisions any CHL that was prohibited from entering solely because they had a concealed handgun. If your factual statements were accurate, then it would not have been necessary to expressly deal with TPC §30.05.

The signs that stood out to me back then were the ones that referenced 30.05 and said that licensed concealed handguns weren't allowed and were big enough and prominently posted enough to be noticeable. If I saw one of them, I didn't carry. In 1997 30.06 passed and cleared it up, defining exactly what constituted notice for prohibiting CHL. There was no exception in 30.05 for LEO state or Fed...until 2003, so presumably they couldn't carry past a circle slash Beretta sign or generic no-guns sign, on or off duty, that is if you believe AG Morales position still applied.

I never saw a sign like you describe, but I'm not disputing what you observed. I and most CHLs saw an epidemic of small, clear no-gun decals typically placed on glass doors of mom-and-pop shops. These were very easily missed when walking in. By 1995, the international "slash symbol" was universally understood and accepted to mean "no ____________' whatever was pictured. There was no doubt that a Licensee could be prosecuted and convicted even if they missed this small decal. That was the sole reason TPC §30.06 was created.

Chas.

[thetexan]

So if I understand your post correctly, then you are saying that if I post a sign at my front door that clearly states "no Aggies allowed" and a person who I know to have graduated from Texas A&M walks right past that sign and enters my home, they will be in violation of 30.05 even if I do not say anything else to them, or ask them to leave, since my sign has already given them notice that they were not allowed to enter in the first place.

I'm not trying to challenge you in any way. I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying.

Well it can be analyzed simply enough. Consider the inverse to your contention. Let's say that it IS a requirement THAT THERE MUST ALSO BE SUBSEQUENT VERBAL NOTICE TO COMPLETE THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS. If that is so then there must be a clear expression of that requirement in the statute.

The sections of 30.05 are...

1. The definition of trespass (which is integrally tied to an owner's notification of his lack of consent that one enters onto his property.
2. What constitutes notification

a. oral or written communication
b. fencing
c. signage
d. agricultural markings, and
e. visible presence of agricultural crops under cultivation

3. Definitions
4. Penalties
5. Defenses to prosecution by certain persons in certain enumerated conduct
6. A statement that 30.05 does not apply to trespassing when that trespassing is solely based on the fact that one carries a handgun or other weapon, and to peace officers in the conduct and discharge of their official duties.

There it is....30.05 in its entirety. Let's find where it says that verbal notification subsequent to entry past a properly posted sign is required.

We read that the offense of trespass is dependent on the withholding of effective consent and NOTIFICATION of that withheld consent.

We read that "notice" means a, b, c, d, e above.

So let's take "a"...Notice means 'oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner"
Look at "c"...Notice means "a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;"

In the case of signage two things are required...proper placement, and, conspicuousness. Oral notification and signage notification are two independent methods of notification. One does not require the other. If entry is made onto property subsequent to notification, or refusal to leave property occurs after notification then by either of those two methods one is committing the offense of trespass.

There is no requirement in the statute that there must be a subsequent oral warning to a signage warning. One commits the offense at the first violation of a, b, c, d, or e. In 30.05 the levels of penalty are fixed and specified mostly based on location of the offense. In 30.06 and 30.07 there is provision for upgrading the penalty from a Class C to a Class A if, at trial, it can be shown that AFTER THE INITIAL COMMISSION OF THE TRESPASS you were ALSO given an oral warning and refused to leave. This is a difference between .05, .06, and .07.

But in all three the first violation of disregarding a lawful notice generates the offense. No secondary notice is necessary to be in trespass.

So, in short, the requirement that subsequent oral notification is required to consummate the offense of trespass does not exist. And, yes, the minute the Aggie enters upon your property past the properly posted and compliant sign you may call the police and file a complaint, with nothing else said.

This is all notwithstanding rules of politeness and etiquette...But since he's an Aggie, why would you go to the trouble?!

tex

[ScottDLS]

Where all this comes from is the debate in 1995 in the Legislature about the Concealed Handgun Law and whether a law was needed to make it illegal to carry on private property if the owner didn't wish it. Initially they didn't think they needed a specific law because a private property owner has always has the right to disallow entry to his property. The question came as to how you would notify someone that they didn't have permission to be on your property with a concealed handgun. In 1995 AG Dan Morales wrote an opinion saying that a "sign" would do...there was no specific format for the sign required, but presumably it had to be noticeable and get the point across. No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service; doesn't really tell me you don't want concealed handguns on in your store...arguably neither does a tiny sticker with a picture of a revolver and a knife, but the AG opinion was otherwise.

You could not be more wrong!! There was never a question as to whether TPC §30.05 could be used to prohibit entry to property by a Licensee carrying a concealed handgun. There was never any question about the sign, decal or any other form of notification that would be required to trigger TPC §30.05.

Please give me the AG Opinion by Morales that you reference. I have two Morales opinions dealing with concealed handguns, neither of which opine as you state. DM363 dealing with authority of a business or city to prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns by CHLs and DM364 dealing with the authority of cities and counties to prohibit handguns by Licensees in public parks are attached to this post. Perhaps I missed one, so please give me the number(s).

DM363's closing summary is set out below. Nothing in it dealt directly with signs, sign requirements, ambiguity, etc. There was no question in anyone's mind that anything that got the "no guns" message across was fine. This included no-gun decals both with and without any text. Here is the summary paragraph of DM363:

Senate Bill60 does not preclude private property owners from excluding license holders carrying concealed handguns from their premises under the criminal trespass statute, Penal Code, section 30.05. A license holder who enters or remains on property or in a building of another carrying a concealed handgun without effective consent to carry and who has had notice that concealed handguns are prohibited commits a criminal offense.

Note that the Morales AG Opinion refers to both entry or remaining on property after notice. The only notice one would receive prior to entering would be a physical notice of some type, whether a sign or decal. (Decals were the most common, with some having text referencing TPC §30.05 and some without any text. All but a very small percentage were very small.)

Before the end of the 1995 Legislative Session, we were working on what would become HB2909 in the 1997 Texas Legislative Session. Among other things, HB2909 created TPC §30.06, but it most certainly wasn't because business owners needed a criminal code provision that made it possible to prohibit concealed carry as you imply. TPC §30.06 was created to establish clear and conspicuous notice requirements for written notices, including signs. HB2909 also amended TPC §30.05 to exclude from its provisions any CHL that was prohibited from entering solely because they had a concealed handgun. If your factual statements were accurate, then it would not have been necessary to expressly deal with TPC §30.05.

The signs that stood out to me back then were the ones that referenced 30.05 and said that licensed concealed handguns weren't allowed and were big enough and prominently posted enough to be noticeable. If I saw one of them, I didn't carry. In 1997 30.06 passed and cleared it up, defining exactly what constituted notice for prohibiting CHL. There was no exception in 30.05 for LEO state or Fed...until 2003, so presumably they couldn't carry past a circle slash Beretta sign or generic no-guns sign, on or off duty, that is if you believe AG Morales position still applied.

I never saw a sign like you describe, but I'm not disputing what you observed. I and most CHLs saw an epidemic of small, clear no-gun decals typically placed on glass doors of mom-and-pop shops. These were very easily missed when walking in. By 1995, the international "slash symbol" was universally understood and accepted to mean "no ____________' whatever was pictured. There was no doubt that a Licensee could be prosecuted and convicted even if they missed this small decal. That was the sole reason TPC §30.06 was created.

Chas.

I have the CHL booklet from 1997 and I don't see any reference to CHL as a defense to 30.05, in that version of the trespass law law. As I recall it was deemed unnecessary as 30.06 was considered to pre-empt the 30.05 law for the purpose of barring concealed carriers. The soonest that I see 30.05 updated was in 2003 booklet. So if the 30.05 law remained the same, then a small decal would still suffice for barring CHL, police, etc. under the trespass law until 2003.

I'll have to dig through the DM opinions, I believe the one I'm thinking of referenced the debate that took place in the Texas Senate regarding whether a specific penal law was required to criminalize carrying on private property. The argument was that the trespass law would suffice, but I'm not aware of any case or opinion that referenced what form of notice was required to set conditions upon entry to property in advance of someone entering. I just wondered where the contention that "any sign" provided notice came from?

I'm only continuing the discussion as a hypothetical, because I am interested in the application of criminal law to various scenarios as it is commonly implemented in Texas. I find it interesting that the legislature and the courts would consider the PC 30.05 to be available to criminalize hidden/not readily apparent/common behavior at the complete discretion of the property owner. I had understood trespass was more about the ability to exclude persons or remove persons from your property. Many states with similar statutes have interpreted it this way.

I believe I understand now that you can be excluded from entering private property and prosecuted for a violation if you are given notice in advance that the entry is conditioned upon following some set of criteria. I guess it goes to a point of fact at trial whether a pictogram with a line through it prohibits certain conduct, and what that conduct is, and whether you received that notice simply by their posting it even inconspicuously.

To me it seems to follow that a No Aggies, No Cops, No thongs, and No Republicans sign carries the same force of law if clearly communicated in advance, even in a public venue. I also assume that if I sign my employee manual saying that my presence on the employer property is prohibited if I don't clock in on time, or ignore a rule about how to carry out my work. etc, I am violating criminal trespass law and am subject to arrest if my timecard is discovered with a late clock in, or if my work is not performed in accordance with the manual.

Also, my TAA leases for my tenants are all going to have a "no deadbeats" law specifying that entrance to my property is conditioned on paying the rent on time. This one's really going to save me some money in going to JP court to evict my tenants and all.... I know that one won't fly as it's dealt with elsewhere in property law... but the 30.05 appears to be interpreted as a very powerful criminal law for directing the activities of others in advance.

[G.A. Heath]

Texas Penal Code 30.05(a) defines Trespass as:

(a) 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:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

Here's the scenario:
Step 1. You have a sign on the front door of your home, sign says "No Aggies."
Step 2. Person Knocks and asks if they can come in to your home.
Step 3. You agree and allow them entry.
Step 4. While the person is inside your home you discover they are an Aggie.

So here's how things break down:
Step 1: Notice given.
Step 2: Consent requested.
Step 3: Consent Granted (unknowingly allowing an Aggie entry)
Step 4: Previous notice overridden by consent, new notice required if vermin is to be removed.