The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
All of what you say might be completely correct. Could you please point out in the statute where notice "TO ME" is required?ScottDLS wrote:C-dub wrote: ...
It is not required that a person see the sign. It is only required that it be there.
Here are the relevant parts of both 30.06 and 30.07 regarding signage.
30.06(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
...
If you didn't see it, you've got a pretty good argument that it wasn't "displayed in a conspicuous manner, clearly visible to the public".
To violate the 30.06 law requires you to enter and remain after 'receiving notice'. The notice has to be 'provided TO YOU' per the statute. And while a conspicuously displayed sign constitutes 'notice' in the statute, there's an argument as to whether it was 'provided to you' if it wasn't visible from where you entered. Or if you subsequently departed after noticing it.
So to OP question, I wouldn't be worried if I were in the situation that his friend was in. In my opinion he wasn't violating the law if he left after noticing the sign. And it would be unlikely to "take the ride" for a class C even if someone (in authority) noticed he was carrying.
I went to a restaurant the other day carrying concealed. I noticed a HUGE 30.07 sign as I walked in, so I figured I was OK. When I left, I noticed a 30.06 on the other wall that I hadn't seen coming in. You could argue I broke the law, because the 30.06 was arguably conspicuous. I didn't intend to break the law, and I won't go back there carrying, but I'm not going to go report myself to the local JP court for them to charge me...
I interpret it as here:C-dub wrote: ...
All of what you say might be completely correct. Could you please point out in the statute where notice "TO ME" is required?
Provides notice "to the person" that they are wishing to exclude. In my example...to me. The statute then goes on to define notice as a sign conspicuously placed and meeting the requirements. So you could argue that by posting the sign they are providing notice...to me, but I find that a stretch if I didn't see the sign. Meaning in my opinion it wasn't conspicuously placed...30.06
...
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
...
n.
It is a stretch, but that's the way it is worded and it would all be up to a judge or jury to decide which it is. I think that if I were ever put in the situation of defending myself against this type of violation that I would opt for a jury trial if it got to that point. I think that a jury would be better under these circumstances.ScottDLS wrote:I interpret it as here:C-dub wrote: ...
All of what you say might be completely correct. Could you please point out in the statute where notice "TO ME" is required?
Provides notice "to the person" that they are wishing to exclude. In my example...to me. The statute then goes on to define notice as a sign conspicuously placed and meeting the requirements. So you could argue that by posting the sign they are providing notice...to me, but I find that a stretch if I didn't see the sign. Meaning in my opinion it wasn't conspicuously placed...30.06
...
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
...
n.
My guess is that retreat will work in just about every case."Won't you give me three steps,
Gimme three steps mister,
Gimme three steps towards the door?
Gimme three steps
Gimme three steps mister,
And you'll never see me no more."
Ah, yes. I keep forgetting it was lowered.goose wrote:As a Class C, wouldn't a trial only come into play if you refused to leave? And then it would be trespass? Granted an LEO without the knowledge could still take you downtown even if you were willing to leave, but wouldn't a judge write you a ticket and send you on your way?
NOT GOOD ENOUGH! So. I went to dinner tonight at Texas Roadhouse. Way above the doors was posted a 3007 in black and white split into two signs. Would have never seen it if i didnt have a 40 min wait! These signs need to be eye level on the doors with black printed on white. Another poster said different colors for the different signs, I kind of agree with that one too! Then you can see at a distance what the signs are, for people like me that have fuzzy eyes !!!K.Mooneyham wrote:Yes, indeed, 30.06 needs a "cleanup" bill to align the wording with 30.07 so that the signs must be placed at ALL entrances accessible to the public. That way, no excuses for either the LTC holder or the gun controller who put the signs up.
I agree with you, it should be within eye level but as of right now it is not within the statue. All you would have to do is cover up or leave, failure to do so would be a class C misdemeanor. I was out with my family in North East mall and there is a store posted 30.06 very hard to see in the left corner of the glass on the store front. I did see it, although it was not in Spanish and the wording was too small.TreyHouston wrote:NOT GOOD ENOUGH! So. I went to dinner tonight at Texas Roadhouse. Way above the doors was posted a 3007 in black and white split into two signs. Would have never seen it if I didn't have a 40 min wait! These signs need to be eye level on the doors with black printed on white. Another poster said different colors for the different signs, I kind of agree with that one too! Then you can see at a distance what the signs are, for people like me that have fuzzy eyes !!!
I like the 30.07 "defense"... you must be a lawyer.Soccerdad1995 wrote:Most likely, the hypothetical person who walked through an unposted entrance would have zero issue since they would be concealed. If someone saw their firearm somehow, they would most likely be asked to leave (either by the owner or LEO) and would have no issue if they did so.
If they were issued a ticket for the offense, and they chose to fight it, they would have at least two defenses that I can think of.
The 30.06 notices were not valid because they were not posted in a conspicuous manner, clearly visible to the public, given that a good percentage of mall visitors enter the mall through unposted store X (I'm guessing the mall owner has marketing statistics on visitor traffic flow that could be subpoenaed to prove this percentage).
The other defense would be that the person was in fact openly carrying since at least a portion of their handgun was in fact visible (as it was seen by someone). 30.07 requires signage at every entrance, and that requirement was not met since the signage was not posted at store X or at the entrance to the mall from that store.
