TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:While it is true that neither MDA nor any other anti-gun organization has expressly stated that the campaign to repeal or gut TPC §30.06 is the result of OCT's irresponsible tactics, those are the facts. TPC §30.06 was not even on the anti-gun radar until OCT started carrying long guns into stores and restaurants. That gave MDA and the local Brady Bunch a focal point for their overall anti-gun agenda. Someone then saw Russell's http://www.Texas3006.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and they turned that resource into a plot to "ignore the wishes of property owners."

30.06 signs were not an issue because concealed-carry has not been an issue since 1997. OCT's scare tactics changed that and gave MDA and others a rallying cry.

Chas.

Exactly. I would add further that it is OK to be ignorant about the history of this right up until the moment that history has been laid out for your inspection, but it is NOT OK to continue to deny it once you know the history.

I appreciate the insight that you guys have offered. I admit that I'm not very politically astute regarding most things (office politics in particular stand out as a towering example), but I'm understanding a little more about what's going on as a result of this thread.
--

thetexan wrote:

Beiruty wrote:I have a suspicion that some pro-CHL employee or owners may use a non-compliant 30.06 as kind of warning or asking but not requesting the CHLer not to carry to satisfy a corporate policy.
Also, when concealed means exactly that, some would ignore any sign regardless if it is enforceable by law. If 30.06 is modified or repealed more of those CHLers would increase their ignorance of "small" signs.

And for those idiots Moms, Can they produce number of ND in private businesses per year, we have more than 810,000 CHLer. if 1 or 2 or even 4 ND per year that is still less than 0.5 :100,000 a very negligible rate.

I have suspected that for a long time. It's a way to let the general public know that the business doesn't want guns while at the same time knowing that CHLs will come in anyway. It's a way to be politically correct outwardly while receiving the benefits of CHL carriers at the same time.

tex

It's a nice theory that you can't prove.

It's all opinion, but it seems that if a sign maker can get the text correct in both English and Spanish, it means that someone read the statute, and if they read the statute it means that they know the letters are to be an inch high. Text of a smaller size hints that perhaps the folks who ordered the sign are playing both sides of the fence.

gdanaher wrote:It's all opinion, but it seems that if a sign maker can get the text correct in both English and Spanish, it means that someone read the statute, and if they read the statute it means that they know the letters are to be an inch high. Text of a smaller size hints that perhaps the folks who ordered the sign are playing both sides of the fence.

Or quite possibly it means they delegated the responsibility for making and posting the sign to someone who didn't know and/or didn't care what they were doing. I can easily envision a conversation something like:

[Boss] I don't want people with guns coming in here. Make a sign that keeps them out. Here's the regs.
[Flunky] Uh, sure boss. Whatever you say! (Grumble) Of course, I still have my regular job to do in addition to this. I wonder how fast I can make these signs.
— Hmmm, if I throw this wording onto a piece of paper, how hard can it be? (not reading ALL of the requirements) . . . or maybe not knowing how big an inch is. Tasteless male jokes start coming to mind so I'll quit now.

Remember Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

"The unlicensed possession of a weapon on these premises is a felony with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a fine not to exceed $10,000."
Many businesses post these types of signs because they know it placates the sheep while still honoring our right to carry.

I will respectfully disagree on this point. Businesses don't post this sign to placate anyone. The sign is mandated by TABC, and applies to any business selling alcohol for off-premises consumption.

As to the issue of 30.06 signs being invalid if not conforming exactly to the description in the penal code, that non-sense keeps coming around. I agree it should be that way, but two official representatives of DPS Regulatory Services Division, which certifies instructors, told me in person that "any indication that the business owner does not want firearms on their property constitutes effective notice". Even if you are not in violation of the 30.06 statute, you can be found in violation of trespass. Even if the sign is written in sharpie on a piece of cardboard, it constitutes effective notice. I am personally not interested in spending an hour debating with a LEO whether 7/8 inch letters invalidates a sign.

skeathley wrote:

"The unlicensed possession of a weapon on these premises is a felony with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a fine not to exceed $10,000."
Many businesses post these types of signs because they know it placates the sheep while still honoring our right to carry.

I will respectfully disagree on this point. Businesses don't post this sign to placate anyone. The sign is mandated by TABC, and applies to any business selling alcohol for off-premises consumption.

As to the issue of 30.06 signs being invalid if not conforming exactly to the description in the penal code, that non-sense keeps coming around. I agree it should be that way, but two official representatives of DPS Regulatory Services Division, which certifies instructors, told me in person that "any indication that the business owner does not want firearms on their property constitutes effective notice". Even if you are not in violation of the 30.06 statute, you can be found in violation of trespass. Even if the sign is written in sharpie on a piece of cardboard, it constitutes effective notice. I am personally not interested in spending an hour debating with a LEO whether 7/8 inch letters invalidates a sign.

DPS is wrong. Just because a DPS instructor says something, it does not make it law. What they are telling you is that 30.06 is null and void. That's obviously false.

skeathley wrote:As to the issue of 30.06 signs being invalid if not conforming exactly to the description in the penal code, that non-sense keeps coming around. I agree it should be that way, but two official representatives of DPS Regulatory Services Division, which certifies instructors, told me in person that "any indication that the business owner does not want firearms on their property constitutes effective notice".

I don't know when you heard or read this from DPS, but this was an issue sometime back. DPS clarified it's statement to make it clear that DPS was not saying that a sign that does not meet the statutory requirements would support either an arrest or conviction. Remember, a LEO cannot make a good faith arrest for that which is not illegal.

Tex. Penal Code §30.06 is unique in Texas jurisprudence. When HB2909 was drafted in 1997, care was taken to word it such that the unconstitutional "close counts" provision of Tex. Penal Code §1.05 would not vitiate the very specific requirements of a 30.06 sign. That's why §30.06(c)(3)(A) states "identical to the following:" The size is also very specific, "block letters at least one inch in height . . ." Tex. Penal Code §30.06(c)(3)(B). I do think that it would take a brave person to walk past a sign with the appropriate wording, but only 7/8" letter. They might prevail in court, but that's an expensive diversion.

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §1.05 wrote:Sec. 1.05. CONSTRUCTION OF CODE. (a) The rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed does not apply to this code. The provisions of this code shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms, to promote justice and effect the objectives of the code.

Tex. Penal Code §30.06 wrote:Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

• (1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
  
  (2) received notice that:
  • (A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
    
    (B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

• (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.

• (c) In this section:
  
  • (1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
    
    (2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
    
    (3) "Written communication" means:
  • (A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
    
    (B) a sign posted on the property that:
    
    • (i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
      
      (ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
      
      (iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

I interpreted the DPS instructors statement as saying that a business posting a 30.06 sign, even if non-compliant with the law, shows the 'intent' of the business to prohibit CHL's from carrying there, but they in no way were they saying it was legally binding and you would be prosecuted. However, as Charles stated, if you want to be a test case on those that are not close, we will all the moral support we can muster in your legal battle.

I'm a little late to this one, but I wouldn't worry too much about a story that airs on CBS 11 gaining much traction. Their news overall is by far the least watched in DFW and the viewers that they do have are primarily in Tarrant County and those to the West...meaning more conservative and 2A leaning than some of the more moderate areas of the Metroplex like Dallas.

Keith B wrote: I interpreted the DPS instructors statement as saying that a business posting a 30.06 sign, even if non-compliant with the law, shows the 'intent' of the business to prohibit CHL's from carrying there, but they in no way were they saying it was legally binding and you would be prosecuted. However, as Charles stated, if you want to be a test case on those that are not close, we will all the moral support we can muster in your legal battle.

And that was what that DPS attorney told me several years ago. She told me that DPS would consider any sign "close enough" as long as the language was somewhere near correct and they didn't care what height the letters were, the mere act of posting the sign showed intent. She got a little upset with me when I asked if a posted speed limit of 30mph meant that 39mph was close enough because, after all, it was in the 30s.

I have tended to treat even the 6th Floor Museums patently and blatantly non-compliant 3x5 card posting as at a minimum of intent to cause me a lot of difficulty if I get caught, even if I am not eventually convicted.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:They're covering 30.06 signs. Advertising it as "some chl holders believe they can ignore these guns not allowed signs" and they're right.

{{sigh}} Thanks a LOT, OCT.

Yep! Yet they'll claim they're protecting our rights and that their demonstrations don't have any downside.

Chas.

I've been sick of these guy's tactics for years. They continue to be willing to throw us concealed carry folks under the bus. Their demonstrations have hurt us more than the campaigns of the anti-gun crowd.