TexasCHLforum.com

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

That is how I read it too.

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

So if you see the sign, and ignore it while entering the property, only a Class C? Then, as long as you don't look back at the sign AFTER you enter the property, you are fine? Seems weird.

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

Oh I did miss that part. In which case, someone could verbally tell you "no concealed weapon" or pointing to the 30.06 sign AFTER you entered... thanks for that clarification.

When I gave it more thought, it would have to be proven that you failed to depart after given the notice. Well, I don't know about you, but I never entered a business without the intent to depart within the near future

CJD wrote:

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

So if you see the sign, and ignore it while entering the property, only a Class C? Then, as long as you don't look back at the sign AFTER you enter the property, you are fine? Seems weird.

If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.

Tracker wrote:

CJD wrote:

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

So if you see the sign, and ignore it while entering the property, only a Class C? Then, as long as you don't look back at the sign AFTER you enter the property, you are fine? Seems weird.

If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.

I agree with you, I was just pointing out why I don't think their argument of "after entering the property" made sense. Like I pointed out, 30.06 does not state that one must "see" the sign in order to receive notice, nor does the amendment say that "accidentally" entering the property is only a Class C.
If you enter the property, and a 30.06 sign is properly posted, then whether you see it or not, you are given effective notice and failing to depart.

With this in mind, I don't see a scenario in which one commits a Class C 30.06 trespass. If you can show me a scenario, I would love to be proven wrong.

Tracker wrote:

CJD wrote:

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

So if you see the sign, and ignore it while entering the property, only a Class C? Then, as long as you don't look back at the sign AFTER you enter the property, you are fine? Seems weird.

If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.

If a business wants to hinder my ability to protect myself with an elective sign that provides a false sense of security then I expect that business to post signage according to the statute.

thatguy wrote:

Tracker wrote:

CJD wrote:

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

So if you see the sign, and ignore it while entering the property, only a Class C? Then, as long as you don't look back at the sign AFTER you enter the property, you are fine? Seems weird.

If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.

If a business wants to hinder my ability to protect myself with an elective sign that provides a false sense of security then I expect that business to post signage according to the statute.

So do I. My phone company has an old gun buster sign in the door but I respect it and don't carry in. I don't think I've ever seen a 30.06 sign on any business other than a rest home or hospital. I knew the manager of one rest home my aunt was in and she (being a gun owner herself but no CHL) had a 30.06 sing in side window to the home. It was printed on an 8x11 inch typing paper....print lettering is to small so defense to prosecution. I told her the sign wasn't up to code but respected it anyway.

Interesting thought. HB910 states that each entrance must be posted with 30.07 in order to bar open carry. The 30.06 code does not say "each entrance". Therefore, if 30.07 is not posted at every entrance to an establishment, could you technically walk past a valid 30.07 sign and not be in violation of the law?

Another question. The amendment says "after entering the property". So if the business just posts the signs past the door, let's say on the indoor wall, you have been given effective notice after "entering" the property, and it is therefor a class A?
I really wish they had said verbally and that would have made it very clear. Walk past sign = class C. Given verbal notice and stick around = class A.

locke_n_load wrote:Interesting thought. HB910 states that each entrance must be posted with 30.07 in order to bar open carry. The 30.06 code does not say "each entrance". Therefore, if 30.07 is not posted at every entrance to an establishment, could you technically walk past a valid 30.07 sign and not be in violation of the law?

Another question. The amendment says "after entering the property". So if the business just posts the signs past the door, let's say on the indoor wall, you have been given effective notice after "entering" the property, and it is therefor a class A?
I really wish they had said verbally and that would have made it very clear. Walk past sign = class C. Given verbal notice and stick around = class A.

If you see the sign and don't leave, then it would be a Class A.

Chas.

What has always bothered me is the way that OCT was allowed to redefine "constitutional carry". In Texas we already have constitutional carry, on your own property, you may carry open or concealed without penalty as long as it is legal for you to own the firearm. Licensed carry is to make the anti-gunners or anti 2nd amendmenters shut up because they have the same rights on public property as anyone else does. Therefore the license means you have been vetted and can carry in common or public property, with few restrictions. Just saying. If you don't agree, that's ok, too. I am sooooo glad that HB910 is on track, it may be slow but it looks like it is steady.

CJD wrote:

Tracker wrote: If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.

I agree with you, I was just pointing out why I don't think their argument of "after entering the property" made sense. Like I pointed out, 30.06 does not state that one must "see" the sign in order to receive notice, nor does the amendment say that "accidentally" entering the property is only a Class C.
If you enter the property, and a 30.06 sign is properly posted, then whether you see it or not, you are given effective notice and failing to depart.

With this in mind, I don't see a scenario in which one commits a Class C 30.06 trespass. If you can show me a scenario, I would love to be proven wrong.

CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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 received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

Tracker wrote: If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.

I agree with you, I was just pointing out why I don't think their argument of "after entering the property" made sense. Like I pointed out, 30.06 does not state that one must "see" the sign in order to receive notice, nor does the amendment say that "accidentally" entering the property is only a Class C.
If you enter the property, and a 30.06 sign is properly posted, then whether you see it or not, you are given effective notice and failing to depart.

With this in mind, I don't see a scenario in which one commits a Class C 30.06 trespass. If you can show me a scenario, I would love to be proven wrong.

CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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 received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

But where does it say anything about "accidentally"? As I've pointed out, one receives notice from a proper sign being posted, regardless of whether you see it. I understand the amendment's intent, I'm just wondering whether it is actually accomplished.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Interesting thought. HB910 states that each entrance must be posted with 30.07 in order to bar open carry. The 30.06 code does not say "each entrance". Therefore, if 30.07 is not posted at every entrance to an establishment, could you technically walk past a valid 30.07 sign and not be in violation of the law?

Another question. The amendment says "after entering the property". So if the business just posts the signs past the door, let's say on the indoor wall, you have been given effective notice after "entering" the property, and it is therefor a class A?
I really wish they had said verbally and that would have made it very clear. Walk past sign = class C. Given verbal notice and stick around = class A.

If you see the sign and don't leave, then it would be a Class A.

Chas.

So basically keep your head down when you walk in?

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote: CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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 received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

But where does it say anything about "accidentally"? As I've pointed out, one receives notice from a proper sign being posted, regardless of whether you see it. I understand the amendment's intent, I'm just wondering whether it is actually accomplished.

I believe ELB has provided the best answer for that though, put in bold for emphasis:

ELB wrote: What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.