Concealed Rifle Carry passed this sign?

[goose]

First of all guys, thanks so much for not attacking me or anything. I really appreciate being able to discuss things like this on the internet without name calling and insults. It's pretty rare in this day and age.

Next, let me just reiterate that the interpretations I've presented aren't really my own. They are the answers I've been given by two or three different lawyers. Hopefully they were mistaken, but I'm really not sure how to know for sure. Personally, I would very much like to get a sub 2000 specifically for carrying concealed in posted areas. However, I really want to make sure that I stay on the right side of the law while doing so.

So to that end, do you guys have an idea on how we could get a definitive answer to this question? Can we ask for an opinion from the AG office? Should I ask my lawyer if there is specific case law to support their interpretation? Other ideas?

There is really no definitive answer until a case has been decided and appealed and decided. Even an AG opinion is just a strong indicator of how the current office holder would handle it. I think asking your lawyer for case law to support their interpretation would be perfect. Precedence has huge ramifications in legal matters. Make sure they aren't charging you by the hour to find case law though. :-) We would appreciate you being willing to pay but..............

As an aside, does anyone following along have a good resource for looking online for legal rulings in court?

[NotRPB]

I had resources to look up cases, but not currently the best ones since I no longer work in a law office.
I could spend (waste) time researching,
but...
Here's the thing....

It will be tough to find any case law on something which is not illegal, such as carrying a rifle concealed when no one knows it's there, into a place which does not prohibit it under any law since it doesn't have a valid sign prohibiting it under 30.05, then a person in authority or with apparent authority requesting the carrier of that concealed rifle which no one knows about to leave and then the concealed rifle carrier refuses to leave but chooses to wait for police to arrive so he can be charged for refusing to leave after receiving oral 30.05 notice , assuming the police decide to charge him if a prosecutor would accept charges, rather than the police simply telling him he has now received 30.05 oral notice and to leave and not return while carrying concealed rifle which no one knows about.

Police often will advise a trespasser the first time, that they have now received notice and not to return, so the carrier of that concealed rifle no one knows about may have to repeat the conduct in the paragraph above once more again ...in order to get arrested for there to be any case law.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I didn't stay at Holiday Inn last night, I just I tweet stuff and fish and watch TV a lot, I'm retired from everything, but I do eat too much popcorn..
I could be wrong, I was wrong once, the divorce papers proved it..

[goose]

I had resources to look up cases, but not currently the best ones since I no longer work in a law office.
I could spend (waste) time researching,
but...
Here's the thing....

It will be tough to find any case law on something which is not illegal, such as carrying a rifle concealed when no one knows it's there, into a place which does not prohibit it under any law since it doesn't have a valid sign prohibiting it under 30.05, then a person in authority or with apparent authority requesting the carrier of that concealed rifle which no one knows about to leave and then the concealed rifle carrier refuses to leave but chooses to wait for police to arrive so he can be charged for refusing to leave after receiving oral 30.05 notice , assuming the police decide to charge him if a prosecutor would accept charges, rather than the police simply telling him he has now received 30.05 oral notice and to leave and not return while carrying concealed rifle which no one knows about.

That is an amazing sentence, BTW. :-)
But isn't finding no case law part of getting closer to a definitive answer? If there has never been a case; if charges have never been filed; then we know. Research is always good. Not finding a case is probably good. It does still leave room for the thought that no one has ever done it and been seen as having done so. But, I agree that it is not illegal. And if no one finds any evidence of it being illegal we get closer and closer to that definitive answer, right?

Police often will advise a trespasser the first time, that they have now received notice and not to return, so the carrier of that concealed rifle no one knows about may have to repeat the conduct in the paragraph above once more again ...in order to get arrested for there to be any case law.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I didn't stay at Holiday Inn last night, I just I tweet stuff and fish and watch TV a lot, I'm retired from everything, but I do eat too much popcorn..

[Dadtodabone]

It seems that the hospital defines "weapons" as meaning "handguns and knives".

It looks to me like revolvers and knives.

But no chains?
"1 Adam 12, 1 Adam 12, a 415 fight group(caesura)with chains and knives"
A simpler time, qu'as-tu pensé?

[ScottDLS]

It seems that the hospital defines "weapons" as meaning "handguns and knives".

It looks to me like revolvers and knives.

But no chains?
"1 Adam 12, 1 Adam 12, a 415 fight group(caesura)with chains and knives"
A simpler time, qu'as-tu pensé?

I prefer Dirks and Poniards...

[LucasMcCain]

So I won't mention anything to the attorney general. I think that is probably a good call. I will see if I can get a more definitive answer from my lawyer and post any answer I get here. I really don't have a strong opinion personally on what 30.05 truly means with regard to carrying firearms, but I would very much like to have an official answer, as it will dictate my behavior going forward.

A word of caution, though. The idea of "nobody's ever been convicted of this, so it must not be a crime" is patently false. Many people have pointed out that nobody has ever been convicted of criminal trespassing under 30.06. Does that mean it's not a crime? Nobody has been convicted for open carrying past a 30.07 to my knowledge. Does that mean it's not a crime? It's a crime to commit suicide in many places, but I doubt they've ever convicted anyone of it. Just because it hasn't come up does not mean it's not illegal. It may mean you are very unlikely to get caught, but I personally don't want to take that risk. I like to know exactly where I stand and where the lines of the law are.

[ScottDLS]

So I won't mention anything to the attorney general. I think that is probably a good call. I will see if I can get a more definitive answer from my lawyer and post any answer I get here. I really don't have a strong opinion personally on what 30.05 truly means with regard to carrying firearms, but I would very much like to have an official answer, as it will dictate my behavior going forward.

A word of caution, though. The idea of "nobody's ever been convicted of this, so it must not be a crime" is patently false. Many people have pointed out that nobody has ever been convicted of criminal trespassing under 30.06. Does that mean it's not a crime? Nobody has been convicted for open carrying past a 30.07 to my knowledge. Does that mean it's not a crime? It's a crime to commit suicide in many places, but I doubt they've ever convicted anyone of it. Just because it hasn't come up does not mean it's not illegal. It may mean you are very unlikely to get caught, but I personally don't want to take that risk. I like to know exactly where I stand and where the lines of the law are.

I prefer to view this as, "You haven't done something illegal until the State proves you have, in court". With a concealed rifle the issue is unlikely to come up. Lawyers being cautious by nature are likely to advise you not to do something that could conceivably be illegal. They'd likely say that passing a "no-briefs" sign while wearing (concealed) briefs is a bad idea. There are a large number of examples of individuals ignoring posted signs (no loitering, no smoking) where an oral notice and usually a written trespass warning is issued before charging someone with a class B, so why is carrying a concealed rifle past a pictogram of a Beretta any different.

[Soccerdad1995]

So I won't mention anything to the attorney general. I think that is probably a good call. I will see if I can get a more definitive answer from my lawyer and post any answer I get here. I really don't have a strong opinion personally on what 30.05 truly means with regard to carrying firearms, but I would very much like to have an official answer, as it will dictate my behavior going forward.

A word of caution, though. The idea of "nobody's ever been convicted of this, so it must not be a crime" is patently false. Many people have pointed out that nobody has ever been convicted of criminal trespassing under 30.06. Does that mean it's not a crime? Nobody has been convicted for open carrying past a 30.07 to my knowledge. Does that mean it's not a crime? It's a crime to commit suicide in many places, but I doubt they've ever convicted anyone of it. Just because it hasn't come up does not mean it's not illegal. It may mean you are very unlikely to get caught, but I personally don't want to take that risk. I like to know exactly where I stand and where the lines of the law are.

I prefer to view this as, "You haven't done something illegal until the State proves you have, in court". With a concealed rifle the issue is unlikely to come up. Lawyers being cautious by nature are likely to advise you not to do something that could conceivably be illegal. They'd likely say that passing a "no-briefs" sign while wearing (concealed) briefs is a bad idea. There are a large number of examples of individuals ignoring posted signs (no loitering, no smoking) where an oral notice and usually a written trespass warning is issued before charging someone with a class B, so why is carrying a concealed rifle past a pictogram of a Beretta any different.

You are clearly risking arrest if you park your car in a spot that is posted "Aggie parking only". I'm assuming here that no Aggie has actually passed the drivers test.......

[Scott in Houston]

So I won't mention anything to the attorney general. I think that is probably a good call. I will see if I can get a more definitive answer from my lawyer and post any answer I get here. I really don't have a strong opinion personally on what 30.05 truly means with regard to carrying firearms, but I would very much like to have an official answer, as it will dictate my behavior going forward.

A word of caution, though. The idea of "nobody's ever been convicted of this, so it must not be a crime" is patently false. Many people have pointed out that nobody has ever been convicted of criminal trespassing under 30.06. Does that mean it's not a crime? Nobody has been convicted for open carrying past a 30.07 to my knowledge. Does that mean it's not a crime? It's a crime to commit suicide in many places, but I doubt they've ever convicted anyone of it. Just because it hasn't come up does not mean it's not illegal. It may mean you are very unlikely to get caught, but I personally don't want to take that risk. I like to know exactly where I stand and where the lines of the law are.

I prefer to view this as, "You haven't done something illegal until the State proves you have, in court". With a concealed rifle the issue is unlikely to come up. Lawyers being cautious by nature are likely to advise you not to do something that could conceivably be illegal. They'd likely say that passing a "no-briefs" sign while wearing (concealed) briefs is a bad idea. There are a large number of examples of individuals ignoring posted signs (no loitering, no smoking) where an oral notice and usually a written trespass warning is issued before charging someone with a class B, so why is carrying a concealed rifle past a pictogram of a Beretta any different.

You are clearly risking arrest if you park your car in a spot that is posted "Aggie parking only". I'm assuming here that no Aggie has actually passed the drivers test.......

A bigger risk is having someone think I'm an Aggie.

[thetexan]

This is at a hospital, so the 30.06 is definitely enforceable.
My question is whether carrying a concealed rifle (e.g., Sub 2000 or 10/22 Take Down) into this building a violation of 30.05?

The picture doesn't show a 30.06 sign, but assuming one is there, the sign still doesn't say anything about 30.05.

"No Weapons"?? The definition of weapons in 46.02 doesn't include long guns, and I've never seen anything in 30.05 that says that a generic sign on a facility open to the public invokes 30.05. Even the 1995 opinion by AG Morales only referenced concealed handguns and also was overridden by 30.06 and probably never would have stood up on challenge. So I don't buy the "circle-slash-beretta" means 30.05 notice for concealed rifles.

The "No Weapons" wording, while not legally associated in any way with 30.06 or .07 (since both statutes are the prescribed signage notification for handguns licensed under 411 Subchapter H only and any other wording adds no additional legal muscle to .06/.07). I find no requirement for how to prohibit someone from carrying other weapons, thermos bottles, tennis shoes, handbags, or any other item on an owner's property. I believe this would fall under the generic 30.05 trespass statutes. Therefore the bottom part of the sign handles carry licensed handguns, the "No Weapons" wording stops other weapons, the "No Smoking" adds the prohibition of smoking and if it had read "No Weapons or Nike tennis shoes" then one would have to abide by those instructions or risk trespassing.

The interesting point of this is this....had the sign only said "No Weapons" without the 30.06/30.07 part then one would be notified not to carry a rifle (on risk of trespassing) but not a licensed handgun, concealed or otherwise, on the theory that only 30.06/.07 can prohibit licensed handguns!!!! So one would be trespassing if he carried his AR-15 inside but not if he carried his belt holstered, open carried handgun!

tex

[ScottDLS]

The "No Weapons" wording, while not legally associated in any way with 30.06 or .07 (since both statutes are the prescribed signage notification for handguns licensed under 411 Subchapter H only and any other wording adds no additional legal muscle to .06/.07) I find no requirement for how to prohibit someone from carrying other weapons, thermos bottles, tennis shoes, handbags, or any other item on an owner's property. I believe this would fall under the generic 30.05 trespass statutes. Therefore the bottom part of the sign handles carry licensed handguns, the "No Weapons" wording stops other weapons, the "No Smoking" adds the prohibition of smoking and if it had read "No Weapons or Nike tennis shoes" then one would have to abide by those instructions or risk trespassing.

The interesting point of this is this....had the sign only said "No Weapons" without the 30.06/30.07 part then one would be notified not to carry a rifle (on risk of trespassing) but not a licensed handgun, concealed or otherwise!!!! So one would be trespassing if he carried his AR-15 inside but not if he carried his belt holstered, open carried handgun, on the theory that only 30.06/.07 can prohibit licensed handguns.
tex

It is not clear that a sign with words prohibiting a particular activity is sufficient notice under 30.05, particularly for a public open facility. Nor have I been able to find a case where it has been interpreted that way absent oral notice. I don't believe it was the intent of the statute and even the (dubious) 21 year old opinion by AG Morales related only to concealed carry of a handgun and has since been rendered moot by statute (30.06).

If the trespass law was interpreted this way it would lead to absurd results...giving the criminal enforcement power of the state to: No Nikes, no fat chicks, no Republicans, and no cops signs. Then the courts or legislature would be busy with interpreted orstatutory carve outs for the next 20 years. Additionally it would be in conflict with the way almost every other jurisdiction has interpreted similar statutes...which does establish some precedent for how the courts in Texas would likely interpret. So in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I personally would still carry past such a sign.

[thetexan]

The "No Weapons" wording, while not legally associated in any way with 30.06 or .07 (since both statutes are the prescribed signage notification for handguns licensed under 411 Subchapter H only and any other wording adds no additional legal muscle to .06/.07) I find no requirement for how to prohibit someone from carrying other weapons, thermos bottles, tennis shoes, handbags, or any other item on an owner's property. I believe this would fall under the generic 30.05 trespass statutes. Therefore the bottom part of the sign handles carry licensed handguns, the "No Weapons" wording stops other weapons, the "No Smoking" adds the prohibition of smoking and if it had read "No Weapons or Nike tennis shoes" then one would have to abide by those instructions or risk trespassing.

The interesting point of this is this....had the sign only said "No Weapons" without the 30.06/30.07 part then one would be notified not to carry a rifle (on risk of trespassing) but not a licensed handgun, concealed or otherwise!!!! So one would be trespassing if he carried his AR-15 inside but not if he carried his belt holstered, open carried handgun, on the theory that only 30.06/.07 can prohibit licensed handguns.
tex

It is not clear that a sign with words prohibiting a particular activity is sufficient notice under 30.05, particularly for a public open facility. Nor have I been able to find a case where it has been interpreted that way absent oral notice. I don't believe it was the intent of the statute and even the (dubious) 21 year old opinion by AG Morales related only to concealed carry of a handgun and has since been rendered moot by statute (30.06).

If the trespass law was interpreted this way it would lead to absurd results...giving the criminal enforcement power of the state to: No Nikes, no fat chicks, no Republicans, and no cops signs. Then the courts or legislature would be busy with interpreted or statutory carve outs for the next 20 years. Additionally it would be in conflict with the way almost every other jurisdiction has interpreted similar statutes...which does establish some precedent for how the courts in Texas would likely interpret. So in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I personally would still carry past such a sign.

I agree that there is no specific way to keep one off a property for a specific reason. 30.05 requires that an owner or one acting with the apparent authority of the owner simply give notice that entry was forbidden. I believe that a person can be discriminated against for any non-NON-DISCRIMINATION REASON (race, color, sex, etc) under the theory of trespassing and the owner's sovereignty over his property and the rights that gives him to specify who may and may not enter thereon.

If the owner wanted to notify all persons entering that no hats were allowed then a sign to that effect would suffice. The same for requiring cell phones to be turned off. If "No Weapons" does not so notify then what would notify because clearly the owner has that right to do so and to be specific?

In short, how does an owner exercise his right prohibit weapons and how does he notify persons entering his sovereign property of that prohibition if a sign that states "NO WEAPONS" doesn't do it? (again we are talking about non Subchapter H licensed guns since 30.06/.07 are specifically required for those.

tex

[Scott in Houston]

The "No Weapons" wording, while not legally associated in any way with 30.06 or .07 (since both statutes are the prescribed signage notification for handguns licensed under 411 Subchapter H only and any other wording adds no additional legal muscle to .06/.07) I find no requirement for how to prohibit someone from carrying other weapons, thermos bottles, tennis shoes, handbags, or any other item on an owner's property. I believe this would fall under the generic 30.05 trespass statutes. Therefore the bottom part of the sign handles carry licensed handguns, the "No Weapons" wording stops other weapons, the "No Smoking" adds the prohibition of smoking and if it had read "No Weapons or Nike tennis shoes" then one would have to abide by those instructions or risk trespassing.

The interesting point of this is this....had the sign only said "No Weapons" without the 30.06/30.07 part then one would be notified not to carry a rifle (on risk of trespassing) but not a licensed handgun, concealed or otherwise!!!! So one would be trespassing if he carried his AR-15 inside but not if he carried his belt holstered, open carried handgun, on the theory that only 30.06/.07 can prohibit licensed handguns.
tex

It is not clear that a sign with words prohibiting a particular activity is sufficient notice under 30.05, particularly for a public open facility. Nor have I been able to find a case where it has been interpreted that way absent oral notice. I don't believe it was the intent of the statute and even the (dubious) 21 year old opinion by AG Morales related only to concealed carry of a handgun and has since been rendered moot by statute (30.06).

If the trespass law was interpreted this way it would lead to absurd results...giving the criminal enforcement power of the state to: No Nikes, no fat chicks, no Republicans, and no cops signs. Then the courts or legislature would be busy with interpreted or statutory carve outs for the next 20 years. Additionally it would be in conflict with the way almost every other jurisdiction has interpreted similar statutes...which does establish some precedent for how the courts in Texas would likely interpret. So in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I personally would still carry past such a sign.

I agree that there is no specific way to keep one off a property for a specific reason. 30.05 requires that an owner or one acting with the apparent authority of the owner simply give notice that entry was forbidden. I believe that a person can be discriminated against for any non-NON-DISCRIMINATION REASON (race, color, sex, etc) under the theory of trespassing and the owner's sovereignty over his property and the rights that gives him to specify who may and may not enter thereon.

If the owner wanted to notify all persons entering that no hats were allowed then a sign to that effect would suffice. The same for requiring cell phones to be turned off. If "No Weapons" does not so notify then what would notify because clearly the owner has that right to do so and to be specific?

In short, how does an owner exercise his right prohibit weapons and how does he notify persons entering his sovereign property of that prohibition if a sign that states "NO WEAPONS" doesn't do it? (again we are talking about non Subchapter H licensed guns since 30.06/.07 are specifically required for those.

tex

All true, but let's take one for an example... The "No Hats" example.

If there was a sign to that effect, can the owner then call the police and have one wearing a hat in this hospital arrested for trespassing?

No, but if they went up to the person and said, "Please remove your hat or leave the building," and the person did not leave, at that point, probably they could.

How would it be different for "weapons"?

[thetexan]

If there was a sign to that effect, can the owner then call the police and have one wearing a hat in this hospital arrested for trespassing?

No,

Whoa there! What makes you think he can't have you arrested?

OWNER: I'm sorry sir no hats allowed. Did you see the sign?

DIRTY LOW DOWN PERPETRATOR: Yes I did and you can't tell me I can't wear a hat in here.

OWNER: I'm sorry sir you will have to leave.


Now, the triggering event for the trespassing is your refusal to leave but the indirect cause of the clash is your disobedience of the sovereign owner's warning in the form of a sign as to who may and may not enter the building. In fact I maintain that once notification was given in the form of that sign you violated 30.05a1 in that you had notice that the entry was forbidden and that walking through the door consumated the trespass in which case he did not even need to tell you again.

tex

[Scott in Houston]

If there was a sign to that effect, can the owner then call the police and have one wearing a hat in this hospital arrested for trespassing?

No,

Whoa there! What makes you think he can't have you arrested?

OWNER: I'm sorry sir no hats allowed. Did you see the sign?

DIRTY LOW DOWN PERPETRATOR: Yes I did and you can't tell me I can't wear a hat in here.

OWNER: I'm sorry sir you will have to leave.


Now, the triggering event for the trespassing is your refusal to leave but the indirect cause of the clash is your disobedience of the sovereign owner's warning in the form of a sign as to who may and may not enter the building.

tex

You're saying exactly what I said. Read my post again. I asked the question, then moved onto the scenario where the property owner confronts/notifies the trespasser.

Sure they can have you arrested after confronting you and asking you to leave.

Prior to that, NO.