Concealed Rifle Carry passed this sign?

[ScottDLS]

Section 30.05 of the PC is a criminal statute which requires certain elements for someone to be guilty of the crime. The State gets to decide what what criminal sanctions are to be applied, and how the force of the State may be engaged to enforce it, within Constitutional and legal limits, of course.

I maintain that the statute was not intended, nor has it been interpreted to enforce discreet conditions under which the property may be entered, or behaviors (some not even apparent) that are allowable vs. prohibited. It's more binary. You can't come on the property, it's posted, or marked, or fenced. Or you can, it's open displaying wares for sale to the public, etc. The NOTICE requirements ARE specific in the statute.
"A sign, reasonably likely to come to the attention of INTRUDERS....that ENTRY IS FORBIDDEN".

Again, my point is that a two word declaration "no weapons" with no further clarification, or a pictogram of "no fat girls" on the KA frat house doesn't clearly forbid entry to an open business or frat house having an open party. I gave an example previously, of a sign specifically invoking PC 30.05 and laying out the conditions of entry to the parking lot. I actually still don't think that meets the intent of the statute for the reasons stated above...but perhaps not as clear.

If the owner SUBSEQUENTLY wishes someone to leave for observed or "perceived" behavior (eating too much!), they can use oral notice to prohibit someone from the property.

The assumption that a generic sign stating a "rule" meets the NOTICE requirement in 30.05 is not valid (in my opinion). If I'm wrong and ANY SIGN with generic prohibition on ANY behavior invokes criminal trespass in a location that is otherwise open, then you get unreasonable results.

"No (concealed) briefs"
"No cops"
"No Republicans"
"No fat chicks"
"No hippies" (long haired freaky people need not enter).

Ignoring all the above brief declarations or pictograms on a business now constitutes a class B misdemeanor with a fine and/or imprisonment for up to 6 months as the penalty.

As soon as I get done typing this, I'm going over to my rental house where my tenant is 1 day late on his rent and post a sign saying "No deadbeats", I'll then call the police to arrest him for trespass, avoiding all the stupid rules about eviction.

[Soccerdad1995]

I understand The Texan's argument, but practical application of that argument to this situation of carrying a rifle past this specific sign, just does not make sense, as has been pointed out by Scott and others. There are 2 huge issues here.

1. The sign says nothing about not entering the premises. It doesn't say "entry is forbidden if you possess a weapon". It just says "no weapons". Like "no smoking", that statement is talking about an activity not telling you that your entry is forbidden. If the sign explicitly stated that entry was forbidden under specific conditions, then I could see how you might make a leap to say that this could constitute trespassing notice. But you still have some issues, namely...

2. The wording on the sign is overly broad does not define the restriction. To comply with an expansive definition of "no weapons", one would have to strip naked before entering, which would in turn violate other laws and they also could not enter with ID or an insurance card, which are typically required at most hospitals. In addition, this is an establishment that is known to have many very deadly weapons and presumably welcomes deliveries of the same (scalpels, deadly drugs, etc). So the wording of the sign does not even make sense. We then look at the picture which appears to be intended as a definition of what they mean by "no weapons". It appears that this hospital dislikes revolvers with a 4-6 inch barrel (I couldn't tell exactly but it sure ain't a snub nose), and fixed blade knives. Other weapons such as scalpels, pens, ID cards, rifles, folding knives, and shoes are not restricted which makes complete sense in context of where we are.

And importantly you only ever even get to this point if you first assume that any sign restricting behavior automatically conveys a potential for criminal arrest under trespass laws.. Something that has never been shown by any case law or precedent.

[LucasMcCain]

I got an answer back from my lawyer. I will post it here in its entirety. It's not quite as cut and dried as I would like, but I think it's about as detailed as we are likely to get. Hope this helps.


There is not a special criminal trespass sign for the carrying of a long gun, as there is for the carrying of a handgun by a license holder under TPC 30.06 and 30.07. For that reason, someone who trespasses with a long gun would likely be charged for trespass under TPC 30.05.

For property that is not open to the public, if you enter or remain on the property of another without effective consent, then any notice that entry is forbidden provided for under 30.05(b)(2) would be sufficient.
TPC 30.05(b)(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) 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;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land; or
(E) the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry.
Given that the trespasser in your scenario is carrying a long gun, an offense under this section would be a Class A misdemeanor under TPC 30.05(d)(3)(B).

For property that is open to the public, “notice” would likely require:
TPC 30.05(b)(2)(A) – oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner (that entry on to the property with a firearm or long gun is prohibited); or
30.05(b)(2)(C) – 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 (with a firearm or long gun).
As to the specific language necessary to communicate that entry is forbidden if someone is carrying a long gun (“no guns,” “no firearms,” “gun buster,” etc.), a jury would ultimately decide if the language used gave the defendant sufficient notice.
On offense under this section would be a Class A misdemeanor under TPC 30.05(d)(3)(B).

[goose]

We have at least moved from:
"for any kind of “no guns” sign (gun buster, etc.) because these ARE sufficient to make you a criminal trespasser under 30.05 if you carry past them"
to
"a jury would ultimately decide if the language used gave the defendant sufficient notice."

This I can get with. Thanks for the follow up.

[jmorris]

.......
As to the specific language necessary to communicate that entry is forbidden if someone is carrying a long gun (“no guns,” “no firearms,” “gun buster,” etc.), a jury would ultimately decide if the language used gave the defendant sufficient notice.
.....

Debate all we want, this is the only way it will ever be (sort of) settled.