TexasCHLforum.com

In another thread I told of a medical building normally posted not being posted last time I went.

A question was raised concerning if the building was still posted if I had seen a sign there previously.

So I started muddling that around in my noggin and thought of the great "Grapevine Mills Mall" discussions of lore.

For your consideration and discussion.

1. If a building was previously posted but the sign is no longer in place, even temporarily, for whatever reason, is the building still posted?

2. In the GMM situation we all know that some entrances are available that are not posted (or at least last I heard). The conclusion in the past has been that if you see a sign at one entrance but then enter through an unmarked entrance you still knew the building was posted and are in violation. The question I raise is what if I only go once a year (month, day) when I am in the area? Do I have to go to each entrance and look for a sign or can I choose to enter, knowingly or unknowingly, an entrance that is unmarked? If I enter an unmarked entrance am I in violation even if I previously (a year/month/day ago) knew the building was posted? Afterall, how do I know that didn't take the signs down in that period I was not around?

3. I usually enter the aforementioned medical building throught the south entrance that previously has been posted. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the south entrance is still posted and I find there is a north entrance (which is true, never knew it was there until last visit). If the next time I park closer to the north entrance which is not posted and enter there, am I in violation? Again, maybe the signs are removed between visits. Am I bound by some duty to check all entrances if I suspect (or know from previous visits) that the building is posted if the entrance I use this time is not posted?

I am not talking about walking to one door, seeing a sign, and immediately walking to an unposted door. What I'm trying to determine is how much duty is required on the CHLs part to establish the legallity of carrying in an environment that is known to have been posted in the past (or different entrance) but does not appear to be currently?

AFAIN this hasn't been challenged in court and afterall, even if you are caught carrying, you just have to leave when asked, so it may be a mountain out of a molehill. Just an interesting question...at least to me.

If I post a no smoking sign and take it down five minutes later, can someone be successfully prosecuted for smoking there if they didn't see the sign?

What if they walked by during the five minutes the sign was up and saw the sign. Are they forever prohibited from smoking there?

If you have reason to believe the building is posted then I would think you are obligated to determine if it is. If you go to an entrance that was posted, but is no longer, and have reason to honestly believe the location is no longer posted then you should be ok. Of course the usual applies such as IANAL, IANALEO, and most importantly this is not legal advice but is the opinion of just one average law abiding citizen.

G.A. Heath wrote:If you have reason to believe the building is posted then I would think you are obligated to determine if it is. If you go to an entrance that was posted, but is no longer, and have reason to honestly believe the location is no longer posted then you should be ok. Of course the usual applies such as IANAL, IANALEO, and most importantly this is not legal advice but is the opinion of just one average law abiding citizen.

If there is no sign then then it isn't posted. Posted means having a sign.

If there is another sign that you are aware of then maybe it isn't posted. but the law is claear and no where is it stated that once you post a sign it can't be undone.

If all entrances are not posted it does not comply with the law and is not binding even if they post one door. The law is clear. A CHL holder may be arrested but not convicted in my opinion. I do not restrict myself because of imagined circumstances. I do not believe "intention of the poster" is in play because the law is specific about posting. We all make our choices. They choose not to post properly and I choose not to be fooled by their ignorance of the law. That is just my opinion of things.

shootthesheet wrote:If all entrances are not posted it does not comply with the law and is not binding even if they post one door. The law is clear. A CHL holder may be arrested but not convicted in my opinion. I do not restrict myself because of imagined circumstances. I do not believe "intention of the poster" is in play because the law is specific about posting. We all make our choices. They choose not to post properly and I choose not to be fooled by their ignorance of the law. That is just my opinion of things.

The Law doesn't say anything about Entrances at all. The wording is, "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public. "

For me...no sign when I walk in, not enforceable...

nils wrote:For me...no sign when I walk in, not enforceable...

I know I'm picking nits, but what if its real conspicuous after you've already entered?

If I see a victim zone sign I take myself and my money somewhere else.

That's a different question than a place that has no sign but maybe had one in the past.

Liberty wrote:

nils wrote:For me...no sign when I walk in, not enforceable...

I know I'm picking nits, but what if its real conspicuous after you've already entered?

Then you leave. There's another thread discussing a Super 8 motel where the 30.06 sign is at the registration desk. So if you walk in "heeled," and you see the sign at the desk, then you turn around and leave, and that satisfies the requirement. Since the sign was not posted at the entrance, you would have no way of knowing until after you entered. No LEO in his/her right mind is going to make a big deal out of this as long as you, in good conscience, obey the sign when you see it.

I think most defenses revolve around the actor's "perception" or "perceived view" at the time of the "offense" in question. Therefore, if there was no sign, it would be perceived as a non-issue. So I don't see how it would be enforceable.

The ability to "defend" yourself will not stop you from spending time on the wrong side of the bars. It would be a "best practice" to error on the side of caution. If I see that someone doesn't want me around becuase of my gun, I leave, plain and simple. I would rather not test the waters for how valid the sign is, the "intent" behind the sign or anything else that would land me in jail first, defense later.

My CHL instructor commented specifically about hidden signs. . . GMM used to have brass engraved 30.06 signs on the side wall after you entered. The law is clear: the sign must be visible, in high-contrasting colors, in Spanish and in English, with a minimum of 1-inch letters. My instructors usually erred on the side of caution, but in this case said that an improper sign is the same as no sign. If it's little, in English only, and you have to search for it, then it's not compliant. In the same way, if it's not posted on a certain entrance, then it's not enforceable (although it might be a "defense to prosecution" situation) if you entered through that entrance.

Another sticky situation is the anchor stores. . . which the mall doesn't "own". Few of them have 30.06 signs, and I've never seen a 30.06 sign as you enter the mall from an anchor.