TexasCHLforum.com

The reason that regular old gunbusters don't invoke 30.05 trespass is because of this stipulation, correct:

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense
if the person enters or remains on or in property of another,
including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle
park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective
consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden;
...
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in
the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden;
and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

May not sound like much, but very important to LTC Holders, I believe.

You could argue that the 1997 30.06 statute superseded 30.05 even before the defense for CHL holders was added in 2003. But the defense is even more protection against an activist judiciary.

locke_n_load wrote:The reason that regular old gunbusters don't invoke 30.05 trespass is because of this stipulation, correct:

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense
if the person enters or remains on or in property of another,
including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle
park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective
consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden;
...
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in
the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden;
and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

May not sound like much, but very important to LTC Holders, I believe.

It seems to me that the reason that gunbuster signs don't invoke 30.05 is that 30.06 and 30.07 both supersede 30.05 with regard to licensed carry. '06 and '07 basically declare that a compliant '06 or '07 sign must be prominently posted in order to serve as "notification by sign". There ARE other methods of notification including verbal, and written in the required language on paper and handed to the LTC-holder. But notification by signage requires a compliant 30.06 or 30.07 sign, and neither a gunbuster or a 30.05 sign have force of law with regard to a licensed carrier.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:The reason that regular old gunbusters don't invoke 30.05 trespass is because of this stipulation, correct:

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense
if the person enters or remains on or in property of another,
including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle
park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective
consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden;
...
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in
the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden;
and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

May not sound like much, but very important to LTC Holders, I believe.

It seems to me that the reason that gunbuster signs don't invoke 30.05 is that 30.06 and 30.07 both supersede 30.05 with regard to licensed carry. '06 and '07 basically declare that a compliant '06 or '07 sign must be prominently posted in order to serve as "notification by sign". There ARE other methods of notification including verbal, and written in the required language on paper and handed to the LTC-holder. But notification by signage requires a compliant 30.06 or 30.07 sign, and neither a gunbuster or a 30.05 sign have force of law with regard to a licensed carrier.

And I assume the reason why the gunbuster/30.05 doesn't apply is due to the code I quoted, just checking. I've always heard they don't apply, but just wanted to have the code correct that explains why it doesn't apply to my students.

ScottDLS wrote:You could argue that the 1997 30.06 statute superseded 30.05 even before the defense for CHL holders was added in 2003. But the defense is even more protection against an activist judiciary.

So because 30.06 applies to LTC holders directly, that even before the 2003 code quoted, license holders were exempt from gunbusters for handgun carry?

locke_n_load wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:You could argue that the 1997 30.06 statute superseded 30.05 even before the defense for CHL holders was added in 2003. But the defense is even more protection against an activist judiciary.

So because 30.06 applies to LTC holders directly, that even before the 2003 code quoted, license holders were exempt from gunbusters for handgun carry?

Yes, that is what Charles has said before. Before 30.06 was passed in 1997, there was no specific sign to apply to CHL. But once 30.06 said specifically what to do to prevent CHL carry, the 30.05 was no longer applied. I question whether 30.05 really legally applied in the way that AG Morales stated it did, but since there were no relevant court cases, his opinion was the most relevant legal opinion. In 2003 (I think) the Defense for CHL was added to 30.05, and the EXCEPTION for cops too... So theoretically a gunbuster applied to cops without a CHL from 1995-2003, at least per AG Morales opinion .

ScottDLS wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:You could argue that the 1997 30.06 statute superseded 30.05 even before the defense for CHL holders was added in 2003. But the defense is even more protection against an activist judiciary.

So because 30.06 applies to LTC holders directly, that even before the 2003 code quoted, license holders were exempt from gunbusters for handgun carry?

Yes, that is what Charles has said before. Before 30.06 was passed in 1997, there was no specific sign to apply to CHL. But once 30.06 said specifically what to do to prevent CHL carry, the 30.05 was no longer applied. I question whether 30.05 really legally applied in the way that AG Morales stated it did, but since there were no relevant court cases, his opinion was the most relevant legal opinion. In 2003 (I think) the Defense for CHL was added to 30.05, and the EXCEPTION for cops too... So theoretically a gunbuster applied to cops without a CHL from 1995-2003, at least per AG Morales opinion .

Interesting. Thanks Scott.
With a lot of this, history of the law is almost as important as the law itself. Since I just got into this the past few years, it's hard to catch up!