TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 5:10 pm Related, but somewhat as an aside, just who is/was the felony for violating the unlicensed carrying past one of those "old" TABC signs directed at anyway? In past discussions I thought it was intended toward the business. Originally, I thought it was directed at the person carrying in a business, but now, even though it seems a moot point, still don't know.

That warning was directed at the person carrying the firearm. Carrying without a license was unlawfully carrying. While unlawfully carrying was almost always a misdemeanor, doing so in a premises licensed to sell alcoholic beverages was upgraded to a felony.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:42 pm Can someone point out where in the law that statement has been made? And before anyone wants to throw the "beat the rap but not the ride" thing out, I have my LTC. I just want to know how that statement is accurate. I know what the law says, and unfortunately they put the words "substantially similar" in there. However, have we seen anyone ARRESTED ("the ride"), subsequently charged with a violation of PC 30.05 for walking past a "gunbuster" sign, and then CONVICTED ("the rap") for walking past that sign? Have there been any cases where someone has been ARRESTED for walking past, but then not charged? If there is even ONE case where either of these has happened, I would love to read about it. The infamous leftwing activist Saul Alinsky alluded to making a thing scarier than the thing itself. So, what I am pointing out is that unless that has happened, arrest and/or conviction, then it is just OPINION about those gunbuster signs, even though it may be a well-intentioned opinion. And obviously I'm not going to be the "test case" because, again, I have my LTC. I just don't want to give things away to the antis that shouldn't be given away.

EDITED TO ADD THE TEXT OF THE RELEVANT SECTION OF PC 30.05:

c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:

(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";

(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;

(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

The problem stems from the way the code is written when combined with the Code Construction Act (Government Code chapter 311). This law tells you how to read any terms in any Texas law. Section 311.016(1) says that may is discretionary or grants permission or a power. It does not make something required. So, one interpretation of Penal Code section 30.05 is that if they post a sign that uses the language specified you are legally notified that your entry while carrying a firearm (without a license) is without the effective consent of the owner. That makes you guilty of criminal trespass. But by not using the word SHALL in the law, this does not make it mandatory as the only way to notify a person that their entry is not allowed. There is the clearly and obviously legal way of telling them orally. But, there is also nothing saying other signs would not also provide legal notice. So, then you end up with the legal question "is a gunbuster sign (circle with a gun with a slash through it) enough notice to tell the mythical average, reasonable man that he cannot enter with a gun? Considering other trespass notices that are specifically allowed in Texas (like a fence designed to keep people out or animals in, or a purple painted mark on a fence or tree), I think it might be reasonable to conclude that the legislature would normally allow something as simple as a gunbuster sign.

The opposite interpretation is also very reasonable. By putting in the specific wording to use in 30.05, plus doing the same in 30.06 and 30.07, it is possible a court would decide that the law should be taken as the specified sign is the only way to notify a person in writing. This happens to be the opinion I thin is correct, but I cannot tell anyone to go by that thought. I have to let them know how the law could be taken by prosecutor and a court and let them make their own decision on the risk. Unfortunately, as with so many disagreements in modern life, this has come down to being something someone states their belief in and no one takes the time to explain how it is just an opinion and could be taken otherwise by a court.