No where does it say a gun buster sign. Is the sign in English and Spanish? A gun with a slash? Nope.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.
Just a sign in English and Spanish (with block letters at least 1 inch in height and in contrasting colors) that says NO GUNS ALLOWED? Yep that similar language as in it conveys the intend and complies with the law. We do not need to know a business owner's intent with any sign as the law provides the method for them to convey there intent. Anything short of what the law provides, is not legally binding.
Any comparison to no smoking signs, etc is not a valid comparison to gun signs. Those other signs have no force of law behind them. Verbal notice to leave would still have to be provided before trespassing could be applied. Proper gun signs carry the force of law, which is my mind is wrong. All three signs (30.06, 30.07, & 30.05) should all be eliminated from law along with all trespassing related to a firearm too. A business can post whatever sign they want and they will carry the same force of law as no smoking, mask required, no shoes no shirt no service, etc, which is none. A business that does not want guns in their business and verbally tell anyone just like the others listed. If the person does not leave, they can call the police and ask for a trespassing notice just like the others.
While typing this, another better thought came to me. Businesses are required to recognize some Constitutional rights (like religion , etc) of all customers but not other Constitutional rights. All rights are the same. We should either require businesses to recognize all rights of all customers OR not require them to recognize any of them. It's either a business is required to allow their customers their religious freedom, expression, right to bear arms, no search / seizure without a warrant, freedom of expression (each and every right) OR business's liberties prevail and they are not forced for any of these. Which liberty / right is more important? My individual ones? Or a business's rights?