TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:


All I can do is explain the my logic to which you will either agree or disagree. Here it is...

The language of 30.06 can be rewritten combining appropriate phrases, thusly...

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral communication, or by (now substituting the definition of written communication)
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property.



tex

thetexan wrote:

jkurtz wrote:
My point was that just because something is posted or marked, does not mean it is done in an effective manner, thus not providing notice.

Says who, you? With all respect, we can't have a intellectual discussion about this if we keep throwing out assertions as fact. You are missing the entire point of the notice issue. The state of Texas HAS DEFINED...H A S D E F I N E D... in writing what constitutes notification! We don't have to guess, interpret or otherwise. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, and most of all you don't have to apply sense to it, common or otherwise. The law defines when you have been notified. That is, when the owner had properly posted SOMEWHERE on his property a compliant 30.07 sign that has been conspicuously posted visible to the public.

The sign's prohibition applies to his property. A gas station's sign can be at the door of the store, at the air pumps, at the gas pumps, at the drive entrance, on the grass or under the Exxon sign and it prohibits CC on the very same property. That's not me saying this, that's the sign saying it..."PROPERTY!!". There isn't a 30.06 sign just for doors, and another one for gas pumps, or a different one for drive entrances. IF, IF the owner meant to prohibit CC only at the gas pumps he would be REQUIRED BY LAW to use the very same sign!

You don't even have to know the sign exists for the purpose of notification fulfillment...NOT ACCORDING TO 30.06!

Let me ask this...Do you (rhetorical you) know all of the states traffic laws? Do you know all the states banking laws and regulations? Are you aware of all of the state's gaming laws? What is going to be your excuse if you break one of these out of ignorance of their existence? Are you going to ask the judge to please let you go because you weren't aware that you had to report cash withdrawals over $10000? What is your defense...ignorance of the law? Or do you suppose that the court will require you to know what you are doing and, in any case, take responsibility for your actions?

I don't know where you live but I can assure you of this...YOU PERSONALLY are in a state of having been notified that the Longview Mall is 30.06 prohibited simply because the mall has fulfilled it's posting requirements under 30.06...and that is all that is required in 30.06 to meet the definition of notification. You, me, and everyone are notified, and you probably have never even been to the mall much less seen a sign. I have been notified of every 30.06 location in Marfa and I have never even been there...assuming they have properly posted compliant signs.

None of this requires any interpretation or common sense...AS FAR AS READING THE ACTUAL LAW IS CONCERNED!

NOW...if you want to apply common sense and interpretation in a real world situation then I might agree with you in thinking that it makes sense that one would need to see the sign. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE RULE STATES AS WRITTEN.

That's all...no biggie...the legislators wrote what they wrote and probably could have written it better. They seemed to make an attempt to clarify with 30.07. One might infer that by clarifying .07 they were, in effect, admitting that .06 needed clarification. It seems strange that they would pass up the opportunity to do so while focusing on clarifying .07. They chose to leave it as is.

Personally, I might loosely interpret .06 to my advantage just like everyone else. But I can't intellectually twist the clear meaning of .06 to support my doing so. I would have to hope that a jury would accept my defense of being unaware of the signage, with probably the same result of trying to convince them that I was unaware of the 55 mph speed limit when I was caught going 75...

"I wasn't notified of the speed limit...didn't see the sign your honor".

tex

Solaris wrote:

jkurtz wrote:

Solaris wrote:

Archery1 wrote: Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

I wrote "fence & purple paint"

Very applicable as folks have claimed not to see the purple paint where there is no fence. They got a free ride in GW pickup truck.

There is a big difference between someone claiming that they couldn't see a sign (or paint) and someone that actually could not see the sign (or paint). If a business owner posts signs in such as way that costumers cannot see the signs then notice was not given. To say that someone breaks the law because they enter a building with posted signs, despite the fact that the signs are not visible, is no different than stating that someone breaks the law if they enter a building after oral notice was given, despite the fact that they were not present to hear such notice.

Those posts were in the context of "conspicuously posted". You are referencing "signs are not visible"

This is incorrect. If the sign is lawfully posted, you are trespassing whether you see it or not. Same for 30.05, purple paint, whatever.

Solaris wrote:

Archery1 wrote: Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

I wrote "fence & purple paint"

Very applicable as folks have claimed not to see the purple paint where there is no fence. They got a free ride in GW pickup truck.

thetexan wrote:

Archery1 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Archery1 wrote:Ambiguity of notice does provide a defense, but as a gun carrier, so does responsibility provide us a duty. There's nothing written that says you have to know every possible ambiguous scenario that surrounds your legal notice or lack thereof to carry on personal property, but there does exist some duty to become educated on where you might carry. I might hunt a vast open and non-fenced space, but I better know the boundaries between my hunt and off-limits areas that are not my hunt unless I want to explain my actions to others in Court.

I am not sure of the meaning of this statement. Can you clarify or give an example that explains what you mean?

See the example of the gas pump. Yes, if they post it on the door and not the entrance, you don't have good notice if you can't see it. If they call the cops and you get ticketed, that's your defense against the ticket. Is that automatic? Well, think of what the judge might say: "You are the one wanting to carry a gun on private property, you were trained what the signs looks like, you know they typically post them at the door, so why didn't you look there then pump?" So, what I mean is that I have a good defense that I can't look everywhere for signs before entering, but I also have a prosecution in that I do know where to look.

According to you. Not according to law. There is NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SEE THE SIGN for the fulfillment of the specifications of notification to you according to 30.06.

30.06b states...

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.



tex