That's a really good catch! Seeing the full text, one has to both have received notice and "not have" effective consent (which means an affirmative approval, it seems like) in order to be breaking the law. Since we rarely ever ask for effective consent to open or conceal, then the first requirement, 30.06/7 (1), is almost always fulfilled - by way of not having a thing required - so we are not excused.Mike S wrote:Here's the actual statutes; I highlighted in blue the part about it being an offense without effective consent:
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
...
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.
...
The signs you referenced merely satisfies "written notice" if you are carrying openly/concealed under the authority of your LTC, on someone else's property, without their consent.
Having an effective consent means that both (1) and (2) are not fulfilled, so the actor can continue to carry. Very good point.