TexasCHLforum.com

TreyHouston wrote:...
Call the number and ask! Just ask if you are allowed to walk the easement. If you are not trespassing, then. The 06, 07 sign doss not apply... Easy!

Not so easy, because it invokes a can of worms that might be best not opened. Large numbers of local people walk their dogs in this particular easement, as there are no suitable parks or public spaces in the residential area through which it runs. It also serves as a conduit connecting subdivisions that are not linked by sidewalks, and so kids who attend the same schools traverse it back and forth to each others' houses. Every once in a while a citizen asks about the legality of dog-walking, but even if it were considered trespassing, who would have the authority to declare it? There are probably six or seven different business entities in that easement. If one says yes and the other six say no, is the answer yes? Or do the landowners have the final say? Who knows how many landowners exist in that corridor.

I suspect that Magellan's primary concern might have been the intrinsically safe issue, not a concern with carry rights. On the other side of the fence are signs warning about hydrogen sulfide.

Regardless, IANAL but I think it would be a hard case to make that the entire easement is posted. Depending on where one enters the easement, one would have to walk at least a mile before encountering the first 06/07 sign. But it never hurts to ask, because there might be case law on the subject.

Proper pic of what I was describing above:

Grundy1133 wrote:...
IANAL but i'd say just the fence because that's where it's located.

This is what I had been assuming, but you know what they say about the word "assume". I thought I'd ask here because easements were being discussed.

Many easements include pipelines transporting highly flammable product. I have wondered if the no-carry exhortation was part of the overall policy for all activities in those areas to be intrinsically safe - no potential ignition sources of any kind may be present, including a dischargeable weapon.

Additionally, unscrupulous individuals use easements for target practice. Utility easements are long and linear and so they attract such people. In fact, there's a well-known outdoor gun range in my area which has, on occasion, gone onto social media to disavow certain apparently-illegal activities such as guns that probably fall under the ban (i.e., fully automatic). People occasionally show up in the easement near their facility hoping that the legit sound of nearby gun fire will cover the sound of their own guns. And then the facility will get on social media saying something like, "We hear a machine gun out there but for the record, it's not on our property and it's not one of our patrons." So for that reason as well, I've wondered if these signs are an attempt to exclude carry from the entire easement.

Liberty wrote:... I doubt if the easement or utility right of way is posted 30.06/07 anyway. ...

Attached is an Imgur link to a blurry pic of an easement in the Clear Lake area. The bright white object just left of photo center is a pipeline access point (where the pipeline segment extends above ground, has valves, flanges, etc.). It is surrounded by a chain link fence. Not visible on this photo, but clearly visible in person, are conforming 30.06/07 signs on the chain link fence.

Question: Is the owner and/or easement holder attempting to convey restriction just inside the chain link fence, or inside the entire easement? There are no other structures or points where such signs could be posted if the intent was to declare for the easement itself.