TexasCHLforum.com

austinrealtor wrote:Charles, I concede the point to your superior wisdom on this subject. Thank you for correcting the flaws in our reasoning on this subject. I honestly did not think there was anything "criminal" about merely ignoring a "no smoking" sign or a "no cell phones" sign.

Thanks for clarifying

This discussion is really getting into the weeds, but it's not your fault.

A sign that simply says "No Smoking" or "No cell phones" without more probably would not support a violation of TPC §30.05. I was just using a shorthand example. The sign would have to include language making it clear that entry with that device was prohibited. This would be true for any personal property, except for handguns. No magic language would be required and there would be no minimum sign size requirement.

The point of my earlier posts is that TPC §30.05 could be used to exclude anyone with any personal property. Sorry for the confusion.

Chas.

frazzled wrote:This discussion has been enlightening. The above has changed my mind and I am in agreement. If property owners can still mandate no firearms akin to no shirt shoes no service-ie if come on you must leave or can be asked to leave- then I am onside with removing the 30.06 in this context. The sign still serves as notice but you can only be asked to leave and arrested if you do not, in fact, leave (akain to any other "you are now trespassing, please leave").

Sorry, you're wrong. See above.

Chas.

mr.72 wrote:Charles, et al, I think the point that is not being made clearly or concisely enough to prevent misinterpretation is this:

There is only one piece of legal, personal property which can be possessed by an individual, which has its own special trespassing law in Texas that specifies that you are criminally trespassing if you enter a property posted with a particular sign. That one piece of property is a concealed handgun.

Yes, handguns have a special code provision; one that aids the CHL making it much more difficult to exclude an armed CHL. This is good, not bad. It benefits a CHL, it is not a detriment.

mr.72 wrote:All of these other arguments about property owners being able to restrict this and that are completely irrelevant and moot in this discussion because there is not one single other object that is subject to this type of criminalizing based on carrying it past a no-trespassing sign. Other things, all of them, are subject to the general ruling on trespassing, which is the owner of the property must take an affirmative action to remove you from the property, and you must refuse to do so in the presence of a police officer in order to become a criminal.

You are dead wrong. I can post a sign saying "No [anything]" on my property and if you come onto my property with that object, you have entered without effective consent and in so doing have crossed a sign that put you on notice. At the point you enter my property in defiance of the warning sign, you have committed a criminal trespass.

TPC §30.05 does not require a LEO to have the property owner order you off the property in the LEO's presence. That is what is done in practice, but that is simply the LEO's attempt to avoid having to make an arrest.

mr.72 wrote:So the OP's point is completely valid and totally reasonable. There is absolutely no logical justification that can be made in support of 30.06 as distinct from 30.05. Period, and end of story.

You may be through listening, but you got the story wrong. Your argument utterly ignores both TPC §§30.05 and 30.06. It also ignores the factual and political history during the 1995 to Sept. 1, 1997 time period.

mr.72 wrote:The whole purpose of 30.06 is political.

Yes it was; it is the product of politics protecting CHL's making it harder to exclude them from property.

mr.72 wrote:As soon as we begin to have 30.0X sub-sections to cover every other piece of personal property whose possession on posted property becomes banned by force of Texas Law simply because of the nature of that property, then we can begin to compare 30.06 to other property rights laws. But at the present time, it is a law in a class by itself.

It's not needed; TPC §30.05 can be used to cover any personal property the land owner desires. And he can put up a small sign without any special language and it doesn't have to be a "big, ugly sign." It can be the pre-30.06 2"X2" clear decal stuck on the lower right hand side of a glass door.

Your complaint is utterly without merit.

Chas.

G26ster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

G26ster wrote:To me, this is the question that is not being addressed in this thread, and the one I'd love to have input on. Why is ignoring other non-gun related signs placed by property owners NOT a criminal offense, but ignoring the 30.06 sign IS a criminal offense? Seems like it has nothing to do with private property rights.

Ignoring a no trespassing sign is a criminal offense, whether it's under TPC §30.05 or 30.06. There is no difference. However, enforcement by LEO's often/usually involve the officer telling the property owner to order the trespasser to leave and arresting them if they do not.

Chas.

Thanks Charles, and I agree if it is a "No Trespassing" sign. I was addressing more of what austinrealtor said. If I enter an office with a "No Cell Phones" sign, and I am discovered, are the penalties/actions by the LEO the same as entering a business with a 30.06 sign and being discovered? Will the officer just have the owner tell me to leave with my weapon? I've always thought I'd be arrested on the spot.

Technically, yes you have committed criminal trespass if you cross a "no cell phone" sign and enter the property. Again, the LEO is going to have the property owner tell you to leave in his presence, but technically you have violated TPC §30.05.

Remember, entering without effective consent is one of two ways you can violate TPC §30.05. Staying after being told to leave is another. If you see a sign that says "no cell phones" and you enter, you have been given notice that the owner doesn't want you on the property with a cell phone. If you enter, you have technically violated the statute.

Chas.

TPC §30.05 wrote:Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or

(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.

(2) "Notice" means:

(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

G26ster wrote:To me, this is the question that is not being addressed in this thread, and the one I'd love to have input on. Why is ignoring other non-gun related signs placed by property owners NOT a criminal offense, but ignoring the 30.06 sign IS a criminal offense? Seems like it has nothing to do with private property rights.

Ignoring a no trespassing sign is a criminal offense, whether it's under TPC §30.05 or 30.06. There is no difference. However, enforcement by LEO's often/usually involve the officer telling the property owner to order the trespasser to leave and arresting them if they do not.

Chas.

Texgun wrote:There is a great amount of time spent discussing the problems associated with 30.06, trespass and CHL. I would like to hear some discussions about non-30.06 signs and how "trespass" laws would be applied to peace officers that go beyond a gunbuster sign at a business. I don't think peace officers think twice about ignoring the owner's wishes to maintain a gun free environment. The police know that NOTHING will be done to them or their ability to carry a weapon anywhere they want anytime they want.

A peace officer cannot be prosecuted for violation of TPC §30.05 if the sole reason for excluding them is that they are armed. This applies whether or not the LEO is engaged in discharging his/her duties as a LEO. Yeah I know, it stinks. This means a private property owner cannot prevent an armed off-duty LEO from coming on their property.

Chas.

TPC §30.05(i) wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

I wish we could prevent any business owner from making their commercial property off-limits to armed CHL's, but we can't.

As already mentioned, TPC §30.06 and the famous/infamous big, ugly 30.06 sign was created to deter property owners from prohibiting armed CHL's from coming on their property. If there were a way to make it unlawful for a business owner to prohibit armed CHL's from coming on their property we would have done so. That's absolutely impossible; even our friends are divided when we start talking about private property rights, even commercial property.

It would also be impossible to amend TPC §30.06 to require/allow only verbal notice. We couldn't even get a hearing on such a bill. So the big, ugly sign is still the best deterrent we have to the posting of private property.

As an aside, as a private property owner, I most certainly can limit access to my property for any reason whatsoever, so long as it doesn't violate federal law (law, not the Constitution). I can't exclude people based upon raced, gender, age, etc., but that's because of the civil rights act, not the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution protects our right to worship, but I could prohibit entry onto my property by anyone carrying a Bible, or a cross or who is praying; the Constitution protects the right of fee speech, but I can have a rule that "anyone who talks can't stay on my property." Just because an act is lawful doesn't mean you have an unfettered right to do it on private property.

Chas.