TexasCHLforum.com

S&W6946 wrote:

onerifle wrote:What do you think about adding a section for businessess/locations posted 30.06 (I always wondered if that irony was intentional...) or 30.05? I'm sure TSRA tries, but I wonder how accurate some of their website postings are...


We could then join or begin organized campaigns to get them to understand the folly of their ways by not spending a cent there. The local touch would help as well, I would think.

For whats its worth as a new member, I think such a page would be beneficial.

I'm not opposed to having a list of businesses that post 30.06 signs, but I do have some concerns. My primary concern is continuing accuracy of the list. For the most part, I don't like "anti-gun" lists as they are notoriously inaccurate. Sometimes the business was never really anti-gun and some that were changed their policy, but remained on the list.

If there is enough interest, I'll start a 30.06 list, but I need some input as to how we are going to make sure it remains accurate. This would require a periodic check to see if the signs are still up, do they appear to meet the statutory requirements, are they on all entrances, etc. This is no easy undertaking, so please give it some thought before "voting" yes on the proposal. Again, I'm not against such a list, I just believe it will take a greater commitment from forum members than folks initially realize.

I can see the greatest benefit to people traveling to an event and being able to look quickly to see if their destination is posted. The list wouldn’t be all-inclusive, but it would be a start.

What say ye?
Chas.

I'm moving this thread to the General Texas CHL Discussion Section, rather than leaving it in Site Questions & Suggestions. Since there is already a post in the links section for businesses posting 30.06 signs, there is no reason to start an entirely new forum.

Thanks,
Chas.

While Tex. Penal Code Section 30.06 does not include express language requiring a sign at each entrance, it would be extremely difficult to get a conviction if even a single door did not have the required sign. There are requirements that are implicit in the statute, without which the statute would be vague and unenforceable.

For example, 30.06(c)(3) states that written notice can be by a card (as opposed to a sign), but it does not say the card must be handed to the person sought to be charged under 30.06. Even though handing the card to a person is not expressly required by the statute, it is one of the requirements implicit in the statute to make it enforceable.

Also, Section 30.06 is a relatively new statute, so there likely will be few if any appellate court decisions dealing with it’s provisions. Therefore, the courts will look to the case law interpreting the general criminal trespass statute, i.e. 30.05, to address vague issues, so long as the express language of 30.06 is not ignored. For example, 30.05(b)(2)(C) requires “a sign or signs [be] posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden; . . .� If there are un-posted entrances to a building, then the owner has not met the requirement of this portion of the statute. Note also that 30.05(b)(2)(C) refers to “the� (singular) entrance, not “an� entrance.

If you enter through an un-posted entrance, then you have not been given effective notice. However, if you were to advise the arresting officer that you saw the sign on the front door, but chose to come in through the un-posted side door, then you just made your attorney’s job much harder!

Seriously, remember that the 5th amendment guarantees you the right not to talk to anyone, or to be called as a witness against yourself at trial. If you haven't made a damaging statement to the building owner or the arresting officer, and there is an un-posted entrance, there will likely be no one to testify that you were aware of a proper 30.06 sign.

Regards,
Chas.