Doug.38PR wrote:A little off topic, but I noticed a sign that cited 30.05 and forbade carrying of a guns in the building. I know that doesn't apply to CHLers but I don't know if the owner was intentional on that or not
In all likelihood, it's just someone who wants to prohibit carry or was told they need to prohibit carry by someone else. They went and found an official-looking sign without bothering to check the laws.
Other than that, as long as it's not a place prohibited in Texas Penal Code 46.03, 46.035 or a Federally off-limits place you're good to carry unless you receive notice under 30.06/07. If the sign isn't EXACTLY what it says in 30.06/07, it's not valid, and that includes the statute number included within.
Keep calm and carry.
Licensing(n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.
Take a picture of it and post here. That way was can see. Like I said, sounds like an attempt at a 51%-like sign, but not per the legal language requirements.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
It's definitely NOT a 51% sign. I know what a 51% sign looks like and that wasn't it. Besides: It's a gas station convenient store that sells gas, candy, chips, hot dogs, fountain drinks, can and bottled cokes and beer. Even if it were a liquor store, that doesn't fall under the 51% because it's not for consumption on the premises.
As for taking a picture...it's going to be a while before I go that way again.
Doug.38PR wrote:It's definitely NOT a 51% sign. I know what a 51% sign looks like and that wasn't it. Besides: It's a gas station convenient store that sells gas, candy, chips, hot dogs, fountain drinks, can and bottled cokes and beer. Even if it were a liquor store, that doesn't fall under the 51% because it's not for consumption on the premises.
As for taking a picture...it's going to be a while before I go that way again.
I am sure you know what a 51% sign is, but apparently they don't know what they are posting, but are trying to post SOMETHING related to TABC, that's what I was saying.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
I once saw an official looking sign with similar wording and TABC lettering. I showed a photo to a friend, and the 2 of us eventually figured out it was an old 51% side where the red 51 had faded off. Is that a possibility?
Doug.38PR wrote:A little off topic, but I noticed a sign that cited 30.05 and forbade carrying of a guns in the building. I know that doesn't apply to CHLers but I don't know if the owner was intentional on that or not
I know this sign is not the one referred to in the op but it is a good object lesson. The following assumes that the location is not one of the 13 statutorily prohibited areas.
" Carrying firearms on these premises is prohibited"
No. That is factually incorrect unless and until that proper notice under 30.06 or 30.07 of the prohibition is given...and as far as anything written that notice is precise in its language and is not reflected here.
"This includes persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun pursuant to state law."
No. This is particularly incorrect since until proper notice is give under 30.06 or 30.07 it is precisely those people who do carry concealed that ARE allowed to carry on the premises. And at the point of entrance shown here, all we have are some non-compliant words on the door.
"Carrying a firearm on these premises is a Class A Misdemeanor..."
No. It is not. It is not a crime of any kind...at least as you walk in the door past the sign. (not counting a possible subsequent oral 30.06 or 30.07 notice)
"...punishable by 1 year in jail and up to a $4000 fine."
No. It is not since no crime has been committed. (at least at the point of walking past the sign) Owners don't get to just make this stuff up as they go.
"Texas Penal Code Section 30.05."
This is the best part...the sign quotes 30.05 which is the very rule that makes 30.05 the wrong statute to apply in this situation.
30.05 f "It is a defense to prosecution under THIS SECTION...which section...THIS SECTION that:
1. the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
2. the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411 Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun."
That is what 30.06 and 30.07 are far. They are essentially the licensed handgun extensions of the 30.05 trespass statutes....which basically states this..."if you as an owner want to keep someone out or off of your property use the rules in 30.05 unless the reason you don't want them there is because they are carrying a handgun under the authority of their 411 license in which case you must use 30.06 and 30.07 to do that."
I know this isn't the same sign in the op but it is very instructional as to improper wording and baseless threats. Even at the airport, which this sign appears to be requires a 30.06 or 30.07 notification to prevent carriage in the non-secured terminal. Property owners must be held to the very same rules we as licensed carriers are held to. Same ballgame, same set of rules for both sides.
It's a good looking sign though! Very official looking. Just the right amount of threat...just the right amount of big words. Most people would be duly impressed.
tex
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA Pistol Instructor, CFI, CFII, MEI Instructor Pilot
thetexan wrote:I know this isn't the same sign in the op but it is very instructional as to improper wording and baseless threats. Even at the airport, which this sign appears to be requires a 30.06 or 30.07 notification to prevent carriage in the non-secured terminal. Property owners must be held to the very same rules we as licensed carriers are held to. Same ballgame, same set of rules for both sides.
Yeah, I found it when searching for images that mention 30.05. It's from a year-old reddit thread where it was also explained as "a bunch of non legally binding text on a door." And Texas3006.com says that Love Field is now posted 30.06.
Hold on, according to the airport website, "The City of Dallas owns and operates Dallas Love Field." Who wants to take a pic and notify them they're the ones breaking the law?
thetexan wrote:I know this sign is not the one referred to in the op but it is a good object lesson. The following assumes that the location is not one of the 13 statutorily prohibited areas.
" Carrying firearms on these premises is prohibited"
No. That is factually incorrect unless and until that proper notice under 30.06 or 30.07 of the prohibition is given...and as far as anything written that notice is precise in its language and is not reflected here.
"This includes persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun pursuant to state law."
No. This is particularly incorrect since until proper notice is give under 30.06 or 30.07 it is precisely those people who do carry concealed that ARE allowed to carry on the premises. And at the point of entrance shown here, all we have are some non-compliant words on the door.
"Carrying a firearm on these premises is a Class A Misdemeanor..."
No. It is not. It is not a crime of any kind...at least as you walk in the door past the sign. (not counting a possible subsequent oral 30.06 or 30.07 notice)
"...punishable by 1 year in jail and up to a $4000 fine."
No. It is not since no crime has been committed. (at least at the point of walking past the sign) Owners don't get to just make this stuff up as they go.
"Texas Penal Code Section 30.05."
This is the best part...the sign quotes 30.05 which is the very rule that makes 30.05 the wrong statute to apply in this situation.
30.05 f "It is a defense to prosecution under THIS SECTION...which section...THIS SECTION that:
1. the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
2. the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411 Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun."
That is what 30.06 and 30.07 are far. They are essentially the licensed handgun extensions of the 30.05 trespass statutes....which basically states this..."if you as an owner want to keep someone out or off of your property use the rules in 30.05 unless the reason you don't want them there is because they are carrying a handgun under the authority of their 411 license in which case you must use 30.06 and 30.07 to do that."
I know this isn't the same sign in the op but it is very instructional as to improper wording and baseless threats. Even at the airport, which this sign appears to be requires a 30.06 or 30.07 notification to prevent carriage in the non-secured terminal. Property owners must be held to the very same rules we as licensed carriers are held to. Same ballgame, same set of rules for both sides.
It's a good looking sign though! Very official looking. Just the right amount of threat...just the right amount of big words. Most people would be duly impressed.
tex
This is the sign that I saw commonly posted between 1/1996 - 9/1997 and would have been a lot harder to "get out of" if caught than a circle slash gun. It was rendered moot for CHL's over 19 years ago.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
I saw a sign just like the one originally mentioned in the DFW area a couple of years ago. It was on a business selling alcohol (for off premises). It was an official looking sign that basically said "the unlicensed or licensed possession" of a handgun was a felony. However, it was not a 51% sign. I tried to get them to change it to the proper signage but they were owned by an out of town company that didn't seem to care. I finally ended up contacting the TABC who went to the business and had them change it to the proper sign.
In another city, I was at a business that had a red 51% sign displayed. I didn't believe that they received 51% of their income from on premises alcohol sales. I looked up their license on the TABC website and it showed they had Sign=Blue. I filled out a complaint on the same website and the sign was removed by the next time I went to the business.
The TABC is pretty serious about businesses posting the proper signage.
OldAg wrote:The TABC is pretty serious about businesses posting the proper signage.
TABC doesn't mess around. I don't know who is in charge, or what background you have to have to work there. However their play/tolerance meter is set to zero.
OldAg wrote:The TABC is pretty serious about businesses posting the proper signage.
TABC doesn't mess around. I don't know who is in charge, or what background you have to have to work there. However their play/tolerance meter is set to zero.
Using their TABC Mobile phone app you can file an official complaint from your phone. Pretty user friendly.
"Since it is so likely that children will meet cruel enemies let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic deeds." - C.S. Lewis
My State Rep Joe Moody is a liberal puke who won't even acknowledge my communications with him. How about yours?
Doug.38PR wrote:A little off topic, but I noticed a sign that cited 30.05 and forbade carrying of a guns in the building. I know that doesn't apply to CHLers but I don't know if the owner was intentional on that or not
Was it anything like this?
Similar, yes. But I don't think it said "this includes licensed to carry"
