Anyone Seen a 3005 Sign?

[ScottDLS]

And no I don't think that it is at all clear that a Circle / Beretta means that the owner of the property is notifying me I may not enter with a firearm if I don't have a LTC. I think it means the whoever put it up doesn't like people carrying guns. Too bad, that's not a crime.

Ok, if you say so... I think you know damn well that sign means "no guns allowed". The circle slash sign is a internationally recognized symbol indicating that something is prohibited. It may not carry the weight of law in Texas, but you guys are being extremely obtuse to claim that you don't know what it means.

I don't know damn well it means "that the owner of the property is notifying me I may not enter with a firearm if I don't have a LTC" because it DOESN'T mean that. "No guns allowed" is a non-sequitur and is legally irrelevant, so I am not required to speculate on the intent.

[ScottDLS]

Under Texas Law there is a prescribed means to Exclude a person that is carrying a handgun from a business, to Exclude a Person from open carrying a Handgun a business must post the prescribed 30.07 Sign it MUST be worded as the law states, if a business wants to Exclude a person carrying a handgun that is Concealed they must post a prescribed 30.06 sign, it must be worded exactly as the law states! To Exclude a Person from carrying a handgun under the Constitutional Carry they must post a 30.05 sign as prescribed by the law! The signs have to have every "i" dotted and every "T" crossed or they fail to meet the requirement prescribed by law and have no force of law! If business wants to Exclude people from carrying a handgun in their business they must spend the money to post the proper sign! If it's not the proper sign worded correctly I just Carry past it!

Actually, they don't have to post any signs at all. Verbal notice is also effective notice. And 30.05 signs do not have to have specific language with "every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed, as the law states the language be identical or "substantially similar". Talk about ambiguous! And thus the debate. What equals "substantially similar"? How is that defined? Does the sign posted make it clear that guns are not allowed on the property, thus meeting "substantially similar"?

The difference between substantially similar and identical is not so ambiguous as to reasonably include a sticker with no words and and a pictograph. And as I suggested above, the meaning that must be clearly communicated is "an unlicensed person without any other exceptions or Defenses to 30.05 may not enter this property while carrying a firearm". In addition to being irrelevant to LTC, the sticker doesn't clearly communicate the legal position of the owner, only the opinion of whoever posted it.

[dlh]

My local HEB put up a 30.05 sign. Disappointed.

[ScottDLS]

My local HEB put up a 30.05 sign. Disappointed.

I've heard they all are, but LTC can still legally carry concealed. Another reason to get/keep the card.

[jmorris]

My local HEB put up a 30.05 sign. Disappointed.

They're 07 posted. They don't want open carry. 05 is only way for unlicensed.

[dlh]

My local HEB put up a 30.05 sign. Disappointed.

Interesting that some of the signs include the language that 30.05 does not apply to licensed carry
and some signs do not contain that language.
I just glanced at the sign quickly as I exited the store but I believe the HEB 30.05 sign has the clarifying
language that it does not apply to licensed holders.
Next time I shop there I will take a picture of it with my cell phone.

[cyphertext]

Under Texas Law there is a prescribed means to Exclude a person that is carrying a handgun from a business, to Exclude a Person from open carrying a Handgun a business must post the prescribed 30.07 Sign it MUST be worded as the law states, if a business wants to Exclude a person carrying a handgun that is Concealed they must post a prescribed 30.06 sign, it must be worded exactly as the law states! To Exclude a Person from carrying a handgun under the Constitutional Carry they must post a 30.05 sign as prescribed by the law! The signs have to have every "i" dotted and every "T" crossed or they fail to meet the requirement prescribed by law and have no force of law! If business wants to Exclude people from carrying a handgun in their business they must spend the money to post the proper sign! If it's not the proper sign worded correctly I just Carry past it!

Actually, they don't have to post any signs at all. Verbal notice is also effective notice. And 30.05 signs do not have to have specific language with "every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed, as the law states the language be identical or "substantially similar". Talk about ambiguous! And thus the debate. What equals "substantially similar"? How is that defined? Does the sign posted make it clear that guns are not allowed on the property, thus meeting "substantially similar"?

I'm really trying to understand your motivations and fascination with defending the "gunbuster" sign. Many folks in this state worked very hard to get a compromise where property owners could keep people from carrying handguns onto their property while protecting the rights of those who carry. This was done by creating first the 30.06 signage and making it known that was the PROPER and LEGAL way to keep out people carrying concealed with CHL. When open carry was added to the license, 30.07 was added to TPC to indicate to those carrying with LTC that such was prohibited. The natural extension of that is the 30.05 sign, properly worded to notify the public that the property/business owner doesn't want them carrying there without an LTC. Why would anyone who isn't a "gun grabber" want to go back to the days of the "gunbuster" signs when we have reasonably well-crafted laws that get the job done for both sides?

I have an LTC and will continue to keep it, so I really don't care. But I think that if you have the constitutional right to carry with little state requirements and regulations (which I agree with) then the same should apply to a business owner on his signage to keep UNLICENSED carry out of their establishment. Many of these unlicensed carriers are not going to research the law and understand what applies to them and what doesn't...
they just heard the soundbite on the news that they can carry without a license. And I can't believe that you guys claim that you don't understand what is meant by that picture. It boggles the mind ... and for ScottDLS to continue to argue that it doesn't convey the owners wishes is absolutely ludicrous! If the owner, or his agent acting on his behalf, posts any sign in his business common sense would dictate that the owner supports what that sign states. No guns, no smoking, no soliciting, ... etc. These are all posted by an owner of a business (or their authorized agent) as policies that they expect patrons to follow when in their business.

[ScottDLS]

...

I have an LTC and will continue to keep it, so I really don't care. But I think that if you have the constitutional right to carry with little state requirements and regulations (which I agree with) then the same should apply to a business owner on his signage to keep UNLICENSED carry out of their establishment. Many of these unlicensed carriers are not going to research the law and understand what applies to them and what doesn't...
they just heard the soundbite on the news that they can carry without a license. And I can't believe that you guys claim that you don't understand what is meant by that picture. It boggles the mind ... and for ScottDLS to continue to argue that it doesn't convey the owners wishes is absolutely ludicrous! If the owner, or his agent acting on his behalf, posts any sign in his business common sense would dictate that the owner supports what that sign states. No guns, no smoking, no soliciting, ... etc. These are all posted by an owner of a business (or their authorized agent) as policies that they expect patrons to follow when in their business.

You keep missing my point. A sticker with a circle / pictogram may very well convey the owner's intent. What it does not do is legally convey that the entry of non-license holders, without some other exception or Defense to 30.05, while carrying a firearm, is prohibited.

Why do you believe that a sticker with a pictogram, should legally be able to bar entry to non-LTC, when you said yourself as a LTC you would carry past such a sign? Don't you respect the owner's wishes? Or do you get to disregard the owner's wishes because you have a LTC?

See for me the answer is consistent. I don't respect the owner's wishes, whether I have LTC or not. The owner's wishes communicated by a pictogram sign or even a legally deficient 30.06 sign are stupid and unworthy of respect.

Any owner, or owner's agent, who wishes to legally bar my entry with a gun, must post the specific 3 signs to do so. Even then their wishes are still stupid, and I still won't respect them, because I have a legal exception/Defense to all of them.

[seph]

Texas law is clear on unlicensed carry:

includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following:

"Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

No where does it say a gun buster sign. Is the sign in English and Spanish? A gun with a slash? Nope.
Just a sign in English and Spanish (with block letters at least 1 inch in height and in contrasting colors) that says NO GUNS ALLOWED? Yep that similar language as in it conveys the intend and complies with the law. We do not need to know a business owner's intent with any sign as the law provides the method for them to convey there intent. Anything short of what the law provides, is not legally binding.

Any comparison to no smoking signs, etc is not a valid comparison to gun signs. Those other signs have no force of law behind them. Verbal notice to leave would still have to be provided before trespassing could be applied. Proper gun signs carry the force of law, which is my mind is wrong. All three signs (30.06, 30.07, & 30.05) should all be eliminated from law along with all trespassing related to a firearm too. A business can post whatever sign they want and they will carry the same force of law as no smoking, mask required, no shoes no shirt no service, etc, which is none. A business that does not want guns in their business and verbally tell anyone just like the others listed. If the person does not leave, they can call the police and ask for a trespassing notice just like the others.

While typing this, another better thought came to me. Businesses are required to recognize some Constitutional rights (like religion , etc) of all customers but not other Constitutional rights. All rights are the same. We should either require businesses to recognize all rights of all customers OR not require them to recognize any of them. It's either a business is required to allow their customers their religious freedom, expression, right to bear arms, no search / seizure without a warrant, freedom of expression (each and every right) OR business's liberties prevail and they are not forced for any of these. Which liberty / right is more important? My individual ones? Or a business's rights?

[03Lightningrocks]

...

I have an LTC and will continue to keep it, so I really don't care. But I think that if you have the constitutional right to carry with little state requirements and regulations (which I agree with) then the same should apply to a business owner on his signage to keep UNLICENSED carry out of their establishment. Many of these unlicensed carriers are not going to research the law and understand what applies to them and what doesn't...
they just heard the soundbite on the news that they can carry without a license. And I can't believe that you guys claim that you don't understand what is meant by that picture. It boggles the mind ... and for ScottDLS to continue to argue that it doesn't convey the owners wishes is absolutely ludicrous! If the owner, or his agent acting on his behalf, posts any sign in his business common sense would dictate that the owner supports what that sign states. No guns, no smoking, no soliciting, ... etc. These are all posted by an owner of a business (or their authorized agent) as policies that they expect patrons to follow when in their business.

Why do you believe that a sticker with a pictogram, should legally be able to bar entry to non-LTC, when you said yourself as a LTC you would carry past such a sign? Don't you respect the owner's wishes? Or do you get to disregard the owner's wishes because you have a LTC?

I picked up on that as well.

[K.Mooneyham]

Under Texas Law there is a prescribed means to Exclude a person that is carrying a handgun from a business, to Exclude a Person from open carrying a Handgun a business must post the prescribed 30.07 Sign it MUST be worded as the law states, if a business wants to Exclude a person carrying a handgun that is Concealed they must post a prescribed 30.06 sign, it must be worded exactly as the law states! To Exclude a Person from carrying a handgun under the Constitutional Carry they must post a 30.05 sign as prescribed by the law! The signs have to have every "i" dotted and every "T" crossed or they fail to meet the requirement prescribed by law and have no force of law! If business wants to Exclude people from carrying a handgun in their business they must spend the money to post the proper sign! If it's not the proper sign worded correctly I just Carry past it!

Actually, they don't have to post any signs at all. Verbal notice is also effective notice. And 30.05 signs do not have to have specific language with "every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed, as the law states the language be identical or "substantially similar". Talk about ambiguous! And thus the debate. What equals "substantially similar"? How is that defined? Does the sign posted make it clear that guns are not allowed on the property, thus meeting "substantially similar"?

I'm really trying to understand your motivations and fascination with defending the "gunbuster" sign. Many folks in this state worked very hard to get a compromise where property owners could keep people from carrying handguns onto their property while protecting the rights of those who carry. This was done by creating first the 30.06 signage and making it known that was the PROPER and LEGAL way to keep out people carrying concealed with CHL. When open carry was added to the license, 30.07 was added to TPC to indicate to those carrying with LTC that such was prohibited. The natural extension of that is the 30.05 sign, properly worded to notify the public that the property/business owner doesn't want them carrying there without an LTC. Why would anyone who isn't a "gun grabber" want to go back to the days of the "gunbuster" signs when we have reasonably well-crafted laws that get the job done for both sides?

I have an LTC and will continue to keep it, so I really don't care. But I think that if you have the constitutional right to carry with little state requirements and regulations (which I agree with) then the same should apply to a business owner on his signage to keep UNLICENSED carry out of their establishment. Many of these unlicensed carriers are not going to research the law and understand what applies to them and what doesn't...
they just heard the soundbite on the news that they can carry without a license. And I can't believe that you guys claim that you don't understand what is meant by that picture. It boggles the mind ... and for ScottDLS to continue to argue that it doesn't convey the owners wishes is absolutely ludicrous! If the owner, or his agent acting on his behalf, posts any sign in his business common sense would dictate that the owner supports what that sign states. No guns, no smoking, no soliciting, ... etc. These are all posted by an owner of a business (or their authorized agent) as policies that they expect patrons to follow when in their business.

I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

[cyphertext]

You keep missing my point. A sticker with a circle / pictogram may very well convey the owner's intent. What it does not do is legally convey that the entry of non-license holders, without some other exception or Defense to 30.05, while carrying a firearm, is prohibited.

Ok, finally we agree. My stance has been that the sign conveys the wishes of the owner to not allow guns, not that it simply shows "his bias". I agree that per my interpretation of the law, it is not effective notice. I am not arguing that it has the force of law, despite the prepaid legal folks saying that it may. My PERSONAL OPINION though is that if you are openly carrying, licensed or not, and you see this sign on the door of a restaurant and you choose to stroll in past it, then you are asking for trouble.

Why do you believe that a sticker with a pictogram, should legally be able to bar entry to non-LTC, when you said yourself as a LTC you would carry past such a sign? Don't you respect the owner's wishes? Or do you get to disregard the owner's wishes because you have a LTC?

I think it makes sense that if I am unlicensed to carry, then anything that conveys that guns are not allowed should suffice. If I want further legal protections or exceptions, then get a license. Many who will carry unlicensed will not read all the legal minutia in the bill about effective notice and legal signs because all of that is not part of the soundbites on the news. To keep it simple, post it in a simple manner that everyday people without a law degree understand. Again, in my OPINION, a pictograph does this. It is an internationally understood sign, so there is no language barrier or anything.

Window space at a business is often used for advertising. Requiring yet another big sign, in two languages for a business to prohibit unlicensed carry is overkill. Even if they don't use the space for advertising, it makes it unattractive and uninviting.

It also makes it more difficult for those of us with a license as now we have to stop and read the sign to see if it applies to us.
When it was just 30.06, things were simple... as you drive up, you see the big sign, you immediately know what it is and don't even need to waste time getting out of the car. Throw 30.07 in to the mix, now I have to look closer. Add in a third sign, now I am going to have to stop and look to see what, if anything, pertains to me.

See for me the answer is consistent. I don't respect the owner's wishes, whether I have LTC or not. The owner's wishes communicated by a pictogram sign or even a legally deficient 30.06 sign are stupid and unworthy of respect.

Any owner, or owner's agent, who wishes to legally bar my entry with a gun, must post the specific 3 signs to do so. Even then their wishes are still stupid, and I still won't respect them, because I have a legal exception/Defense to all of them.

That's great for you... those of us who don't have the exception must look at whatever is posted and decide if it means anything to us or not. Personally, if I see something that appears to be a legit 30.06 sign, then I don't enter. I don't get out a tape measure to see if it is 1" block letters, or look to see if it is in Spanish, or pull up the text to see if it is the exact text or if it is the older version... I take that sign for the intent and take my business elsewhere. Unless it is the mall, then I look for a door that is not posted and just avoid that particular store (looking at you Nordstroms).

[cyphertext]

I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

[Flightmare]

*snip*
Window space at a business is often used for advertising. Requiring yet another big sign, in two languages for a business to prohibit unlicensed carry is overkill. Even if they don't use the space for advertising, it makes it unattractive and uninviting.
*snip*

I will agree that those signs make it unattractive and uninviting.
30.07 has the legal effect of uninviting anyone open carrying under the authority of LTC.
30.06 has the legal effect of uninviting anyone conceal carrying under the authority of LTC.
The new 30.05 signage has the legal effect of uninviting anyone who is carrying and not under the authority of LTC.

The signs by their very purpose are uninviting.

[cyphertext]

Any comparison to no smoking signs, etc is not a valid comparison to gun signs. Those other signs have no force of law behind them. Verbal notice to leave would still have to be provided before trespassing could be applied. Proper gun signs carry the force of law, which is my mind is wrong. All three signs (30.06, 30.07, & 30.05) should all be eliminated from law along with all trespassing related to a firearm too. A business can post whatever sign they want and they will carry the same force of law as no smoking, mask required, no shoes no shirt no service, etc, which is none. A business that does not want guns in their business and verbally tell anyone just like the others listed. If the person does not leave, they can call the police and ask for a trespassing notice just like the others.

I would be perfectly ok with this approach as well.