Anyone Seen a 3005 Sign?

[K.Mooneyham]

The "big ugly signs" allow property owners to retain their rights, and those same signs function to keep those carrying out of trouble (as long as the signs are heeded).

So I guess this is where we disagree... I look at this very simply. Again, I know what the law states, this is just my opinion...

LTC (legal hoops to carry) = 30.06 /30.07 sign required(legal hoops to deny) The equation is balanced. Both sides are complying with extra measures imposed by regulation. You took a state required class to understand all the signs and what they mean, and businesses post those legal signs that you were taught to look for.

Unlicensed carry (no legal hoops) = 30.05 sign required (legal hoops to deny) This is not balanced. Unlicensed carriers don't take training and may not even know to look for signs barring their entry. So something prominently posted, in plain everyday language makes more sense to me. Something that someone would know what is meant by it by just seeing it, not stopping to read in detail. The circle slash gun buster sign is clear... people have understood pictographs since the dawn of time (think cave drawings). No English and Spanish needed.

One only has to visit OCT Facebook page to see that many gunowners in general do not understand the laws. And new carriers are turning to groups like that for information, not the actual law. People over there are arguing that the signs at HEB are not legal because they are not "contrasting colors" and hard to see... yet they were easy enough to see to argue about, as well as take pictures. Even with proper signage, folks are looking for a loophole.

Well, it's almost inevitable that there will be a "cleanup" bill next full session. If you want those "gunbuster" signs to carry the force of law, and the attendant arrest/prosecute/punish which comprises the force of law, then start lobbying your state representative and senator. Maybe they will listen and put that into a bill for consideration by the state legislature. Until then, while those "gunbuster" signs may be understood, they are NOT part of the law and are NOT "substantially similar" to the "big ugly sign" spelled out in PC 30.05. The law should say what it means, period. Otherwise, there is no rule of law, only a rule of opinion.

[cyphertext]

The "big ugly signs" allow property owners to retain their rights, and those same signs function to keep those carrying out of trouble (as long as the signs are heeded).

So I guess this is where we disagree... I look at this very simply. Again, I know what the law states, this is just my opinion...

LTC (legal hoops to carry) = 30.06 /30.07 sign required(legal hoops to deny) The equation is balanced. Both sides are complying with extra measures imposed by regulation. You took a state required class to understand all the signs and what they mean, and businesses post those legal signs that you were taught to look for.

Unlicensed carry (no legal hoops) = 30.05 sign required (legal hoops to deny) This is not balanced. Unlicensed carriers don't take training and may not even know to look for signs barring their entry. So something prominently posted, in plain everyday language makes more sense to me. Something that someone would know what is meant by it by just seeing it, not stopping to read in detail. The circle slash gun buster sign is clear... people have understood pictographs since the dawn of time (think cave drawings). No English and Spanish needed.

One only has to visit OCT Facebook page to see that many gunowners in general do not understand the laws. And new carriers are turning to groups like that for information, not the actual law. People over there are arguing that the signs at HEB are not legal because they are not "contrasting colors" and hard to see... yet they were easy enough to see to argue about, as well as take pictures. Even with proper signage, folks are looking for a loophole.

One counter to your argument about the gun buster signs is the statutorily stated 30.05 signs actually indicate the specific section of the penal code that outlines the trespass law regarding unlicensed carry. People from other states may see a gun-buster sign and interpret that to mean how it does in their own state. In many states, it has no force of law. In some, it does. It would potentially also cause confusion when an uninformed and unlicensed individual sees a licensed individual carry past a sign, not knowing that the person had a license and the gun-buster only applied to unlicensed as opposed to ALL carry. By having the appropriate PC reference and language that specifically states "unlicensed" carry, as opposed to an arguably ambiguous gunbuster pictograph, it makes it easier to understand specifically what is being asked of patrons entering.

While I do not agree with a business' decision to post compliant signage, I appreciate being able to see that from a distance. If the location is a place I need to go, the last thing I want is to have to turn around and store my firearm in my vehicle. Criminals are often looking for opportunities to get their hands on weapons. A person walking up to a building, only to turn around to their vehicle and put something inside makes it fairly obvious what was being stored there.

The uninformed are uninformed... they no more understand the 30.05 sign any more than they understand the 51% sign, or 30.06 or 30.07. They would have the same question if there was a 30.05 sign but no 30.07 and they saw someone openly carrying. For people coming from other states, it is their responsibility to understand our laws (especially if carrying under a reciprocity agreement). Also, the new sign is not as specific as the 30.06 and 30.07 due to that phrase "substantially similar"... what does that really mean? If a sign says "Do not enter with a firearm", does that meet the "substantially similar" requirement? Or how about "No guns allowed"?

And there is another weasel word in there on 30.05. It states "A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:..." It doesn't say shall provide with the specific language, it states may. All of this are points that would be argued within a training class, which the unlicensed carrier is not going to take. This is why I say it is complicated and ambiguous and may require a court case to create case law.

I also appreciate seeing it from a distance, but with 3 legal signs now, you can't always read them from the parking lot. When it was only 30.06, it was simple! Now I actually have to read signs.

[cyphertext]

..."substantially similar" to the "big ugly sign" spelled out in PC 30.05... The law should say what it means, period...

Do you not see how these two statements contradict each other? I agree, the law should say what it means, not "substantially similar" or "may".

I'm fine with the signs not carrying the force of law. After all, if a business posts 30.05 but not 30.07 (which isn't likely), how would they know if the patron is carrying unlicensed or under the LTC without asking?

[ScottDLS]

..."substantially similar" to the "big ugly sign" spelled out in PC 30.05... The law should say what it means, period...

Do you not see how these two statements contradict each other? I agree, the law should say what it means, not "substantially similar" or "may".

I'm fine with the signs not carrying the force of law. After all, if a business posts 30.05 but not 30.07 (which isn't likely), how would they know if the patron is carrying unlicensed or under the LTC without asking?

This whole "may" and substantially similar issue is a complete red herring, drummed up by [prepaid legal service] in a poorly articulated FAQ that I contend is designed more to drum up business for [prepaid legal service] than to inform.

A sticker with a circle / pictogram is not REMOTELY similar to the language or format specified in the revised 30.05 statute. Instead of purple paint markers and "no trespassing" signs posted on trees, are we now to look for little stickers?

The "may" word in the statute is very simple to understand. If the owner wants to provide notice they "may" post the specified sign, or they "may" inform you orally, OR they "may" not do either, in which case they didn't provide notice under 30.05. If they don't so one of these two ways then they haven't provided you notice. In 30.06/7 there's no may OR shall, there is simply a description of notice. The word is legally meaningless in the context of the 30.05 statute, at least in the way that [pre-paid legal service] wants you to believe.

[cyphertext]

..."substantially similar" to the "big ugly sign" spelled out in PC 30.05... The law should say what it means, period...

Do you not see how these two statements contradict each other? I agree, the law should say what it means, not "substantially similar" or "may".

I'm fine with the signs not carrying the force of law. After all, if a business posts 30.05 but not 30.07 (which isn't likely), how would they know if the patron is carrying unlicensed or under the LTC without asking?

This whole "may" and substantially similar issue is a complete red herring, drummed up by [prepaid legal service] in a poorly articulated FAQ that I contend is designed more to drum up business for [prepaid legal service] than to inform.

A sticker with a circle / pictogram is not REMOTELY similar to the language or format specified in the revised 30.05 statute. Instead of purple paint markers and "no trespassing" signs posted on trees, are we now to look for little stickers?

The "may" word in the statute is very simple to understand. If the owner wants to provide notice they "may" post the specified sign, or they "may" inform you orally, OR they "may" not do either, in which case they didn't provide notice under 30.05. If they don't so one of these two ways then they haven't provided you notice. In 30.06/7 there's no may OR shall, there is simply a description of notice. The word is legally meaningless in the context of the 30.05 statute, at least in the way that [pre-paid legal service] wants you to believe.

I agree that they are probably taking a harder stance then necessary and don't want to foot the bill to fight it if it was to go to court so they are telling their customers to take the most conservative approach, but I don't think it is a red herring at all. When the bill says "substantially similar", that leaves a lot open to interpretation. If they want to to preclude entry by signage, the bill should state "shall", not "may"... just like many states moved from "may" issue to "shall" issue on concealed carry license. Ambiguity is not good in law... creates loopholes and unintended consequences.
You can be the test case if you like. Funny that you bring up the purple paint markers... those seem to be a lot harder to understand the meaning of than the no guns pictograph.

[ScottDLS]

...
When the bill says "substantially similar", that leaves a lot open to interpretation. If they want to to preclude entry by signage, the bill should state "shall", not "may"... just like many states moved from "may" issue to "shall" issue on concealed carry license. Ambiguity is not good in law... creates loopholes and unintended consequences.
...

You can be the test case if you like. Funny that you bring up the purple paint markers... those seem to be a lot harder to understand the meaning of than the no guns pictograph.

Substantially similar is not THAT vague a term. In fact, I don't think it's vague at all in the context of what we're discussing. A sticker with NO writing in NO language is not substantially similar to the prescribed sign.

Granted, all this stuff is subject to interpretation. However, in criminal cases the burden is on the prosecution and all the elements of the crime must be proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. I "reasonably doubt" that a sticker is substantially similar to the format and wording of the sign prescribed in 30.05.

We're never going to get the proverbial "test case" for the same reason that we will never get one for the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act (TAM should be very impressed that I worked that into this thread ). The circumstances are so unlikely to occur for it to be tested:

-You conceal past a sticker, that you may or may not have noticed, without having a LTC.
-A store employee notices and rather than asking you to depart, calls the police.
-The police rather than telling the store employee to tell you to leave, actually comes to the store.
-The police officer confronts you before you have left the store and makes you leave the store.
-The police officer detains or arrests you for a no jail $200 class C ticket in order to search you so that he may discover that you actually were carrying and it wasn't just your insulin pump.
-The cop writes you the ticket.
-The county (JP) prosecutor or municipal attorney decides to go to trial even after you insist that you didn't see the sign.
-You ask for a jury trial, as is your right.
-The prosecutor proves to the jury that the witness actually saw a concealed handgun (through your concealment) and that it wasn't in fact your insulin pump.
-Prosecutor establishes that you received notice despite notice being defined as a sign "substantially similar" to one with 1" letters, 2 languages, and specific wording as compared to the sticker.
-The Justice of the Peace or Municipal Judge lets this go to the jury.
-The jury convicts
-You appeal
-The appellate court rules despite all of the above that a circle / gun sticker is in fact substantially similar.
- It becomes case law.

[longtooth]

Angelina County, Deep East Texas. None here.

[Deitz83]

...
When the bill says "substantially similar", that leaves a lot open to interpretation. If they want to to preclude entry by signage, the bill should state "shall", not "may"... just like many states moved from "may" issue to "shall" issue on concealed carry license. Ambiguity is not good in law... creates loopholes and unintended consequences.
...

You can be the test case if you like. Funny that you bring up the purple paint markers... those seem to be a lot harder to understand the meaning of than the no guns pictograph.

Substantially similar is not THAT vague a term. In fact, I don't think it's vague at all in the context of what we're discussing. A sticker with NO writing in NO language is not substantially similar to the prescribed sign.

Granted, all this stuff is subject to interpretation. However, in criminal cases the burden is on the prosecution and all the elements of the crime must be proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. I "reasonably doubt" that a sticker is substantially similar to the format and wording of the sign prescribed in 30.05.

We're never going to get the proverbial "test case" for the same reason that we will never get one for the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act (TAM should be very impressed that I worked that into this thread ). The circumstances are so unlikely to occur for it to be tested:

-You conceal past a sticker, that you may or may not have noticed, without having a LTC.
-A store employee notices and rather than asking you to depart, calls the police.
-The police rather than telling the store employee to tell you to leave, actually comes to the store.
-The police officer confronts you before you have left the store and makes you leave the store.
-The police officer detains or arrests you for a no jail $200 class C ticket in order to search you so that he may discover that you actually were carrying and it wasn't just your insulin pump.
-The cop writes you the ticket.
-The county (JP) prosecutor or municipal attorney decides to go to trial even after you insist that you didn't see the sign.
-You ask for a jury trial, as is your right.
-The prosecutor proves to the jury that the witness actually saw a concealed handgun (through your concealment) and that it wasn't in fact your insulin pump.
-Prosecutor establishes that you received notice despite notice being defined as a sign "substantially similar" to one with 1" letters, 2 languages, and specific wording as compared to the sticker.
-The Justice of the Peace or Municipal Judge lets this go to the jury.
-The jury convicts
-You appeal
-The appellate court rules despite all of the above that a circle / gun sticker is in fact substantially similar.
- It becomes case law.

[cyphertext]

...
When the bill says "substantially similar", that leaves a lot open to interpretation. If they want to to preclude entry by signage, the bill should state "shall", not "may"... just like many states moved from "may" issue to "shall" issue on concealed carry license. Ambiguity is not good in law... creates loopholes and unintended consequences.
...

You can be the test case if you like. Funny that you bring up the purple paint markers... those seem to be a lot harder to understand the meaning of than the no guns pictograph.

Substantially similar is not THAT vague a term. In fact, I don't think it's vague at all in the context of what we're discussing. A sticker with NO writing in NO language is not substantially similar to the prescribed sign.

Granted, all this stuff is subject to interpretation. However, in criminal cases the burden is on the prosecution and all the elements of the crime must be proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. I "reasonably doubt" that a sticker is substantially similar to the format and wording of the sign prescribed in 30.05.

We're never going to get the proverbial "test case" for the same reason that we will never get one for the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act (TAM should be very impressed that I worked that into this thread ). The circumstances are so unlikely to occur for it to be tested:

-You conceal past a sticker, that you may or may not have noticed, without having a LTC.
-A store employee notices and rather than asking you to depart, calls the police.
-The police rather than telling the store employee to tell you to leave, actually comes to the store.
-The police officer confronts you before you have left the store and makes you leave the store.
-The police officer detains or arrests you for a no jail $200 class C ticket in order to search you so that he may discover that you actually were carrying and it wasn't just your insulin pump.
-The cop writes you the ticket.
-The county (JP) prosecutor or municipal attorney decides to go to trial even after you insist that you didn't see the sign.
-You ask for a jury trial, as is your right.
-The prosecutor proves to the jury that the witness actually saw a concealed handgun (through your concealment) and that it wasn't in fact your insulin pump.
-Prosecutor establishes that you received notice despite notice being defined as a sign "substantially similar" to one with 1" letters, 2 languages, and specific wording as compared to the sticker.
-The Justice of the Peace or Municipal Judge lets this go to the jury.
-The jury convicts
-You appeal
-The appellate court rules despite all of the above that a circle / gun sticker is in fact substantially similar.
- It becomes case law.

I agree that it probably doesn't matter for concealed carry. May be different for open carry.

[howdy]

This is what the DPS web site says..a quote "Amends Penal Code Section 30.05 to authorize the posting of a sign by a property owner to exclude the possession of unlicensed firearms (licensed handgun possession remains a defense to prosecution)."

I honor 30.06/07 signs and that is it. I don't care what the unlicensed are allowed or not allowed to do.

[oohrah]

True, but if they have only posted a 30.05 sign, and you open carry with an LTC, they are probably going to ask you to leave, and you will have to comply.

[howdy]

That is very true but that is called verbal warning and it has always been binding. (Semper Fi Marine)

[snapcap45]

The HEB I shop at on Research Blvd in Northwest Austin used to have 30.07 signs on their two front doors. A couple days after Constitutional Carry started they updated the signs on their doors to the new 30.05 unlicensed carry signs.

[ScottDLS]

The HEB I shop at on Research Blvd in Northwest Austin used to have 30.07 signs on their two front doors. A couple days after Constitutional Carry started they updated the signs on their doors to the new 30.05 unlicensed carry signs.

Did they keep the 30.07? If not you could theoretically open carry in there with a license though I'm pretty sure they'd verbally notify you not to.

[chasfm11]

This is what the DPS web site says..a quote "Amends Penal Code Section 30.05 to authorize the posting of a sign by a property owner to exclude the possession of unlicensed firearms (licensed handgun possession remains a defense to prosecution)."

We went to the Cheesecake Factory for dinner this evening. It was a party and we were asked to attend or I won't set foot in the place because they have always been 30.06 and 30.07 posted. They have the "unlicensed" TABC signs clearly on the front doors and I'm wondering if they believe that covers them for all unlicensed carry instead of a 30.05. If so, TABC is re-writing what the Legislature passed.