OK what is a 46.03 sign?

[ScottDLS]

double down on a GREAT presentation in this document.

my wife was up until after 4 am reading and re-reading and writing down questions.
we have had numerous hours this morning on the merits and rules plus the LTC of which i have.
its a fantastic little teaching document and my household is very very thankful it was put together.
really like the references that make it easier to go read the law to further help guide the brain

i did find the chart to be odd in regards to signage and how the law makes its seem funny, if posted one way then only unlicensed holders are allowed

That and the contention that a Beretta silhouette with a circle and a slash constitutes effective notice under 30.05. Lawyers being lawyers, especially since they have prepaid legal services offerings and it is in their interest to dissuade you from being the proverbial "test case".

What contention, it’s pretty black and white for non LTC.. Gun buster signs are effective notice under C carry.

What section of TXPC 30.05 supports that contention?

[Tex1961]

double down on a GREAT presentation in this document.

my wife was up until after 4 am reading and re-reading and writing down questions.
we have had numerous hours this morning on the merits and rules plus the LTC of which i have.
its a fantastic little teaching document and my household is very very thankful it was put together.
really like the references that make it easier to go read the law to further help guide the brain

i did find the chart to be odd in regards to signage and how the law makes its seem funny, if posted one way then only unlicensed holders are allowed

That and the contention that a Beretta silhouette with a circle and a slash constitutes effective notice under 30.05. Lawyers being lawyers, especially since they have prepaid legal services offerings and it is in their interest to dissuade you from being the proverbial "test case".

What contention, it’s pretty black and white for non LTC.. Gun buster signs are effective notice under C carry.

What section of TXPC 30.05 supports that contention?

There is no contention.... I.E No argument.... 30.05 under criminal trespass. Effective notice (and I don't have the new text under HB 1927). 30.05 or gun buster sign is legal when not carrying under the authority of LTC... 30.06 / 07 are the actual only signs that must meet a legal definition under LTC, whereas 51% and 46.03 apply to both... 30.05 and gun buster apply to C carry only... read the US law shield publication.. Their attorneys and multiple others out there who are much smarter than me agree that gun buster signs are effective and legal notice for C Carry.

[Mike S]

double down on a GREAT presentation in this document.

my wife was up until after 4 am reading and re-reading and writing down questions.
we have had numerous hours this morning on the merits and rules plus the LTC of which i have.
its a fantastic little teaching document and my household is very very thankful it was put together.
really like the references that make it easier to go read the law to further help guide the brain

i did find the chart to be odd in regards to signage and how the law makes its seem funny, if posted one way then only unlicensed holders are allowed

That and the contention that a Beretta silhouette with a circle and a slash constitutes effective notice under 30.05. Lawyers being lawyers, especially since they have prepaid legal services offerings and it is in their interest to dissuade you from being the proverbial "test case".

What contention, it’s pretty black and white for non LTC.. Gun buster signs are effective notice under C carry.

What section of TXPC 30.05 supports that contention?

There is no contention.... I.E No argument.... 30.05 under criminal trespass. Effective notice (and I don't have the new text under HB 1927). 30.05 or gun buster sign is legal when not carrying under the authority of LTC... 30.06 / 07 are the actual only signs that must meet a legal definition under LTC, whereas 51% and 46.03 apply to both... 30.05 and gun buster apply to C carry only... read the US law shield publication.. Their attorneys and multiple others out there who are much smarter than me agree that gun buster signs are effective and legal notice for C Carry.

I agree that the linked document is a great reference, however I will temper that page 15's assertion that "Gun Buster" signs are effective notice for Constitutional Carry isn't firmly rooted in the language of HB1927.

I would agree if it was pitched as "play it safe, & if you are carrying under the Act (without an LTC), then we'd advise you to not play the odds of the local prosecutor accepting charges under TPC 30.05". However, the actual language of HB 1927 requires the notice to be "identical or substantially similar" to this phrase:

"Pursuant to Section 30.05,
Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm"; and

"In English & Spanish"; and

"appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least 1" in height"; and

"displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly
visible to the public."

I don't discount that there are prosecutors who will accept charges. I'm also not a lawyer, so I won't be representing anyone & using the argument that a circle/slash through an image of a handgun does not meet each of the elements required by the law (ie, not using words identical nor substantially similar to the phrase required by the law; a pictogram that's neither in English nor Spanish; nor block letters at least 1" in height). . But, I also won't be echoing that those images are actually legal notice.

For those interested in reading the actual HB 1927, here it is: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/b ... navpanes=0

[oljames3]

double down on a GREAT presentation in this document.

my wife was up until after 4 am reading and re-reading and writing down questions.
we have had numerous hours this morning on the merits and rules plus the LTC of which i have.
its a fantastic little teaching document and my household is very very thankful it was put together.
really like the references that make it easier to go read the law to further help guide the brain

i did find the chart to be odd in regards to signage and how the law makes its seem funny, if posted one way then only unlicensed holders are allowed

That and the contention that a Beretta silhouette with a circle and a slash constitutes effective notice under 30.05. Lawyers being lawyers, especially since they have prepaid legal services offerings and it is in their interest to dissuade you from being the proverbial "test case".

What contention, it’s pretty black and white for non LTC.. Gun buster signs are effective notice under C carry.

What section of TXPC 30.05 supports that contention?

There is no contention.... I.E No argument.... 30.05 under criminal trespass. Effective notice (and I don't have the new text under HB 1927). 30.05 or gun buster sign is legal when not carrying under the authority of LTC... 30.06 / 07 are the actual only signs that must meet a legal definition under LTC, whereas 51% and 46.03 apply to both... 30.05 and gun buster apply to C carry only... read the US law shield publication.. Their attorneys and multiple others out there who are much smarter than me agree that gun buster signs are effective and legal notice for C Carry.

I am also not a lawyer. HB1927 did not amend TPC 30.05(b)(2)(C) which seems to indicate that any sign that reasonably prohibits handguns would be effective notice. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... /PE.30.htm

(C) a sign or signs 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;

[ScottDLS]

...

What section of TXPC 30.05 supports that contention?

There is no contention.... I.E No argument.... 30.05 under criminal trespass. Effective notice (and I don't have the new text under HB 1927). 30.05 or gun buster sign is legal when not carrying under the authority of LTC... 30.06 / 07 are the actual only signs that must meet a legal definition under LTC, whereas 51% and 46.03 apply to both... 30.05 and gun buster apply to C carry only... read the US law shield publication.. Their attorneys and multiple others out there who are much smarter than me agree that gun buster signs are effective and legal notice for C Carry.

If we're going to go with the appeal to authority logical fallacy... My lawyer says that [Pre-paid legal service]'s lawyers are wrong. He's licensed to practice in Texas since 1993 and Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Rhode Island for many years before that. Harvard Law LLB 1966, classmate of the execrable Lawrence Tribe, who he confirmed was an idiot. Now that we've dispensed with the measuring contest...

The text of 30.05 is:

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;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs 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;
(D) the placement of identifying
...

So perhaps someone could explain how a pictograph of a Beretta style semi-auto constitutes notice that my "entry" is forbidden. Although perhaps closer, arguably, neither does a sign that says NO GUNS or NO FIREARMS or other vague language.

...

Now, after Sept. 1, the new additions to the law includes wording that says if property owners specifically want to bar firearm carry via 30.05 for non-license holders they "may" post a specifically worded sign or a sign that is substantially similar. [pre-paid legal] likes to get hung up on the "may". The point is that they "may" post the sign if they wish to give written notice OR they may decide to tell everybody orally. It doesn't mean that a frownie face with a picture of a revolver means your entry (with a firearm and no LTC) is prohibited.

I'm really not going to get hung up on it. While I have a LTC, even if I didn't I would pass a circle slash sign after Sept. 1 confident that I was not breaking the law. If for some reason, a person was discovered AND asked to leave AND subsequently left AND a LEO was there to issue a Class C citation for passing the incorrect sign...Then I would recommend that person ask for a jury trial on the citation and argue that the sign in question did not provide proper notice.

[ScottDLS]

...
I am also not a lawyer. HB1927 did not amend TPC 30.05(b)(2)(C) which seems to indicate that any sign that reasonably prohibits handguns would be effective notice. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... /PE.30.htm

(C) a sign or signs 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;

It did amend TXPC 30.05, specifically to provide the specifications for written notice to bar entry with a firearm.

Nothing about pictogram sign makes it at all clear that entry to the location is forbidden, particularly for a commercial establishment generally open to the public.

[Tex1961]

Unfortunately this debate and hundreds more are raging across many forums, discussion groups and more across the state. I read somewhere that due to the poorly written law it most likely have to be straitened out and redefined in a court room. And probably with some poor fella who decided to carry in a posted location. The advice I’m giving to students is to err on the side of caution.

[oljames3]

...
I am also not a lawyer. HB1927 did not amend TPC 30.05(b)(2)(C) which seems to indicate that any sign that reasonably prohibits handguns would be effective notice. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... /PE.30.htm

(C) a sign or signs 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;

It did amend TXPC 30.05, specifically to provide the specifications for written notice to bar entry with a firearm.

Nothing about pictogram sign makes it at all clear that entry to the location is forbidden, particularly for a commercial establishment generally open to the public.

Yes, HB1927 did amend parts of TPC 30.05. HB1927 did not amend TPC 30.05(b)(2)(C). It seems reasonable to me that a jury would reasonably conclude that a handgun inside of the international "STOP" symbol would reasonably prohibit the carrying of handguns. It remains the province of the jury to decide what is reasonable.

[ScottDLS]

...
I am also not a lawyer. HB1927 did not amend TPC 30.05(b)(2)(C) which seems to indicate that any sign that reasonably prohibits handguns would be effective notice. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... /PE.30.htm

(C) a sign or signs 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;

It did amend TXPC 30.05, specifically to provide the specifications for written notice to bar entry with a firearm.

Nothing about pictogram sign makes it at all clear that entry to the location is forbidden, particularly for a commercial establishment generally open to the public.

Yes, HB1927 did amend parts of TPC 30.05. HB1927 did not amend TPC 30.05(b)(2)(C). It seems reasonable to me that a jury would reasonably conclude that a handgun inside of the international "STOP" symbol would reasonably prohibit the carrying of handguns. It remains the province of the jury to decide what is reasonable.

I don't see how a jury could reasonably conclude that a pictogram of a Beretta style semi auto meant that a person's entry to the location was prohibited, particularly when the same statute gives a specific manner for providing written notice that entry with a firearm is prohibited. In the absence of such a sign, it would be a very hard case to make.

In practice, the standards for prohibiting entry to a location otherwise open to the public based on some condition have required specific personal notice to a given individual, before law enforcement would get involved.

For those fans of my reductio ad absurdum arguments, consider whether passing the following signs while meeting the condition would constitute a Class B misdemeanor.

No fat chicks.
No Republicans.
Circle slash baseball cap. (No hats).
No "pants on the ground".

[ScottDLS]

Unfortunately this debate and hundreds more are raging across many forums, discussion groups and more across the state. I read somewhere that due to the poorly written law it most likely have to be straitened out and redefined in a court room. And probably with some poor fella who decided to carry in a posted location. The advice I’m giving to students is to err on the side of caution.

I agree that in teaching a class one should recommend students take the most conservative approach to signs. I don't necessarily agree that the new law is poorly written or needs to be sorted out in court. Also, since the infraction in question is a no jail class C misdemeanor with a $200 fine, it's unlikely that it will ever be "redefined" in court. JP and Municipal courts don't make case law, and that's likely the farthest it will ever get. Or maybe like 30.06 it will never get to court. At least as of a few years ago, no CHL/LTC had ever been charged under 30.06.

[TexasVet]

Reviewing the [Pre-paid legal service] document, am I reading it correctly that a person who is licensed is not able to carry into a location that has valid 30.06 or 30.07 Signage depending on their carry method. However an unlicensed person would be able to do both of those things if only those two signs are present. So can we determine under which laws authority we are carrying? If I can’t carry with an LTC in a building then can I carry with constitutional carry? Or are TLC holders held to a more strict restriction?

[ScottDLS]

Reviewing the [Pre-paid legal service] document, am I reading it correctly that a person who is licensed is not able to carry into a location that has valid 30.06 or 30.07 Signage depending on their carry method. However an unlicensed person would be able to do both of those things if only those two signs are present. So can we determine under which laws authority we are carrying? If I can’t carry with an LTC in a building then can I carry with constitutional carry? Or are TLC holders held to a more strict restriction?

Yep. How about a LEO on-duty, who happens to have a LTC? Can't carry past a 30.06/7? It makes no sense. Let's say you had a LTC and saw a store posted 30.06/7, but not 30.05. You carried concealed inside and were somehow discovered. The proprietor told you to leave and you did. He called the police and they arrived in time to cite you for a $200 class C misdemeanor. How do they know you have a LTC? What if you didn't have it with you? You can't technically carry under its authority without it on your person (see 46.15). OK I guess they could look it up. Well, what if you had an Arizona CCW? It is valid in Texas...

My contention, and I'm thinking of starting a new thread to discuss it in detail, but if a location wants to bar all carry, they need to post three signs 30.05/30.06/30.07. The debate will likely never be settled, because people will carry concealed past insufficient or improper signs and no one will ever know.

[jmorris]

...

My contention, and I'm thinking of starting a new thread to discuss it in detail, but if a location wants to bar all carry, they need to post three signs 30.05/30.06/30.07. The debate will likely never be settled, because people will carry concealed past insufficient or improper signs and no one will ever know.

One already going somewhere on the forum. I asked at the instructor update and the answer was DPS was aware of the discussions going on but had nothing to say. It's not going to be settled outside of court.

[oohrah]

I don't see how a jury could reasonably conclude that a pictogram of a Beretta style semi auto meant that a person's entry to the location was prohibited, ...

Your viewpoint is biased. The public is ignorant of the laws, and most on a jury would naturally assume that a gunbuster sign has exactly that meaning.

[ScottDLS]

I don't see how a jury could reasonably conclude that a pictogram of a Beretta style semi auto meant that a person's entry to the location was prohibited, ...

Your viewpoint is biased. The public is ignorant of the laws, and most on a jury would naturally assume that a gunbuster sign has exactly that meaning.

That's why the Justice of the Peace or the Municipal Court Judge is there to instruct the jury on what the law actually says, in your trial on your $200 ticket.