Gun Buster Signs

[kw5kw]

Allow me to explain my logic please. It really makes the beauty of the 30.06/07 law more clear and something to be thankful for.

I have been saying all along that the 30.06/30.07 sign in Texas is a blessing for us and we need not be bad mouthing it.

Criminal Trespass is a violation of the law under section 30.05. That law says that if you enter onto any property without the effective consent of the owner you have violated the law. The lack of effective consent may be communicated orally or by printed sign or in a few other specific means (such as a fence designed to keep animals in or people out).

In the Panhandle/South Plains electric fences are common to keep livestock in while grazing on wheat fields. Said electric fences are to keep livestock in; would that be enough to keep people out as well?

Please note that there is no law requiring the notice to have any specific format. In many cases under the law, the notification may be something fairly obscure. One example that people may not be aware of is a purple stripe painted on a fence post or even a tree. It has a few specific rules, such as height and width, but how many Texans are aware of the purple stripe law. And note that this actually applies anywhere in Texas. A purple stripe painted 1000 feet apart in a city means the entry is forbidden. That may not be known or clear to the visitor but it applies.

I was aware of this law, but I have a question:
Can the purple stripe be on only one tree, say in my front yard, or does it have to be between two trees or a combination of trees/fence posts?
So, could I simply tie a purple ribbon on the only tree in my front yard in lue of a "No Tresspassing" sign on my front door?

The law may be unclear on what is required. For example, it specifies a fence obviously designed to keep livestock in or intruders out. If I have a plot of land that is 10 acres in size and plain pasture so you can see the whole thing and it is completely empty, is a three rail pipe fence designed to keep livestock in or intruders out? When there are no livestock on the land? But the law applies.

And finally, the law says a sign posted that is reasonably likely to come to the attention of a visitor is notice. It has no requirements for size or specific wording or coloration. So any sign would apply. The good thing is that it doesn't apply to a person with an LTC or a current peace officer if the reason is a gun.

So any sign that tells me that entry is forbidden would apply to me. ...

So, why not and get a LTC and be covered?
And, along these lines; Since, I'm assuming that all of here have a CHL/LTC, is there anytime we can say lay down our license and carry not under the authority that it gives? (say walk past a 30.06 sign or carry in the seat beside you and not in a belt holster ?) I know, another can of worms.

... And, the whole concept of the red circle with a slash is that it is an internationally recognized symbol that whatever is contained in the circle is forbidden. Do you really think the court buy that you thought it only applied to the specific make or style of pistol in the circle? I think they would extend it to any pistol at all and I bet the owner would say that is what he intended. What about a sign that said "No Weapons" in plain English? I would bet the court would include any knives, even the one inch blade folding Swiss army knife that I would never consider using as a weapon. They would also probably say it included the club I used to carry too, along with my Taser and OC spray.

And this is why people with an LTC owe so much to the TSRA, in my opinion. In other states, these very laws and signs we disparage and question still apply to licensed carriers too. They are regularly enforced by law enforcement there, and in Texas for things other than a licensed person with a pistol. ...

Which is why I was asking such questions in another posting a couple of weeks ago.

... Only in Texas (as far as I know) do we have such specific rules on what constitutes notice and how it must be posted with minimum size requirements and specific wording. If it is because you are carrying a gun, you do not need to worry about the vagueness of 30.05. And you do not need to worry about Dan Morales' opinion that was written when 30.05 did apply to licensed carriers. But it still would apply to people who are carrying that do not have a license.

As I said, I doubt we will see it anytime soon, especially since I trust the police to use common sense, but the law does apply as written still. And it says for non-licensed carriers, any sign does stop them from carrying a pistol And it still would apply to any person carrying a knife if it says no weapons.

Thank you Steve

[oohrah]

... Only in Texas (as far as I know) do we have such specific rules on what constitutes notice and how it must be posted with minimum size requirements and specific wording. If it is because you are carrying a gun, you do not need to worry about the vagueness of 30.05. And you do not need to worry about Dan Morales' opinion that was written when 30.05 did apply to licensed carriers. But it still would apply to people who are carrying that do not have a license.

As I said, I doubt we will see it anytime soon, especially since I trust the police to use common sense, but the law does apply as written still. And it says for non-licensed carriers, any sign does stop them from carrying a pistol And it still would apply to any person carrying a knife if it says no weapons.

Illinois also specifies exact signage and posting requirements for prohibiting concealed carry on a private or public premises. In fact, IL even requires statutorily off limits places to post correct signage, or a CCLer has a defense to prosecution.

[cedarparkdad987]

Debate this all you want, the 30.06 & 30.07 signs or written on a card in the exact language given or oral notification to that person stating that that firearms or not allowed are the only notifications I teach and am concerned with. That is what the law says and that is what I was told when I took the instructors courses. Yes, I have heard an officer or two interpret this different but I just figured they are in the group that didn't learn how to tie their shoes until they were in their teens.

Has it been tested in a court of law up through the appellate process? If not, do you desire to be the test case? If not, treat it as completely valid.

[rtschl]

Debate this all you want, the 30.06 & 30.07 signs or written on a card in the exact language given or oral notification to that person stating that that firearms or not allowed are the only notifications I teach and am concerned with. That is what the law says and that is what I was told when I took the instructors courses. Yes, I have heard an officer or two interpret this different but I just figured they are in the group that didn't learn how to tie their shoes until they were in their teens.

Has it been tested in a court of law up through the appellate process? If not, do you desire to be the test case? If not, treat it as completely valid.

Can't speak for anyone else and admittedly I do not want to be the test case for anything. But why would we treat something as "completely valid" that is contrary to the statute? I think you have it backwards - until a court invalidates the law a gunbuster sign is not compliant and does not provide proper notice for LTC holders.

[srothstein]

Allow me to explain my logic please. It really makes the beauty of the 30.06/07 law more clear and something to be thankful for.

I have been saying all along that the 30.06/30.07 sign in Texas is a blessing for us and we need not be bad mouthing it.

Obviously, I agree.

Criminal Trespass is a violation of the law under section 30.05. That law says that if you enter onto any property without the effective consent of the owner you have violated the law. The lack of effective consent may be communicated orally or by printed sign or in a few other specific means (such as a fence designed to keep animals in or people out).

In the Panhandle/South Plains electric fences are common to keep livestock in while grazing on wheat fields. Said electric fences are to keep livestock in; would that be enough to keep people out as well?

Yes, the criminal trespass law (30.05) would make their crossing it illegal.

Please note that there is no law requiring the notice to have any specific format. In many cases under the law, the notification may be something fairly obscure. One example that people may not be aware of is a purple stripe painted on a fence post or even a tree. It has a few specific rules, such as height and width, but how many Texans are aware of the purple stripe law. And note that this actually applies anywhere in Texas. A purple stripe painted 1000 feet apart in a city means the entry is forbidden. That may not be known or clear to the visitor but it applies.

I was aware of this law, but I have a question:
Can the purple stripe be on only one tree, say in my front yard, or does it have to be between two trees or a combination of trees/fence posts?
So, could I simply tie a purple ribbon on the only tree in my front yard in lue of a "No Tresspassing" sign on my front door?

The law is not clear on how many trees or posts it has to be on. It is clear that it has to be paint, one inch by 8 inches (minimum) and placed between three and five feet from the ground. Assuming your property is less than 1000 feet wide, one tree might be enough, but I would suggest two to be safe.

The law may be unclear on what is required. For example, it specifies a fence obviously designed to keep livestock in or intruders out. If I have a plot of land that is 10 acres in size and plain pasture so you can see the whole thing and it is completely empty, is a three rail pipe fence designed to keep livestock in or intruders out? When there are no livestock on the land? But the law applies.

And finally, the law says a sign posted that is reasonably likely to come to the attention of a visitor is notice. It has no requirements for size or specific wording or coloration. So any sign would apply. The good thing is that it doesn't apply to a person with an LTC or a current peace officer if the reason is a gun.

So any sign that tells me that entry is forbidden would apply to me. ...

So, why not and get a LTC and be covered?
And, along these lines; Since, I'm assuming that all of here have a CHL/LTC, is there anytime we can say lay down our license and carry not under the authority that it gives? (say walk past a 30.06 sign or carry in the seat beside you and not in a belt holster ?) I know, another can of worms.

I have been considering getting an LTC and probably will with the lower costs now. It only give me one real benefit, which is the NICS check exemption. I currently carry under my retired peace officer license and LEOSA, and I don't really ever expect this one situation to come up for me. But getting the LTC would cover it if it happens.

One of the tricks I would be able to take advantage of then is that 30.06 and 30.07 do not apply to me and with the LTC 30.05 would give me an out also. This kind of answers your second question here, but you can always choose which authority you are carrying under if you have more than one. Otherwise, every peace officer who also got an LTC would have problems with 30.06/07 signs while on duty too.

An interesting side application of this comes with hotels that are posted. You can always carry when traveling under that exemption. And is there much better proof of traveling than being in a different city than yours and staying in a hotel? There is a caveat there that after you check in and get in your room, there is a question of whether you are traveling or not still. I believe there is a federal appellate precedent that would say no, but it is not from our circuit and the Fifth Circuit might disagree, especially if presented with better facts in a case.

[cedarparkdad987]

Debate this all you want, the 30.06 & 30.07 signs or written on a card in the exact language given or oral notification to that person stating that that firearms or not allowed are the only notifications I teach and am concerned with. That is what the law says and that is what I was told when I took the instructors courses. Yes, I have heard an officer or two interpret this different but I just figured they are in the group that didn't learn how to tie their shoes until they were in their teens.

Has it been tested in a court of law up through the appellate process? If not, do you desire to be the test case? If not, treat it as completely valid.

Can't speak for anyone else and admittedly I do not want to be the test case for anything. But why would we treat something as "completely valid" that is contrary to the statute? I think you have it backwards - until a court invalidates the law a gunbuster sign is not compliant and does not provide proper notice for LTC holders.

Until a court case tests it, you are making yourself potentially liable if you walk past one. That's fine, you should just be aware. Considering this is a place that is telling you up front that they don't want your money, why give it to them?

Edit: to be clear I agree that they are not valid. I would just caution against taking the risk, to give someone money who doesn't want your money.

[Mike S]

Allow me to explain my logic please. It really makes the beauty of the 30.06/07 law more clear and something to be thankful for.

I have been saying all along that the 30.06/30.07 sign in Texas is a blessing for us and we need not be bad mouthing it.

Obviously, I agree.

Criminal Trespass is a violation of the law under section 30.05. That law says that if you enter onto any property without the effective consent of the owner you have violated the law. The lack of effective consent may be communicated orally or by printed sign or in a few other specific means (such as a fence designed to keep animals in or people out).

In the Panhandle/South Plains electric fences are common to keep livestock in while grazing on wheat fields. Said electric fences are to keep livestock in; would that be enough to keep people out as well?

Yes, the criminal trespass law (30.05) would make their crossing it illegal.

Please note that there is no law requiring the notice to have any specific format. In many cases under the law, the notification may be something fairly obscure. One example that people may not be aware of is a purple stripe painted on a fence post or even a tree. It has a few specific rules, such as height and width, but how many Texans are aware of the purple stripe law. And note that this actually applies anywhere in Texas. A purple stripe painted 1000 feet apart in a city means the entry is forbidden. That may not be known or clear to the visitor but it applies.

I was aware of this law, but I have a question:
Can the purple stripe be on only one tree, say in my front yard, or does it have to be between two trees or a combination of trees/fence posts?
So, could I simply tie a purple ribbon on the only tree in my front yard in lue of a "No Tresspassing" sign on my front door?

The law is not clear on how many trees or posts it has to be on. It is clear that it has to be paint, one inch by 8 inches (minimum) and placed between three and five feet from the ground. Assuming your property is less than 1000 feet wide, one tree might be enough, but I would suggest two to be safe.

The law may be unclear on what is required. For example, it specifies a fence obviously designed to keep livestock in or intruders out. If I have a plot of land that is 10 acres in size and plain pasture so you can see the whole thing and it is completely empty, is a three rail pipe fence designed to keep livestock in or intruders out? When there are no livestock on the land? But the law applies.

And finally, the law says a sign posted that is reasonably likely to come to the attention of a visitor is notice. It has no requirements for size or specific wording or coloration. So any sign would apply. The good thing is that it doesn't apply to a person with an LTC or a current peace officer if the reason is a gun.

So any sign that tells me that entry is forbidden would apply to me. ...

So, why not and get a LTC and be covered?
And, along these lines; Since, I'm assuming that all of here have a CHL/LTC, is there anytime we can say lay down our license and carry not under the authority that it gives? (say walk past a 30.06 sign or carry in the seat beside you and not in a belt holster ?) I know, another can of worms.

I have been considering getting an LTC and probably will with the lower costs now. It only give me one real benefit, which is the NICS check exemption. I currently carry under my retired peace officer license and LEOSA, and I don't really ever expect this one situation to come up for me. But getting the LTC would cover it if it happens.

One of the tricks I would be able to take advantage of then is that 30.06 and 30.07 do not apply to me and with the LTC 30.05 would give me an out also. This kind of answers your second question here, but you can always choose which authority you are carrying under if you have more than one. Otherwise, every peace officer who also got an LTC would have problems with 30.06/07 signs while on duty too.

An interesting side application of this comes with hotels that are posted. You can always carry when traveling under that exemption. And is there much better proof of traveling than being in a different city than yours and staying in a hotel? There is a caveat there that after you check in and get in your room, there is a question of whether you are traveling or not still. I believe there is a federal appellate precedent that would say no, but it is not from our circuit and the Fifth Circuit might disagree, especially if presented with better facts in a case.

Here's what PC 30.05 says regarding the requirements for the distance between purple paint markings:

(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land; or
(E) the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm

[twomillenium]

Debate this all you want, the 30.06 & 30.07 signs or written on a card in the exact language given or oral notification to that person stating that that firearms or not allowed are the only notifications I teach and am concerned with. That is what the law says and that is what I was told when I took the instructors courses. Yes, I have heard an officer or two interpret this different but I just figured they are in the group that didn't learn how to tie their shoes until they were in their teens.

Has it been tested in a court of law up through the appellate process? If not, do you desire to be the test case? If not, treat it as completely valid.

Can't speak for anyone else and admittedly I do not want to be the test case for anything. But why would we treat something as "completely valid" that is contrary to the statute? I think you have it backwards - until a court invalidates the law a gunbuster sign is not compliant and does not provide proper notice for LTC holders.

Until a court case tests it, you are making yourself potentially liable if you walk past one. That's fine, you should just be aware. Considering this is a place that is telling you up front that they don't want your money, why give it to them?

Edit: to be clear I agree that they are not valid. I would just caution against taking the risk, to give someone money who doesn't want your money.

I know that this does not speak for the intent of all gun buster signs. I know of at least 4 proprietors that post these, knowing it is not the right 30.06 signage, all claim they do not mean to restrict licensed carry. They seem to think it some how thwarts unlicensed (all ready illegal), it makes the liberal customers feel good (they don't understand there is proper signage), and the licensed folks who don't know the difference probably don't practice enough to be competent enough to carry. There are many more liberal or unknowledgeable patrons than patron who know the difference. You ask how I know this? Because the have taken my course and we have discussed it. I understand not wanting to be the test case, but the law is very specific in my opinion and I try to live life in preparedness and not fear.

[Soccerdad1995]

Debate this all you want, the 30.06 & 30.07 signs or written on a card in the exact language given or oral notification to that person stating that that firearms or not allowed are the only notifications I teach and am concerned with. That is what the law says and that is what I was told when I took the instructors courses. Yes, I have heard an officer or two interpret this different but I just figured they are in the group that didn't learn how to tie their shoes until they were in their teens.

Has it been tested in a court of law up through the appellate process? If not, do you desire to be the test case? If not, treat it as completely valid.

As far as I know, your ability to breath air has not been "tested in a court of law up through the appellate process". So unless you want to be the "test case" you breath at your own peril.

The same applies to a whole host of daily activities that are perfectly legal.

[Soccerdad1995]

Debate this all you want, the 30.06 & 30.07 signs or written on a card in the exact language given or oral notification to that person stating that that firearms or not allowed are the only notifications I teach and am concerned with. That is what the law says and that is what I was told when I took the instructors courses. Yes, I have heard an officer or two interpret this different but I just figured they are in the group that didn't learn how to tie their shoes until they were in their teens.

Has it been tested in a court of law up through the appellate process? If not, do you desire to be the test case? If not, treat it as completely valid.

Can't speak for anyone else and admittedly I do not want to be the test case for anything. But why would we treat something as "completely valid" that is contrary to the statute? I think you have it backwards - until a court invalidates the law a gunbuster sign is not compliant and does not provide proper notice for LTC holders.

Until a court case tests it, you are making yourself potentially liable if you walk past one. That's fine, you should just be aware. Considering this is a place that is telling you up front that they don't want your money, why give it to them?

Edit: to be clear I agree that they are not valid. I would just caution against taking the risk, to give someone money who doesn't want your money.

I know that this does not speak for the intent of all gun buster signs. I know of at least 4 proprietors that post these, knowing it is not the right 30.06 signage, all claim they do not mean to restrict licensed carry. They seem to think it some how thwarts unlicensed (all ready illegal), it makes the liberal customers feel good (they don't understand there is proper signage), and the licensed folks who don't know the difference probably don't practice enough to be competent enough to carry. There are many more liberal or unknowledgeable patrons than patron who know the difference. You ask how I know this? Because the have taken my course and we have discussed it. I understand not wanting to be the test case, but the law is very specific in my opinion and I try to live life in preparedness and not fear.

But you do realize that you are risking a ticket for $200 (if the police arrive before you leave, and the arriving officer is ignorant)? Then you will have to go before a judge (if the DA is also ignorant). And you might have to appeal a conviction (if the judge is also ignorant). You could have multiple appeals in front of you if we have a huge issue with truly ignorant judges throughout our justice system. One semi-intelligent person in this chain will of course result in no further issues. And you will be able to file a civil suit for your damages. Maybe you will get lucky the other way, with a similar level of ignorance on the part of the judge / jury in your civil suit and you will win 10 bazillion dollars. Hey, as long as we are in the land of baseless hypotheticals assuming that the world is full of idiots, then the sky is the limit, right?

BTW, you are taking the same risks by driving to work, or walking to your mailbox, or even just by existing. If we base our decisions on not wanting to be charged for anything that is clearly legal, then we best just stay in bed.