Improper signs and results

[Charles L. Cotton]

Words have meaning. And I sure would be showing a lot of deference to Charles since he is the one person that several legislators rely on to assist in drafting the language in our statutes regarding CHL/LTC.

I'll be polite, but deference is a bit much. If that's a requirement to be here maybe I'm in the wrong place.

I'll settle for polite and not advocating unlawful conduct. But since you've had a problem with both, it's time for you to start posting under your real name and email address. Let's see if your demeanor and confessions of unlawful conduct change. PM that information to me and I'll change your username. Or, you can decline as has every single person who's conduct gave them to option to leave the Forum or post without the benefit of anonymity. Will you put your name on what you wrote, or hide from it?

Chas.

[gljjt]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

I think you can still be arrested. A class C, yes but may get a ticket. May get a ride.

[mloamiller]

Here is a scenario:

You and a small group of friends meet at a restaurant for dinner. On the way in, you notice a clearly invalid 30.06 sign near the door. Your pistol is concealed, so no worries.

During dinner, you are asked to pass the catsup and, half standing, reach across the large table to hand it to another. A few minutes later, the hostess stops by and tells you that your pistol was noticed while you were stretched out across the table, that weapons are not allowed in the restaurant, and you must either take it to your car, and would then be welcome to return, or leave if not.

1. Do you take the pistol out to the car and return, weaponless? Or

2. Point out that the sign out front is non compliant, therefore meaningless, and return to your chicken fried steak? Or

3. Leave promptly and do not return, leaving the bill unpaid? The others finish their meal and pay their portion. Or

4. The entire party leaves right then, without paying?

At the point the hostess tells me weapons are not allowed, the sign is no longer an issue; I've been given verbal notice so I have to leave. However, given that the sign was invalid, and that is why I came in with my pistol in the first place, my initial response would be to ask the hostess how she would like to handle the bill for the dinner. Since I'm not being allowed to remain and finish it, I'm certainly not paying for it, and if I leave, we're all leaving. So it's her choice. I will absolutely leave right then, not paying for a meal I'm not being allowed to finish, or I will finish my meal, with my firearm in it's holster, pay the check and leave, never to return. I'll abide by whichever route she or the management decide to take. If the hostess or management start to argue the issue, I'll also point out why their sign is invalid,why I was within my rights to ignore it, and what they should do to prevent issues such as this in the future.

In short, I would be very cooperative, letting them know that if they insist that I leave before I finish my meal, I will absolutely do that, but I won't pay for a meal they won't let me finish. This changes the discussion from being about guns to being about their allowing me to either finish (and pay for) the meal, or leave immediately; they are in the driver's seat and I'm being cooperative. If they continue to insist I leave immediately and pay the check, I might go ahead and do that, or I might just walk out without paying. It would depend entirely on how heated things got. One thing I would not do in that situation is stay.

[pushpullpete]

Here is a scenario:

You and a small group of friends meet at a restaurant for dinner. On the way in, you notice a clearly invalid 30.06 sign near the door. Your pistol is concealed, so no worries.

During dinner, you are asked to pass the catsup and, half standing, reach across the large table to hand it to another. A few minutes later, the hostess stops by and tells you that your pistol was noticed while you were stretched out across the table, that weapons are not allowed in the restaurant, and you must either take it to your car, and would then be welcome to return, or leave if not.

1. Do you take the pistol out to the car and return, weaponless? Or

2. Point out that the sign out front is non compliant, therefore meaningless, and return to your chicken fried steak? Or

3. Leave promptly and do not return, leaving the bill unpaid? The others finish their meal and pay their portion. Or

4. The entire party leaves right then, without paying?

At the point the hostess tells me weapons are not allowed, the sign is no longer an issue; I've been given verbal notice so I have to leave. However, given that the sign was invalid, and that is why I came in with my pistol in the first place, my initial response would be to ask the hostess how she would like to handle the bill for the dinner. Since I'm not being allowed to remain and finish it, I'm certainly not paying for it, and if I leave, we're all leaving. So it's her choice. I will absolutely leave right then, not paying for a meal I'm not being allowed to finish, or I will finish my meal, with my firearm in it's holster, pay the check and leave, never to return. I'll abide by whichever route she or the management decide to take. If the hostess or management start to argue the issue, I'll also point out why their sign is invalid,why I was within my rights to ignore it, and what they should do to prevent issues such as this in the future.

In short, I would be very cooperative, letting them know that if they insist that I leave before I finish my meal, I will absolutely do that, but I won't pay for a meal they won't let me finish. This changes the discussion from being about guns to being about their allowing me to either finish (and pay for) the meal, or leave immediately; they are in the driver's seat and I'm being cooperative. If they continue to insist I leave immediately and pay the check, I might go ahead and do that, or I might just walk out without paying. It would depend entirely on how heated things got. One thing I would not do in that situation is stay.

I had not put that much thought into it but you propose a valid point that puts it back on the business. Nice, however, you broke the 'spirit'
of the law when you saw & disregarded the 'illegal' sign and that kind of action can shine an unfavorable light on the whole
'responsible gun owner' thing that most of us are trying to put forward.

[mloamiller]

however, you broke the 'spirit' of the law when you saw & disregarded the 'illegal' sign and that kind of action can shine an unfavorable light on the whole 'responsible gun owner' thing that most of us are trying to put forward.

We'll have to disagree on that. The law is very clear on what a business owner is required to do. If they haven't put enough effort into finding out what that requirement is and then implementing it correctly, that's on them.

I am being responsible in that I have put in the effort to know what the law states.

[JALLEN]

however, you broke the 'spirit' of the law when you saw & disregarded the 'illegal' sign and that kind of action can shine an unfavorable light on the whole 'responsible gun owner' thing that most of us are trying to put forward.

We'll have to disagree on that. The law is very clear on what a business owner is required to do. If they haven't put enough effort into finding out what that requirement is and then implementing it correctly, that's on them.

I am being responsible in that I have put in the effort to know what the law states.

Actually, maybe it isn't clear what is required. We who are the most concerned don't seem to be all that clear about it.

We all believed a valid 30.06 sign was the predicate for a violation, but now, with the changes, at least for a no weapons policy, you need have no sign at all.

If you enter OC, you can be told to leave, or handed a card, and you must. If you are "made" somehow, they know you have a pistol even though you believe it is concealed, or even if they don't know, they can hand you a card with the wording, or tell you, you have effective notice. I wonder if it could be printed in appropriate type and color on a menu to suffice.

[pushpullpete]

however, you broke the 'spirit' of the law when you saw & disregarded the 'illegal' sign and that kind of action can shine an unfavorable light on the whole 'responsible gun owner' thing that most of us are trying to put forward.

We'll have to disagree on that. The law is very clear on what a business owner is required to do. If they haven't put enough effort into finding out what that requirement is and then implementing it correctly, that's on them.

I am being responsible in that I have put in the effort to know what the law states.

Yes, we will have to. That was why I called it the 'SPIRIT' of the law & not the law itself.
I am NOT calling you or anyone else on this forum stupid, on the contrary I believe there are some very smart people here. I've spent too
many years banging my head up against stupid people that refuse to listen to people who are more knowledgeable than they are.
It took me a few (maybe quite a few) decades but I have finally learned what my father meant when he used to tell me to work smarter, not
just harder. Grab them by the throat and push their face in it (like I've done most of my life), yes it will get your point across but, the end
result (after they call the police) will NOT be what you want or expect.
There is a lot of money on both sides of this argument & finesse is needed for our side much more than a heavy hand.

[mloamiller]

however, you broke the 'spirit' of the law when you saw & disregarded the 'illegal' sign and that kind of action can shine an unfavorable light on the whole 'responsible gun owner' thing that most of us are trying to put forward.

We'll have to disagree on that. The law is very clear on what a business owner is required to do. If they haven't put enough effort into finding out what that requirement is and then implementing it correctly, that's on them.

I am being responsible in that I have put in the effort to know what the law states.

Yes, we will have to. That was why I called it the 'SPIRIT' of the law & not the law itself.
...
Grab them by the throat and push their face in it (like I've done most of my life), yes it will get your point across but, the end
result (after they call the police) will NOT be what you want or expect. There is a lot of money on both sides of this argument & finesse is needed for our side much more than a heavy hand.

I don't believe ignoring an invalid sign - especially one that is "clearly" invalid as stated in the original scenario - is violating the "spirit" of the law, nor is it being heavy handed.
The "spirit" of the 30.06/30.07 laws seem to be:

• 1. Business have the right to prohibit those with a license from carrying in their establishments, either concealed or openly.
  2. To avoid confusion that would result from a myriad of signs varying in size, wording, language and location, there are specific requirements for signs that are targeted specifically at licensed holders. This also protects license-holders from situations where a sign is deliberately posted to cause such confusion.

There is a difference between the spirit of the law, and the possible intent/desire of a business holder that posts an invalid sign. Does ignoring an invalid sign violate their intent? Perhaps, but trying to decipher the intent of someone else is tricky. Perhaps the business owner posted an invalid sign because he doesn't want guns in his store, but just doesn't know the law. Or, perhaps he posted an invalid sign, knowing it was invalid and wouldn't impact license holders who know better, but would appease their anti-gun customers. Who knows? That's why there are specific requirements spelled out.

If ignoring an invalid sign is violating the spirit of the law, what about going into a business that doesn't have any signs posted but whose corporate offices have publicly stated they don't want guns in their stores (Whataburger, Starbucks, etc.)? Those would seem to be the same situation - in neither case has the business followed the legal requirements to prohibit licensed carry, but they have made their desires known in some fashion. It seems to me, they are the ones violating the spirit of the law by not even attempting to follow it.

As for being heavy handed, I don't see how ignoring an invalid sign, but fully cooperating if/when asked leave even comes close to that.

[thetexan]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the license holder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

I keep hearing this as if it's nothing. This isn't some traffic ticket that you can just poo poo. It effects your ability to legally meet several thresholds of legal defense while you are committing the offense.

I'm as irked as the next guy by the seemingly non necessity for a business to properly post and I understand fully the rights I have to ignore non-compliant signs. But I want to avoid a verbal notice like the plague, because of the three forms of notice that one is permanent. And then that would really become a hassel.

tex

[ScottDLS]

....
I keep hearing this as if it's nothing. This isn't some traffic ticket that you can just poo poo. It effects your ability to legally meet several thresholds of legal defense while you are committing the offense.

I'm as irked as the next guy by the seemingly non necessity for a business to properly post and I understand fully the rights I have to ignore non-compliant signs. But I want to avoid a verbal notice like the plague, because of the three forms of notice that one is permanent. And then that would really become a hassel.
...
tex

Maybe it affects your "presumption" of justification for use of force/deadly force under 9.31/9.32, but like speeding, you have the right to a jury trial of the facts of the offense. If you need that presumption so badly at an assault/murder trial, I bet you're going to have a much easier time beating the class C to get the presumption, than if it were a more serious included offense.

All class C's including speeding and not wearing a seat belt are criminal offenses and you have the Constitutional right to a jury trial. The indication of the seriousness of the offense in the case of a class C, is the amount of the fine, since there aren't any with jail. $200 is less than some other class C's.

Many states have addressed this by decriminalizing traffic offenses and making them Civil Infractions...Then they use it to arbitrarily convict you without the standard required of a jury trial...but I digress...Until Texas reduces the fines C offenses below $200, I will continue to "poo poo" them to the same extent that I do speeding.

That stated, I DO NOT advocate speeding, or carrying past a valid sign, nor watering your lawn on the wrong day.

[Owlan]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the license holder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

I keep hearing this as if it's nothing. This isn't some traffic ticket that you can just poo poo. It effects your ability to legally meet several thresholds of legal defense while you are committing the offense.

I'm as irked as the next guy by the seemingly non necessity for a business to properly post and I understand fully the rights I have to ignore non-compliant signs. But I want to avoid a verbal notice like the plague, because of the three forms of notice that one is permanent. And then that would really become a hassel.

tex

In my estimation, a Class C is nothing compared to a Class A. Pleading guilty to (as opposed to pleading not guilty and taking it to trial, thus needing legal defense) or being convicted of this charge today will cause me a net loss of $200 as opposed to much more than that plus any attorney/legal costs, etc. and then still (most importantly) the risk that I could lose my license.

[humby66]

Looking for clarification. What if say a gas station has no signs at all 30.06 or .07. But the clerk said no we don't allow open carry. I asked if they planned on getting the legal signs and they stated no. They just weren't going to allow it? What is the legality of such.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Looking for clarification. What if say a gas station has no signs at all 30.06 or .07. But the clerk said no we don't allow open carry. I asked if they planned on getting the legal signs and they stated no. They just weren't going to allow it? What is the legality of such.

If you are carrying openly and do not leave upon receiving verbal notice, then you can be arrested and convicted of violating TPC §30.07. It would be a Class A misdemeanor.

If the oral notice was not limited to open-carry, but was something like "we don't want guns here," then both open and concealed carry would be prohibited. Signs are an option, but they are not required.

Chas.

[Soccerdad1995]

Here is a scenario:

You and a small group of friends meet at a restaurant for dinner. On the way in, you notice a clearly invalid 30.06 sign near the door. Your pistol is concealed, so no worries.

During dinner, you are asked to pass the catsup and, half standing, reach across the large table to hand it to another. A few minutes later, the hostess stops by and tells you that your pistol was noticed while you were stretched out across the table, that weapons are not allowed in the restaurant, and you must either take it to your car, and would then be welcome to return, or leave if not.

1. Do you take the pistol out to the car and return, weaponless? Or

2. Point out that the sign out front is non compliant, therefore meaningless, and return to your chicken fried steak? Or

3. Leave promptly and do not return, leaving the bill unpaid? The others finish their meal and pay their portion. Or

4. The entire party leaves right then, without paying?

4 if I have influence over the rest of the party. And we pay our bill. We just have the manager come out to the parking lot so we can do so since he has effectively banned us from the building.

Now that I think of it, if we have not finished our meals, it would be most fair to pay a prorated portion of the bill. This can be addressed with the CC company if the manager insists on charging for the full meal.

[parabelum]

It grinds my gears to see someone who was granted a CHL/LTC go ad nauseam into how to skirt around the law, thereby creating not only a bad image for the law abiding citizens who carry, but also making someone who helped the cause judiciously look bad in the eyes of the anti-2A idiots.

Hey, guess what? If you saw the sign AND are in admittance to its interpretation confessing to being open to break the law on the social media site, then I'd suggest you start saving some $$$ for defense, because you'll need it my friend (or friends..., you know who you are).