I may need a Lawyer...

[JJ99SS]

I'll be brief...

I decided to go shooting the other day with my girl and drove WAYYY out past Gainesville to find some public land. (No place to shoot a 12 gauge anywhere around here) I live in Lewisville so it’s about 70-80 miles. I packed up my 870 and my 2 XD-9's. After going way out on county roads I find a nice ravine with lots of trees a dirt hill, park the car on the side of the dirt road and walk back 50+ yards and set up some bottles and cans that I found and set them up at the base of the hill.

When I was finished after about 30 minutes of shooting (I spent too long looking for the perfect spot and it was getting dark) we decided to leave. As I broke out of the trees and came up on the road I noticed a truck parked behind my girlfriends’ car. Thought nothing of it because he left when he saw us. I did wave to at least come off as non-threatening but I guess I wouldn't stick around to talk to someone coming out of the trees with a 12 gauge either. We went home.

Next morning my GF gets a call from her parents...2 Sheriffs Deputies and a Game Warden were on their porch looking for her (and myself). We make our way over to talk to them. It turns out we were on private land and the land owner thought we were poaching deer!!! Hell I didn't even know deer season had started....I don't hunt. Well after being read my rights, we told him our side apologized profusely and gave statements, he tells me that "You aren't under arrest for now but you may be charged with Criminal Trespass with a Firearm." A Class A Misdemeanor!!!! *sigh*

Well the Warden and the Deputies were really nice especially after my GF started to tear up and realized after about 10 minutes that we meant no harm, but told us that we couldn't have picked a worse land owner to do this to. He is the largest land owner in the area, and I guess they were trying to tell me his ego fits his property size. I told him that I was truly sorry and to tell the land owner the same. Obviously I went to great lengths to get way out of town and there was no intent on criminal activity. I also noted as a precaution in my statement that we observed no signage indicating private land and no “NO TRESPASSING� signs.

That’s it for now and I am waiting to hear back from the LEO’s to let me know what happens. I don’t know what to expect but I hope the dude calms down and lets us go. I surly won’t do that again. Any advice on what I should do, or can expect?

[frankie_the_yankee]

1) Definitely get a lawyer. Hopefully, someone can give you a good recommendation on this.

2) Join a gun club. Forget about driving out of town to shoot on "public land". You might do that in AZ or NV or some state like that, but if I'm not mistaken something like 95% of the land in TX is privately owned. And TX has some of the strongest private property rights laws in the country - maybe the strongest.

3) Shooting at "..bottles and cans.."? On my land? I hope they were at least plastic bottles. I'd be ticked off too if someone was leaving a broken glass mess on my land. Most clubs will only let you shoot at specified types of targets for good reason. Did you thoroughly clean up the site when you were done?

4) A Class A misdemeanor sounds over the top given that there was no signage of any kind. But IANAL. You need one - a good one.

Good luck. I hope you come out of this OK. Best would be if somehow the landowner can be properly crawled to & begged to drop the whole thing.

[MoJo]

If I remember my Texas History correctly there are no "public lands" in Texas. It was all given to the Rail Roads so they could finance their construction.

[Greybeard]

Quote: "I also noted as a precaution in my statement that we observed no signage indicating private land and no “NO TRESPASSING� signs."

Yea, it could be lawyer time ... Did y'all cross a fence?

[seamusTX]

What a way to ruin your weekend.

You might want to take a look at the relevant statute:

PC § 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(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 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.

- Jim

[Liberty]

I suppose anything could happen, but I would take it as a good sign that you weren't ticketed when you were visited. There is obviously a reluctance to charge you or they would have already have done it. That can change of course as its already been explained.

[Photoman]

Get the best lawyer you can pay for and do it now. Please...do not talk to the authorities or the land owner any more without your lawyer.

[jimlongley]

(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:


And therein lies the rub. 1000 feet apart for non-forest lands, IOW 2/10s of a miles, and that's a long way when you're rolling slowly down the road looking for a place to do some plinking.

Few, if any, ranges in TX allow plinking type shooting, and as MoJo pointed out, public lands in TX are pretty rare.

[Lucky45]

hey JJ99S,
DO you have a CHL? And did you see if there were any purple marks on any trees? probably kinda far to have someone check before the owner makes corrective measure. You should have a picture of the area ASAP before any changes are made. From the publc road, of course.


P.S. I just checked and saw you have CHL. So I assume that your entered the property while carrying concealed, right? Therefore, PC 30.06 applies to you. And since you did not recieve effective notice to leave the property, I would assume that a good lawyer could get that charged dismissed.
I hope you remember, you had a concealed weapon IWB and since long guns are legal, then they might have no case.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

P.S2. I looked even further and found this.

PC 30.05 CRIMINAL TRESPASS
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

But check with your lawyer I think you might win this case.

[txinvestigator]

I suppose anything could happen, but I would take it as a good sign that you weren't ticketed when you were visited. There is obviously a reluctance to charge you or they would have already have done it. That can change of course as its already been explained.

You cannot write a summons for a class B or A misdemeanor. Since the "suspects" were gone, the officer could not arrest. (peace officers generally cannot warrantlessly arrest for non-felonies unless committed in their presence or view. )

They will file a report and the DA will decide whether to seek a warrant.

[txinvestigator]

hey JJ99S,
DO you have a CHL? And did you see if there were any purple marks on any trees? probably kinda far to have someone check before the owner makes corrective measure. You should have a picture of the area ASAP before any changes are made. From the publc road, of course.


P.S. I just checked and saw you have CHL. So I assume that your entered the property while carrying concealed, right? Therefore, PC 30.06 applies to you. And since you did not recieve effective notice to leave the property, I would assume that a good lawyer could get that charged dismissed.
I hope you remember, you had a concealed weapon IWB and since long guns are legal, then they might have no case.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

P.S2. I looked even further and found this.

PC 30.05 CRIMINAL TRESPASS
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

But check with your lawyer I think you might win this case.

That won't fly. Even iF he had a concealed handgun, the sole purpose for the private land being restricted is not to keep out concealed handguns. See highlighted section.

If you, the CHL holder, see land marked "No Tresspassing", you cannot ignore it because you have a CHL.

[Lucky45]

That won't fly. Even iF he had a concealed handgun, the sole purpose for the private land being restricted is not to keep out concealed handguns. See highlighted section.

I guess we are interpreting it differently. I look at it as " the basis of criminal trespass (on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden) is that entry with a handgun was forbidden;

If you, the CHL holder, see land marked "No Tresspassing", you cannot ignore it because you have a CHL.

I know that. But that is why property owners should clearly define their property to prevent such intrusions if they are going to have a problem with intrusions. Signs, fences, barb wires, paint on tress, and other methods help to make that possibilty minimal. Now in this case, obviously it was either there and ignored by JJ; or it was not there and did not help wth JJ being able to locate a clear boundary.

So when does the trespass begin for someone that was unaware of a boundary. The laws says

PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.[/b]

So to me, it makes me believe that BOTH parts have to be there for the charge to be completely accurate. If the guy had said get off the property and JJ never left, then they would have a case.

[txinvestigator]

That won't fly. Even iF he had a concealed handgun, the sole purpose for the private land being restricted is not to keep out concealed handguns. See highlighted section.

I guess we are interpreting it differently. I look at it as " the basis of criminal trespass (on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden) is that entry with a handgun was forbidden;

The only time 30.05 would not apply to a CHL holder is IF the property owner were only trying to keep legally concealed handguns out. Not if the owner wants everyone to keep out.

If you, the CHL holder, see land marked "No Tresspassing", you cannot ignore it because you have a CHL.

I know that. But that is why property owners should clearly define their property to prevent such intrusions if they are going to have a problem with intrusions. Signs, fences, barb wires, paint on tress, and other methods help to make that possibilty minimal. Now in this case, obviously it was either there and ignored by JJ; or it was not there and did not help wth JJ being able to locate a clear boundary.[/quote] Agreed. IF the property was marked as per 30.05, then he could have a problem. If not, the CT won't fly unless there is something we have not heard.

So when does the trespass begin for someone that was unaware of a boundary. The laws says

PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.[/b]

So to me, it makes me believe that BOTH parts have to be there for the charge to be completely accurate. If the guy had said get off the property and JJ never left, then they would have a case.

Not sure I follow..... Either notice that entry is forbidden OR being told to leave is sufficient. Without prior notice, trespass only applies once notice is given to leave. However, if the location is properly posted that entry is forbidden, then no verbal notice need be given.

[flintknapper]

JJ,


I hope nothing too serious comes of this.

I would like to say however, that it is a patently bad idea to just ride "out in the country" in search of a place to shoot.

That was once common practice for city folk.. but those days are long gone (like 30 years gone).

I am going to have to side with the landowner on this one. I live "out in the country" and we have problems from time to time with trespassers (hunters mostly).

Unless you've been in Texas for only a short time, it is hard for me to imagine that you would think that was alright.

Legalities aside, if you don't see a sign or some other indicator that a piece of property IS open to the public then assume IT IS NOT!

Hope it works out for you.

FWIW, I would try to contact the land owner and make my apologies in person.

[zigzag]

I was warned before not to go out and look for some shooting in some land. I got my first gun at that time. That was in 1995 in West Texas.
Better to be a member of a gun club and avoid the hassle of dealing with the law. Much more so esp in today's society.