rtschl wrote:C-dub wrote:Ron, would you ask your LEO friend if a gunbuster sign is enough? It clearly states the business owners intent.
Asked already. Answer was no it would not be effective notice.
Ron
Just a trivial bit of terminology:
"
effective notice under chapter 30.06" is found in Chapter 46, but not 30.06
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.46.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
However "notice" is found in 30.06
"(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if ..."
Therein all of the conditions under which notice is received are specified/listed.
There are no other conditions not listed under which notice is received.
All elements of an offense must be present for an offense to occur
If notice is not received, no offense committed because an element of the offense is absent
Sec. 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:
30.06
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
===============================================================
To say one commits an offense even though an element of the offense is absent is like saying you could write a citation for running a stop sign .... in the absence of any stop sign.
Sure you could write one .... good luck prosecuting it..... might get in trouble for writing it, if not, fellow officers might point and laugh at the ignorant one for a week or two.
I'm not a Police officer nor a lawyer, but I've bought lunch for, and babysat kids, for both before.
=========
If you want to reason with him, ask what other offenses would he write a ticket/make an arrest for which he knew an element of the offense was absent
OR
Why he believes a judge would convict anyone of an offense which was not committed due to a missing element (if a prosecute would even prosecute one knowing the absence of the element)
and
what's going to occur if the judge convicts of an offense not committed due to the absence of an element of the offense.
Surely, unless the judge just wants a huge record of overturned convictions ... they wouldn't do it knowingly or often.
My point is even if you have a judge that ignores the statute, an appeals court or Texas Supreme Court would (hopefully) overturn a conviction where a judge clearly ignored the statute. I gave up trying to convince the person since we were leaving. I would have asked for the cases where someone has been convicted with a non-compliant sign but I was getting the impression that this was "LEO interpretation" of the law (no offense meant officers). 
I know some people that suffer from this condition. 
