Posted but manager says ignore it?

[Mike S]

IANAL.

Both 30.06/30.07 makes it an offense to enter a property under the authority of your LTC without effective consent (when properly posted). The 'without effective consent ' part generally means that no one told you it was o.k. to enter, presumably because when CC'ing they wouldn't know you were carrying and therefore it wouldn't come up.

Effective consent may be given. If the manager gives you consent to enter (assuming the manager knows you are entering with your handgun), then I would believe no offense has occurred.

I did mention IANAL, didn't I?? I'm willing to bet someone smarter than me (and/or a lawyer) will correct me if I'm wrong.

Not quite - I liked where you were going, but had to double check the notices:

...Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun...

...Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly...

Neither say something to the effect of "without permission". These notices are, by default, notice that you may not enter. If you do, there will be consequences - regardless of what the manager tells you. Now, I'm sure this is up to whatever manager if he/she even decides to call the police. And it may be up to the premises owner to decide to press charges or not - I'm not sure if these signs mean an "automatic arrest" if a cop sees you doing it.

I asked earlier without a response, if the place is posted can the owner carry? In other words can someone with authority over-ride his own signs? If the answer is yes than I assume that someone with authority can also give you permission to carry (and I would get it in writing). After all, the person with authority can also remove the signs (or give you verbal instructions to leave).

Rotor,
According to the statue, it's an offense only if it's on the 'property of another '. So I'd say yes, the owner of the property wouldn't be committing an offense if they ignored their own signs.

30.06/30.07 both say someone with apparent authority can give oral notice that you must leave, however it doesn't say anything about who can give effect consent. I'll Google the keywords 'effective consent ' & 'Texas Penal Code ', & edit here if anything worthwhile pops up. I'm of the opinion that you are correct in that someone with apparent authority could give you effective consent, but I try to stay away from opinion & OpEds and focus on what the law says...

ETA:
Here's what TPC Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS says about 'Consent' & 'Effective Consent' (found here http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... m/PE.1.htm)

(11) "Consent" means assent in fact, whether express or apparent.

(19) "Effective consent" includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if:
(A) induced by force, threat, or fraud;
(B) given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner;
(C) given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable decisions; or
(D) given solely to detect the commission of an offense.

So, in the end I really don't have a clear-cut answer for you. I'm not a lawyer, but here's a short video that I'm guessing was made by one explaining the difference between consent & effective consent:

[sixer-sxt-3.7]

Here's the actual statutes; I highlighted in blue the part about it being an offense without effective consent:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
...


Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) openly 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 entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.
...

The signs you referenced merely satisfies "written notice" if you are carrying openly/concealed under the authority of your LTC, on someone else's property, without their consent.

That's a really good catch! Seeing the full text, one has to both have received notice and "not have" effective consent (which means an affirmative approval, it seems like) in order to be breaking the law. Since we rarely ever ask for effective consent to open or conceal, then the first requirement, 30.06/7 (1), is almost always fulfilled - by way of not having a thing required - so we are not excused.

Having an effective consent means that both (1) and (2) are not fulfilled, so the actor can continue to carry. Very good point.

[Soccerdad1995]

That's a really good catch! Seeing the full text, one has to both have received notice and "not have" effective consent (which means an affirmative approval, it seems like) in order to be breaking the law. Since we rarely ever ask for effective consent to open or conceal, then the first requirement, 30.06/7 (1), is almost always fulfilled - by way of not having a thing required - so we are not excused.

Having an effective consent means that both (1) and (2) are not fulfilled, so the actor can continue to carry. Very good point.

I cut the quote for brevity, hopefully that doesn't cause any confusion.

Since a lot of the posts in this thread focus on your ability to "prove" that the manager gave effective consent, I also wanted to point out that it is really the opposite situation where a prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not get effective consent. The two scenarios stated ITT are a manager being killed, where I think it would be VERY difficult for a prosecutor to prove this, and a manager being pressured from corporate, where a good defense lawyer should be able to sow enough doubt in this he said / she said type of situation, I would think.

As an aside, I really dislike the tendency we as a group here have to avoid anything that could possibly result in an arrest for something that is not illegal. This forum is a great resource for clarifying Texas firearm laws and learning about the "corner cases". However, it is a bit pointless, IMHO, to always default to "well you still don't want to do THAT because you might get arrested". The simple truth is that if we start with an assumption that the responding LEO may not know the law, then we could get arrested for absolutely anything, so I guess we better never step foot outside of our homes.

This tendency is just an annoyance in most threads, but it is potentially dangerous when it may lead someone to unnecessarily disarm at a given location where there might be a non-compliant sign or some such. That could very well end up getting someone killed.

[ScottDLS]

That's a really good catch! Seeing the full text, one has to both have received notice and "not have" effective consent (which means an affirmative approval, it seems like) in order to be breaking the law. Since we rarely ever ask for effective consent to open or conceal, then the first requirement, 30.06/7 (1), is almost always fulfilled - by way of not having a thing required - so we are not excused.

Having an effective consent means that both (1) and (2) are not fulfilled, so the actor can continue to carry. Very good point.

I cut the quote for brevity, hopefully that doesn't cause any confusion.

Since a lot of the posts in this thread focus on your ability to "prove" that the manager gave effective consent, I also wanted to point out that it is really the opposite situation where a prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not get effective consent. The two scenarios stated ITT are a manager being killed, where I think it would be VERY difficult for a prosecutor to prove this, and a manager being pressured from corporate, where a good defense lawyer should be able to sow enough doubt in this he said / she said type of situation, I would think.

As an aside, I really dislike the tendency we as a group here have to avoid anything that could possibly result in an arrest for something that is not illegal. This forum is a great resource for clarifying Texas firearm laws and learning about the "corner cases". However, it is a bit pointless, IMHO, to always default to "well you still don't want to do THAT because you might get arrested". The simple truth is that if we start with an assumption that the responding LEO may not know the law, then we could get arrested for absolutely anything, so I guess we better never step foot outside of our homes.

This tendency is just an annoyance in most threads, but it is potentially dangerous when it may lead someone to unnecessarily disarm at a given location where there might be a non-compliant sign or some such. That could very well end up getting someone killed.

I'm imagining the part time city attorney in my small town holding forth in municipal court against my defense for a $200 / no jail class C misdemeanor. Voir Dire for jury selection could take as long as for capital murder...then there's the subpoenas for all the witnesses (corporate officials of the store, people who know the deceased manager, and of course lots of character witnesses for me). I could see the trial being bigger than OJ Simpson's.

[TVGuy]

I purchased one of my cars from a dealership with new 30.06 and 30.07 signs in January of this year. The signs were brand new and I voiced my concern when my wife and I first went into the dealership. I was told that the managers and staff also had CHLs, that they hated the signs, and that the GSM would remove the 30.06 every morning when he got to work and put it up at closing.

If there were another dealership around I'd go there, but there are only two in Dallas and both are posted.

They told me it was OK to carry and it made me feel better to see the window cling sign folded on the GSM's desk every time I went in. (he did not remove the 30.07) I carry there and will continue to carry there as I feel I've been given consent and have no other reasonable options.