30.06 posted on one door or every door?

[paulhailes]

This is a question I have been meaning to ask but I forget every time I get on my computer, which is sad cause i'm on it all the time. Anyways, does the 30.06 sign have to be posted on every entrance to a building or just one one? I received conflicting advice on this one, my buddy said yes it has to be on every door which makes since but my CHL instructor said it only needed to be on one door. I even asked "So are we supposed to walk around the entire building to make sure there is no sign"? and he said it is our job to know. I'm siding with my friend on this one just cause the other way just doesn't make since, if anyone has some proof one way or the other I would love to hear it... or read it.

[Skiprr]

We’ve had that discussion before, in particular about shopping malls that have one or more of the shared entrances correctly posted, but anchor store entrances and their gateways into the mall area not posted at all.

The consensus—which by no means indicates a legal ruling, just a general agreement among those discussing it—was that the key phrase is found in PC §30.06(2): “received notice...” §30.06(3)(B)(iii) goes on to clarify that, if a sign, it must be “displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.”

The result is that, if you enter through that Dillard’s store on the corner that is not 30.06 posted, and continue into the mall and there is no valid 30.06 visible at that entry, you (probably) have not disobeyed the law. However, if during your travels around the mall you see one of those shared entrances that does have a valid posting, you have been given valid notice.

You will have been given notice just as if a property manager for the mall had walked up to you and gave you notice orally that carrying a firearm is forbidden. Since you have been given notice, the law obligates you to turn around and leave...and disarm if you ever go back inside.

That said, in the mall scenario, there was some continued discussion about whether it was then legal to go into that anchor store that was not posted. The inexpert consensus was that if the store property was controlled under lease by the anchor store itself, not by the mall, then carry inside that particular store was still legal; but stepping out of the store into the mall itself would be illegal because you previously had been given notice.

So the short answer was that, no, not all doors had to be posted. If you are unaware of a valid posting for the premises and see none as you enter, you may go inside and not be breaking the law; but once you know the premises is validly posted in a way that is “displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public,” you have been notified.

[bkj]

The Law says

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.

It say A sign as in ONE
But if you do not see it at the door you enter its not Clearly visible

[C-dub]

Only one sign will do as long as it is clearly visible to the public. And it doesn't even have to be on a door or at the entrance. It's nice when it is, but it doesn't have to be.

[G.A. Heath]

I agree with Skiprr on this one. If you have never seen a sign, been given written (like on a receipt), or oral notice then you are good to carry seeing as how you have not been given effective notice. Now that is assuming the location is not off limits under TPC 46.03 or 46.035, and that the location is not government property. Once you receive notice (say seeing the sign at another entrance or elsewhere) then the location is off limits while carrying.

[Z1166]

The Law says

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.

It say A sign as in ONE
But if you do not see it at the door you enter its not Clearly visible

This sounds spot-on to me. One sign may be enough if it's clearly visible to the public.

[paulhailes]

The Law says

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.

It say A sign as in ONE
But if you do not see it at the door you enter its not Clearly visible

This sounds spot-on to me. One sign may be enough if it's clearly visible to the public.

Something can be clearly visible to the public but still not seen, like if you go into Walmart and the post one door but not the other, it's clearly visible to the public but only the people that go through that door will see it.

Thats why i'm siding with if there isn't one on the route you take and don't know of one on another entrance then you are good.

[Katygunnut]

Don't even get me started on the malls that post only at certain public entrances, and then post on the side wall in a manner that you would have to turn 90 degrees from your normal direction of travel, immediately after entering the doors in order to ever see the sign.

IANAL, but I definitely don't think this meets the definition of "clearly visible". Untimately, I suppose I could find myself in front of a jury while my lawyer argued with a prosecutor on this point. However, the only way anyone will ever see my weapon is when I need it for self-defense, so my trial would likely involve other points that are far more serious than the technicalities of 30.06 wording.

[rm9792]

Don't even get me started on the malls that post only at certain public entrances, and then post on the side wall in a manner that you would have to turn 90 degrees from your normal direction of travel, immediately after entering the doors in order to ever see the sign.

IANAL, but I definitely don't think this meets the definition of "clearly visible". Untimately, I suppose I could find myself in front of a jury while my lawyer argued with a prosecutor on this point. However, the only way anyone will ever see my weapon is when I need it for self-defense, so my trial would likely involve other points that are far more serious than the technicalities of 30.06 wording.

Hopefully its a no-bill if that happens.

[srothstein]

I think this is one of those very gray areas in some cases. The law has to be read in steps to be clear. It says you cannot carry if you receive notice. Then it defines notice as being given either oral or written communication. Then it defines written communication as a sign that is conspicuously posted and visible to the public.

So, it is clear that every door does not have to be posted. The way the law is written, it can be argued that you do not have to see or read the sign for it to be effective. I agree that this interpretation does not make sense as a general rule, but I also have seen people get hit by a train they never saw. If you walk right by a sign that is clearly posted and conspicuous but you were engaged in a conversation and not paying attention, did you receive notice or not? If not, how can the law be enforced without someone being dumb enough to say they saw the sign and ignored it? If you can be charged under those conditions, how can you not be charged for going in a different door?

I think the consensus here has been that you should be able to win if you never knew the other door was posted, but would be convicted if you went in a door that was not posted to deliberately avoid a posted door. For example, if you went in to the mall through a department store door after reading of the posting of the mall entrances, I think you could be charged and convicted (assuming they knew you did it that way). But, if it were my first visit to Katy Mills Mall (I know that one from experience) and I had never been on a forum like this one that discussed it, and I went into Bass Pro and then the mall, I could not be convicted since I had never known of the posting at all.

But that is conjecture and the way the law is written, I could certainly see some DA taking the case to court for your not knowing there was a sign at a different door than the one you entered.

[MasterOfNone]

One element that I think is important here is the term "conspicuous." Its definition is important to this discussion. Merriam-Webster defines it as:

1: obvious to the eye or mind
2: attracting attention : striking
3: marked by a noticeable violation of good taste

While many of the businesses discussed may fit definition 3, definitions 1 and 2 seem to be appropriate here. But even they are somewhat vague.
The only definition of "conspicuous" I can find in Texas law is in the Business and Commerce Code, where Section 1.201(b)(10) states:

"Conspicuous," with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it.

My question for the lawyers is how hard would it be to argue this definition for "conspicuous" in 30.06?