TexasCHLforum.com

TVGuy wrote:There are also some property owners that post a gun buster to appease the antis while giving the nod to CC. Let's not forget that.

I would treat those as people who don't want my money. I take people at their word.

Ruark wrote:If it's a CLEARLY invalid sign (e.g. the gun with a red diagonal stripe across it), I'll carry. But if it's close to valid - say a perfect sign but the letters aren't quite 1" tall, I'll disarm, as much as I hate to do it, or, if it's feasible, just go somewhere else.

The reason is simple: I can't afford to get arrested, cuffed, taken downtown and thrown in jail, pay a bail bondsman $500 to get out, retrieve my car from impoundment, and pay a lawyer $300 an hour to clean up the mess, calm down my hysterical wife (who missed her dental appointment), etc. etc. etc. I fully respect those who are willing to stand up for their principles, but for many of us, these are not trivial issues, when you can just leave the gun in the car and not worry about it.

FWIW, services like [Pre-paid legal service], CCW Safe, etc. do NOT provide services in this type of situation. If you carry past an invalid sign and some cop decides to bust you, you're on your own.

Ruark wrote:

Ruark wrote:If it's a CLEARLY invalid sign (e.g. the gun with a red diagonal stripe across it), I'll carry. But if it's close to valid - say a perfect sign but the letters aren't quite 1" tall, I'll disarm, as much as I hate to do it, or, if it's feasible, just go somewhere else.

The reason is simple: I can't afford to get arrested, cuffed, taken downtown and thrown in jail, pay a bail bondsman $500 to get out, retrieve my car from impoundment, and pay a lawyer $300 an hour to clean up the mess, calm down my hysterical wife (who missed her dental appointment), etc. etc. etc. I fully respect those who are willing to stand up for their principles, but for many of us, these are not trivial issues, when you can just leave the gun in the car and not worry about it.

FWIW, services like [Pre-paid legal service], CCW Safe, etc. do NOT provide services in this type of situation. If you carry past an invalid sign and some cop decides to bust you, you're on your own.

How useless is that?

C-dub wrote:

Ruark wrote:

Ruark wrote:If it's a CLEARLY invalid sign (e.g. the gun with a red diagonal stripe across it), I'll carry. But if it's close to valid - say a perfect sign but the letters aren't quite 1" tall, I'll disarm, as much as I hate to do it, or, if it's feasible, just go somewhere else.

The reason is simple: I can't afford to get arrested, cuffed, taken downtown and thrown in jail, pay a bail bondsman $500 to get out, retrieve my car from impoundment, and pay a lawyer $300 an hour to clean up the mess, calm down my hysterical wife (who missed her dental appointment), etc. etc. etc. I fully respect those who are willing to stand up for their principles, but for many of us, these are not trivial issues, when you can just leave the gun in the car and not worry about it.

FWIW, services like [Pre-paid legal service], CCW Safe, etc. do NOT provide services in this type of situation. If you carry past an invalid sign and some cop decides to bust you, you're on your own.

How useless is that?

That is what I have heard about even improper signs and being arrested. That is why I don't sign up for them. I can keep my darn mouth shut all by my self.

I hope I don't get too much grief over this. It's just my opinion so don't get excited. To me if someone post a no guns sign regardless of it being the proper 30.06 or soon to be 30.07 (optimistic) it's the same as them saying it verbally. At that point you are infringing on their rights if you ignore the sign. They have the right not to allow firearms on their private property. You have the right not to do business with them if you don't agree with their desires. If you're all that concerned about the letter of the law perhaps you should tell them that their sign doesn't meet the requirements. Have you ever heard of someone getting fined or arrested because they didn't have the proper signage? I'm actually surprised that this poll shows most would ignore someone requesting that you don't carry on their premises. I think the sign requirement is to insure that it's visible and can be easily read. Is being able to read a requirement to get a CHL?

The Wall wrote:I hope I don't get too much grief over this. It's just my opinion so don't get excited. To me if someone post a no guns sign regardless of it being the proper 30.06 or soon to be 30.07 (optimistic) it's the same as them saying it verbally. At that point you are infringing on their rights if you ignore the sign. They have the right not to allow firearms on their private property. You have the right not to do business with them if you don't agree with their desires. If you're all that concerned about the letter of the law perhaps you should tell them that their sign doesn't meet the requirements. Have you ever heard of someone getting fined or arrested because they didn't have the proper signage? I'm actually surprised that this poll shows most would ignore someone requesting that you don't carry on their premises. I think the sign requirement is to insure that it's visible and can be easily read. Is being able to read a requirement to get a CHL?

To me if someone post a no guns sign regardless of it being the proper 30.06 or soon to be 30.07 (optimistic) it's the same as them saying it verbally.
- Legally IT IS NOT. As an indication of owner's intent...maybe.

At that point you are infringing on their rights if you ignore the sign. They have the right not to allow firearms on their private property.
- Arguable. Legally you can not prevent a Peace Officer from carrying on your property (assuming otherwise open to the public). Owner can legally exercise his "right" to keep CHL off his property by posting proper 30.06. When they don't, it's an indication to me that they are not really that concerned about indicating their intent anyway, so why should I go out of my way to honor their wishes? (which they have failed to properly communicate).

I'm actually surprised that this poll shows most would ignore someone requesting that you don't carry on their premises.
-How are you so sure that a "circle slash Beretta with a frowny face" is a request that I not CHL on the property? And for that matter who's property? We're talking about business open to the general public, the vast majority of which have diffuse ownership so the " owners' " intent is likely impossible to discern. I own ExxonMobil (well a very small piece of it) I want everyone to carry anywhere it's legal on my (XOM's) property. Can't speak for my fellow shareholders, but they don't speak for me either.

Anyway, every time I walk into a publicly open premises I really don't care to scan the premises with binoculars looking for list of rules in 4pt type telling me to disarm and spit out my gum, or be subject to a class A or class B criminal trespass charge. 30.06 is quite clear. Any business owner/manager that cares that much about their "right" to exclude me at least owes me the courtesy of communicating that intent clearly via 30.06. Then I'll comply. Otherwise, I'll assume they don't care and carry.

I think the sign requirement is to insure that it's visible and can be easily read.
-That's right, and that's why it has to be posted just as specified for you to get jammed up for a class A misdemeanor. If not posted as specified, I really don't care to figure out the owners' intent. Just like the burden is on me to get a CHL to legally carry, it's on them to figure out the way to stop me.

ScottDLS wrote: At that point you are infringing on their rights if you ignore the sign. They have the right not to allow firearms on their private property.
Legally you can not prevent a Peace Officer from carrying on your property (assuming otherwise open to the public).

Is this a certainty? We've seen multiple examples of restaurants telling officers that they cannot stay unless they put their guns in their vehicles and the officers went ahead and left.

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: At that point you are infringing on their rights if you ignore the sign. They have the right not to allow firearms on their private property.
Legally you can not prevent a Peace Officer from carrying on your property (assuming otherwise open to the public).

Is this a certainty? We've seen multiple examples of restaurants telling officers that they cannot stay unless they put their guns in their vehicles and the officers went ahead and left.

So the question is, does P.C. 30.05 apply to Peace Officers. After written or verbal notification. I honestly don't know the answer to that, but THAT is the question. That's what this issue centers around. I'll let the debaters and nit-pickers sort it out.

The Wall wrote:I hope I don't get too much grief over this. It's just my opinion so don't get excited. To me if someone post a no guns sign regardless of it being the proper 30.06 or soon to be 30.07 (optimistic) it's the same as them saying it verbally. At that point you are infringing on their rights if you ignore the sign. They have the right not to allow firearms on their private property. You have the right not to do business with them if you don't agree with their desires. If you're all that concerned about the letter of the law perhaps you should tell them that their sign doesn't meet the requirements. Have you ever heard of someone getting fined or arrested because they didn't have the proper signage? I'm actually surprised that this poll shows most would ignore someone requesting that you don't carry on their premises. I think the sign requirement is to insure that it's visible and can be easily read. Is being able to read a requirement to get a CHL?

Legal or not:
1. I am not going to be the test case.
2. I fully get their intent that they desperately don't want to have any of my money.
So I don't go there.

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: At that point you are infringing on their rights if you ignore the sign. They have the right not to allow firearms on their private property.
Legally you can not prevent a Peace Officer from carrying on your property (assuming otherwise open to the public).

Is this a certainty? We've seen multiple examples of restaurants telling officers that they cannot stay unless they put their guns in their vehicles and the officers went ahead and left.

Yes but they can't get them charged with Trespass for failing to comply. They are exempt from 30.05 (related to carrying a gun) and 30.06 is not applicable.

joe817 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: At that point you are infringing on their rights if you ignore the sign. They have the right not to allow firearms on their private property.
Legally you can not prevent a Peace Officer from carrying on your property (assuming otherwise open to the public).

Is this a certainty? We've seen multiple examples of restaurants telling officers that they cannot stay unless they put their guns in their vehicles and the officers went ahead and left.

So the question is, does P.C. 30.05 apply to Peace Officers. After written or verbal notification. I honestly don't know the answer to that, but THAT is the question. That's what this issue centers around. I'll let the debaters and nit-pickers sort it out.

It (30.05) does not if the reason for exclusion is that they are carrying. If you see them carrying you could always make another excuse for kicking them out (circle slash LEO sign anyone??? )

PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the
person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land,
agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other
vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
...
...
(i) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was
forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a
commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator
under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the
peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of
an official duty while carrying the weapon.

ScottDLS wrote: It (30.05) does not if the reason for exclusion is that they are carrying. If you see them carrying you could always make another excuse for kicking them out (circle slash LEO sign anyone??? )

Sometimes, it does not require a sign or another excuse.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/09/11/arme ... estaurant/

chasfm11 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: It (30.05) does not if the reason for exclusion is that they are carrying. If you see them carrying you could always make another excuse for kicking them out (circle slash LEO sign anyone??? )

Sometimes, it does not require a sign or another excuse.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/09/11/arme ... estaurant/

If that LEO refused to leave, he could not be charged with criminal trespass unless they found another reason to ask him to leave than his gun. If I were LEO I would have told them to pound sand and watched the movie...or maybe I would have concealed better.

The reason I would carry past an invalid sign, is you actually don't know the owner's intent. They may just want to prevent open carry of long guns, and don't care about concealed as long as nobody knows it. Besides, I'm abiding by the law. If an owner was serious, the would make it a point to abide as well.