TexasCHLforum.com

BBYC wrote: If they tell somebody to leave, they don't have to give any reason, and there is no blanket 30.05 exception for off duty emergency volunteers.

30.05 does provide a defense to prosecution for any LTC holder, if the reason for forbidding entry is licensed carry. That would be tricky to prove if the property owner didn't explicitly give a reason, but if a licensed OCer VESP went past a sign, was told to leave, didn't, and then was charged with 30.05 violation, then he might make use of the defense if he could convince judge there was some evidence it was because of the gun. E.g. He was only VESP told to leave and only one carrying. If judge allowed defense, then presumably defense attorney could question property owner about his reason.

Would be a tough needle to thread, but possible I think.

ELB wrote:

BBYC wrote: If they tell somebody to leave, they don't have to give any reason, and there is no blanket 30.05 exception for off duty emergency volunteers.

30.05 does provide a defense to prosecution for any LTC holder, if the reason for forbidding entry is licensed carry. That would be tricky to prove if the property owner didn't explicitly give a reason, but if a licensed OCer VESP went past a sign, was told to leave, didn't, and then was charged with 30.05 violation, then he might make use of the defense if he could convince judge there was some evidence it was because of the gun. E.g. He was only VESP told to leave and only one carrying. If judge allowed defense, then presumably defense attorney could question property owner about his reason.

Would be a tough needle to thread, but possible I think.

I'm thinking that the reason would usually be pretty clear. Either the property owner would include the reason when telling a VESP to leave or might give the option to put their gun in the car. Then you have cases where the police are called, and I really can't envision a property owner failing to mention to the officer that the guy refusing to leave is armed.

ELB wrote:

BBYC wrote: If they tell somebody to leave, they don't have to give any reason, and there is no blanket 30.05 exception for off duty emergency volunteers.

30.05 does provide a defense to prosecution for any LTC holder, if the reason for forbidding entry is licensed carry. That would be tricky to prove if the property owner didn't explicitly give a reason, but if a licensed OCer VESP went past a sign, was told to leave, didn't, and then was charged with 30.05 violation, then he might make use of the defense if he could convince judge there was some evidence it was because of the gun. E.g. He was only VESP told to leave and only one carrying. If judge allowed defense, then presumably defense attorney could question property owner about his reason.

Would be a tough needle to thread, but possible I think.

The property owner could say he asked him to leave because he seemed aggressive, was concerned for his safety. It's not the gun. It's the person.

Not sure why this is being debated. My point was that this new law obviously needs to be tested in court to figure out what it really means since the wording of the bill is so vague. It will probably take a very unlikely series of events for that to occur. Most likely it would be the store calling the police about the firearm, without talking to the customer, as just happened in the Austin bakery story. Even then I really can’t see a police officer choosing to arrest a person that walked past a sign, but subsequently agreed to leave when asked. The only way to invoke HB435 is to be arrested, and charged with criminal trespassing, even though you agreed to leave when asked. Thus, an extremely unlikely occurrence. If the customer is asked to leave for a non firearm reason, then that has nothing to do with signs, HB435, or this website really.

ELB wrote:

BBYC wrote: If they tell somebody to leave, they don't have to give any reason, and there is no blanket 30.05 exception for off duty emergency volunteers.

30.05 does provide a defense to prosecution for any LTC holder, if the reason for forbidding entry is licensed carry. That would be tricky to prove if the property owner didn't explicitly give a reason, but if a licensed OCer VESP went past a sign, was told to leave, didn't, and then was charged with 30.05 violation, then he might make use of the defense

That would be an interesting defense to prosecution to see...from the gallery.

BBYC wrote:

ELB wrote:

BBYC wrote: If they tell somebody to leave, they don't have to give any reason, and there is no blanket 30.05 exception for off duty emergency volunteers.

30.05 does provide a defense to prosecution for any LTC holder, if the reason for forbidding entry is licensed carry. That would be tricky to prove if the property owner didn't explicitly give a reason, but if a licensed OCer VESP went past a sign, was told to leave, didn't, and then was charged with 30.05 violation, then he might make use of the defense

That would be an interesting defense to prosecution to see...from the gallery.

Or from the jury box.