TexasCHLforum.com

I had discussion with a retired LEO acquaintance who teaches CHL regarding 30.06 notice. I made the statement that invalid signs are not enforceable though adding that "you may not beat the ride, but you most likely would beat the rap". Specifically, we were discussing a national pizza chain for kids that now has 30.06 signs, correctly worded in both English and Spanish, in block letters in contrasting colors. However, the letters are not at least 1" in height as required by 30.06 but about 1/2". This person was adamant that it doesn't matter. The judge is going to ask did you read the sign and if so then you understood what they meant, and therefore have been given effective notice (especially since I mentioned that I actually measured the sign in question). I said that I would never say that I measured a sign if arrested... that's volunteering information no one but my attorney needs. I said I do the following when entering any building and this is what would be in my statement and/or testimony: I always look for a sign that has contrasting block letters that are at least 1" in height. If I don't see any, I don't continue to look further.

I was then told that people with CHL's have been convicted even though signs are not compliant. "Judges don't care if a sign is compliant or the intent of the law. They care if you saw the sign." 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).

So, does anyone know of a CHL holder being convicted in Texas for violating a non-compliant 30.06 sign? Does anyone agree that an invalid sign is still legally enforceable as effective notice?

Thanks,

Ron

...no...and no...

Any judge that don't care if the sign is wrong probly would say any "no guns" sign is close enough.

Ron, would you ask your LEO friend if a gunbuster sign is enough? It clearly states the business owners intent.

C-dub wrote:Ron, would you ask your LEO friend if a gunbuster sign is enough? It clearly states the business owners intent.

...much as I love the police...I don't ask 'em what the law is...I often know better than a lot of them do...I take the time to read it...

speedsix wrote:

C-dub wrote:Ron, would you ask your LEO friend if a gunbuster sign is enough? It clearly states the business owners intent.

...much as I love the police...I don't ask 'em what the law is...I often know better than a lot of them do...I take the time to read it...

I would hope and expect his friend to say that the gunbuster sign was not enough. If he does he has fallen into the trap. If he says that it must be the correct wording then the follow up question would be to ask why is the wording critical, but the size is not.

Or he could just be tremendously stubborn.

C-dub wrote:

speedsix wrote:

C-dub wrote:Ron, would you ask your LEO friend if a gunbuster sign is enough? It clearly states the business owners intent.

...much as I love the police...I don't ask 'em what the law is...I often know better than a lot of them do...I take the time to read it...

I would hope and expect his friend to say that the gunbuster sign was not enough. If he does he has fallen into the trap. If he says that it must be the correct wording then the follow up question would be to ask why is the wording critical, but the size is not.

Or he could just be tremendously stubborn.

I know some people that suffer from this condition.

Brian Mobley wrote:

C-dub wrote:

speedsix wrote:

C-dub wrote:Ron, would you ask your LEO friend if a gunbuster sign is enough? It clearly states the business owners intent.

...much as I love the police...I don't ask 'em what the law is...I often know better than a lot of them do...I take the time to read it...

I would hope and expect his friend to say that the gunbuster sign was not enough. If he does he has fallen into the trap. If he says that it must be the correct wording then the follow up question would be to ask why is the wording critical, but the size is not.

Or he could just be tremendously stubborn.

I know some people that suffer from this condition.

I refuse to agree with the above statement.

If the business owner's intent was to keep CHL holders from entering while armed, then he should have followed the law, at least that's what I hope the judge's attitude would be. That's something I hadn't considered in prior debates, most of which have stopped, with a great deal of confidence, at the officer being (wrong, over enthusiastic, under informed) with the assumption that the judge would set it right. So suppose the judge is nominally anti-rights, or an activist who thinks that all signage should be obeyed without regard for legislative intent.

Once again I find my own attitude reinforced: If there is a 30.06 sign, no matter how non-compliant; Stop! Do not enter; Card them, find out the owner's name and mailing address, etc and let them know you are boycotting them and why, and if their sign is not compliant, educate them, even if it means they decide to comply and put up a real sign, they are anti-rights and don't deserve your business.

And for those of you who think that the non-compliant signs are just a way for pro carry folks to cater to the antis with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" posting that will make everyone happy, here's another scenario.

You are patronizing the establishment with the non-compliant sign, and Mrs. DooGood is there with her little brat running out of control while mom ignores it. Brat comes charging up and head butts you right on the holster, pulling your cover garment away so that all may see your carry piece. Brat goes crying to mommy, "Dat nasty person hav a gun and hit me wid it." and mommy, not management, calls the cops. The cops get there, and you explain the situation, and it only takes a couple of minutes of observation to note that the kid has since head butted one officer, mommy three times, and a wall, for them to decide you didn't threaten anyone and refuse to arrest.

But they did notice the sign on the way in, and despite their sympathy for the situation that led to it, arrest you for violating the 30.06 sign.

Nope, they don't deserve my money.

I have had a similar scenario with a child running wild in Home Depot, who rammed me in my harmonica pocket, denting my C harp, and went crying to mommy that I hurt him. (I really do carry several harmonicas, in my Tru-Specs, right thigh pocket.)

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

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.

I hate ambiguous signs .... took me 3 days to drive from Houston to Austin because every few miles was this sign "Clean restrooms ahead" and after cleaning them all I was sooo tired ....

I don't want to have to guess a business owner's intent ... that's why the Statute list the elements "that notice must be received" (not that the intent on a sign must almost convey the owner's wishes) then lists the exact conditions under which "notice is received"

Nothing vague or ambiguous or confusing about it.
If they want to post a 30.06 sign, they can, the specifications are simple and all listed on one place.
If they instead wish to post anything else, necessarily conveys to me that it's a "feel good sign" and the owner wishes that I'd be armed but be quiet about it so people "feel good"

RPB, you are preaching to the choir here. I was trying to think of an analogy to use that is similar in that all conditions must be met in order for there to be a violation. But could not come up with one that was an apples to apples comparison.

Ron

rtschl wrote:RPB, you are preaching to the choir here. I was trying to think of an analogy to use that is similar in that all conditions must be met in order for there to be a violation. But could not come up with one that was an apples to apples comparison.

Ron

well ... with sign compliance ... how about if they are worded exactly right, correct size letter, contrasting colors, everything exactly correct except instead of English and Spanish, they use Korean and Japanese? Every specification was met except one ...

As a new CHL holder (2 months) I find these discussions quite entertaining. Personally, I let my common sense guide me and follow one simple guideline. "If I can't carry, you pay me." If I see a sign that gives me even a whiff that a CHL holder is not welcome, I take my business elsewhere. I know there are exceptions such as areas clearly addressed in the law, but it works well in everyday activities. The majority of business I need to conduct can be done with businesses that want my money.

It really bothers me that CHL holders present an attitude that its ok to go somewhere they aren't welcome just because the I's aren't dotted, or the T's aren't crossed. Real BGs walk free with the same attitude only to continue to present a threat to society. We all may make mistakes and inadvertently miss a sign. It happens. I don't mind "no carry" at gun shows, too much opportunity for a negligent discharge.

If we behave ethically, we set a higher standard for the general population and will be much more successful in our journey.

I'll get off my soapbox now