TexasCHLforum.com

If a main entrance has a legal sign to carry but the side entrance of the same build is properly marked what then? Hotel in Dallas has this issue. I can provide pics if need but surely everyone knows what the legal sign and illegal to carry signs are or can google them.

1s1k52 wrote:If a main entrance has a legal sign to carry but the side entrance of the same build is properly marked what then? Hotel in Dallas has this issue. I can provide pics if need but surely everyone knows what the legal sign and illegal to carry signs are or can google them.

What kind of signs are you talking about? Unlicesned possesion, 51%, 30.06?

1s1k52 wrote:If a main entrance has a legal sign to carry but the side entrance of the same build is properly marked what then? Hotel in Dallas has this issue. I can provide pics if need but surely everyone knows what the legal sign and illegal to carry signs are or can google them.

What is a legal to carry sign? Google was no help.

I think pics would help greatly.

I have tried to google and play around with trying to learn putting in pictures best I can do is attach it. I am open for learning on how to do a better job posting pictures as well as when providing a hyper link you give it a description.

back to the topic. The 30.06 sign was at the side entry and it was huge. About 3 ft by 3ft for each version I guess. The legal sign cant be seen very well I guess i didnt take the best pic while walking away, but can be seen at any walmart in Texas.

the signs you posted aren't contradicting, the unlicensed possession sign is required by TABC and the 3006 is by choice of hotel management. there is nothing in the law that says they are mutually exclusive and cannot be posted together

I seem to remember that the 30.06 sign had to be posted at every entrance. I'm sure someone will be quick to correct me if I am in error though. :)

No requirement to "display at every entrance"

This is the verbatim requirement for sign placement in PC 30.06

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

If you saw the sign then you saw the sign. If you didn't because you entered through an entrance where sign was not posted, I guess you could claim plausible deniability but I Am Not A Lawyer so Your Mileage May Vary.

A-R wrote:SNIP If you saw the sign then you saw the sign. If you didn't because you entered through an entrance where sign was not posted, I guess you could claim plausible deniability SNIP

Jim

A-R wrote:No requirement to "display at every entrance"

This is the verbatim requirement for sign placement in PC 30.06

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

If you saw the sign then you saw the sign. If you didn't because you entered through an entrance where sign was not posted, I guess you could claim plausible deniability but I Am Not A Lawyer so Your Mileage May Vary.

And especially so if you entered through the main entrance and only saw the "Unlicensed Possession" sign, which wouldn't, by definition, apply to you since you have a license.

Hoping that 2015 provides us relief by making the signage requirement stricter, such as "Every entrance" and including verbiage stating that invalid signage can and will be ignored.

A-R wrote:No requirement to "display at every entrance"

This is the verbatim requirement for sign placement in PC 30.06

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

If you saw the sign then you saw the sign. If you didn't because you entered through an entrance where sign was not posted, I guess you could claim plausible deniability but I Am Not A Lawyer so Your Mileage May Vary.

Interesting... I clearly remember the instructor saying that it needed to be at every entrance when I first took my CHL class back after Texas first instituted the CHL. I don't remember whether they said it in subsequent classes though.

jimlongley wrote:Hoping that 2015 provides us relief by making the signage requirement stricter, such as "Every entrance" and including verbiage stating that invalid signage can and will be ignored.

I don't know if I would like to see that put into law.

WildBill wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Hoping that 2015 provides us relief by making the signage requirement stricter, such as "Every entrance" and including verbiage stating that invalid signage can and will be ignored.

I don't know if I would like to see that put into law.

It's only a "such as" and subject to modification.

I would like to see Texas follow the lead of some states where a sign is not enough for a criminal offense. You have to be asked to leave and refuse to leave before it's a crime.

In practice it seems like that's how simple trespass works in Texas so making the law line up in theory and practice is a good move. Either that or the local cops need to start arresting the people I have on video walking past my trespass notice to leave door hangers during elections.

kenobi wrote:I would like to see Texas follow the lead of some states where a sign is not enough for a criminal offense. You have to be asked to leave and refuse to leave before it's a crime.

In practice it seems like that's how simple trespass works in Texas so making the law line up in theory and practice is a good move. Either that or the local cops need to start arresting the people I have on video walking past my trespass notice to leave door hangers during elections.

In practice, you are correct that many LE agencies' policy is to first give a Criminal Trespass warning for violations of PC 30.05 before an arrest. But they CAN arrest on first offense based solely on a sign (or even just purple paint marks). As far as written law, 30.05 and 30.06 are substantially similar in their enforceable language. But there is little case law, much less LE agency policy/practice on 30.06. By comparison most LE agencies deal with 30.05 on a daily or at least weekly basis.