I would argue that in order for a building to be postedRiverCity.45 wrote:I encounter this often. People conflate the "every entrance" requirement of the 51% sign with the "is displayed in a conspicuous manner" of 30.06.
versusCode: Select all
GC §411.204. NOTICE REQUIRED ON CERTAIN PREMISES. (a) A business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the business premises a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c).
And for clarification:Code: Select all
PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. ...(c) In this section: (1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b). ...(B) a sign posted on the property that: ... (iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Now, whether or not one receives effective notice if one enters a building where only some entrances are posted is a different matter. But there is no statutory requirement to post all entrances under 30.06.Code: Select all
PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. ...(b) For purposes of this section: (1) “Entry” means the intrusion of the entire body.
Code: Select all
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public
And I think that white on glass is neither contrasting nor conspicuous.
But that is my personal opinion and has nothing to do with reality.
It would be nice to have an Attorney General interpretation or specific case law, but as has been pointed out in the past by Charles and others, there is always the chance that that could go against us.
Maybe a goal for 2017 would be to make the 30.06 language the same as the 51%?