TexasCHLforum.com

"So if an owner provides notice to you by means of a written card or document that is on file in their head office, but is never seen by you, then you have received notice?" Likewise if you enter a large mall through an anchor store that is clearly a common public entrance, but no sign nearby, then you've received notice by conspicuous posting?"

I never said that nor do I make that assumption. Yes there is an implied necessity that the oral communication must be directed to and heard by the person. And the written document must be, PRESUMABLY, handed to or visible to or seen by the person since, due to is smallness and INCONSPICUOUSNESS its message is not likely to be delivered otherwise. We can make that assumption because it is reasonable and makes sense. The only problem is that the state legislature was very specific about what constitutes a proper posting of a SIGN. And that specificity includes the simple conspicuous visibility to the public. It doesn't go beyond that. That is all that I am saying...and that no one can make that legal inference without involving an interpretation. That's all.

If I use deadly force, I'm going to make darn sure that I have a clear justification with or without the 9.32b1c presumption. There was never any duty to retreat in Texas law anyway, so the "stand your ground" law was just additional protection. The consequences of unlawfully using deadly force are much higher than criminal trespass and therefore that's what I spend my time worrying about, not hunting down signs that owners don't care enough to post conspicuously.

My earlier response had nothing to do with duty to retreat or not as stated in 9.32c which states that the absence of the requirement to retreat is predicated on the fact that you have a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, and that you are not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used. If you are trespassing you do not have a right to be in the mall (if that's where we're talking about) and you are, by definition, engaged in a misdemeanor criminal activity.

My earlier response referred to 9.32b which deals with a legally imputed presumption of reasonableness regarding your belief that deadly force was immediately necessary when used to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery...PROVIDED THAT (9.32C) that the defender was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than violation of a Class C traffic violation...which by definition you are if you are trespassing after being notified (as notified is specifically defined per the statutory language) as per the SIGNAGE requirements of 30.06. It doesn't have to make sense. It says what it says. All I am saying is that anything else must be recognized as an interpreted assumption on one's part should he decide to go into a posted mall anyway and as such must understand the risk of basing a defense, truly or falsely, that he did not see the sign. As I stated earlier, this presupposes and presumptively depends on whether it even matters that you see a properly posted sign.

The reason I'm casual about NOT committing a class C misdemeanor by entering a location where I have NOT been PROVIDED NOTICE, is that the consequences of a wrongful conviction are not so high, and I'm willing to represent myself in JP court. My contention is that many CHL's are a lot more casual about the consequences of a bad shoot

The consequences of shooting someone in a posted mall is that you will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that your decision to use deadly force was based on a reasonable belief that it was immediately necessary, in the case of preventing the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery, where if it had in the parking lot preventing the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery, and you could prove that element, your jury would have been given an instruction by the court to make a presumption of reasonableness and, notwithstanding any other incriminating element, be ordered to find you not guilty.

That's the difference.

Other than that, each is free to make a decision on what is more important, disregard a 30.06 sign notification or stay armed and take your chances in court.

tex

30.06 (b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

The law reads that there must be

1. a sign (if we only talk about signs and not oral or document notification)
2. appears in contrasting colors
3. with block letters
4. at least one inch in height
5. containing identical language to the prescribed language
6. in both English and Spanish
7. displayed in a conspicuous manner
8. clearly visible
9. to the public

It is clearly written. A person RECEIVES NOTICE (has been duly notified to the satisfaction of the statute) when the elements of the signage and signage posting are fulfilled. This action that constitutes the completion of the receiving of notice is entirely dependent upon the completed action of the owner or one acting for the owner in creating and posting the sign as per 1-9 above, and requires nothing on the part of the viewer, including actually viewing the sign.

If your argue in your defense that you never saw the sign, all the prosecutor has to do is prove the sign was posted as per the language of the statute 1-9 above. This is where the interpretation of "conspicuously" and "clearly visible to the public" will enter into the debate.

Again, a jury may find it reasonable that to be "conspicuous" the sign must convey its message to those its message is intended to effect (the entering public) and therefore, by necessity, must be posted where it can be seen by the entering public. Whether an appellate court, whose has the task of determining the actual meaning of the applied law, will uphold a lower court conviction based on a strict interpretation of the language is, of course, the $64000 question.

It should be noted that if one is trespassing beyond a 30.06 sign at a mall or somewhere else that person's legally guaranteed presumption that the use of deadly force is reasonably immediately necessary to defend against another's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery is effectively eliminated as per 9.32b1c and 9.32b3 because that person is committing a non-traffic, criminal Class C misdemeanor while doing so. This makes a nonchalant attitude about 30.06 signs, especially after the associated trespassing violation is reduced to a tempting Class C misdemeanor after 1/1/16 legally perilous for anyone foolish enough to disregard them.

tex

Let's review the law as written shall we...

30.06

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:

(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

(30.05 (1) “Entry” means the intrusion of the entire body.

30.06 (b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

30.06 (3) “Written communication” means: (as it applies to a sign)
(ii) that it appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

The law reads that there must be

1. a sign (if we only talk about signs and not oral or document notification)
2. appears in contrasting colors
3. with block letters
4. at least one inch in height
5. containing identical language to the prescribed language
6. in both English and Spanish
7. displayed in a conspicuous manner
8. clearly visible
9. to the public

One properly constructed sign posted on the backside of the mall displayed so that by any reasonable judgement it can be considered conspicuously and clearly visible to the public meets all 9 of these requirements.

Note that there is

1. no requirement to be posted at every entrance
2. no requirement to be posted at ANY entrance
3. no requirement that YOU even see the sign to create or meet the condition of notification!!!! Yes, the rule requires that "you received notice" and notice is defined by the properly posted compliant sign which IMPLIES that YOU must see the sign to have received its notice. But this goes to the old argument and legal procedure that notice doesn't always have to be literally received to be legally received, or for notice to be legally given. A 30 day notice in a newspaper for debts incurred is legally sufficient to have given notice to you and legally sufficient to prove that you either did RECEIVE the notice or had opportunity to receive the notice due the to ubiquitousness and conspicuousness of the newspaper notice. In other words, there are numerous legal methods to serve legal notice without any guarantee of one actually, physically seeing or receiving that notice. This doctrine, practice and precedent is well established. Whether this doctrine could be successfully claimed by your prosecutor or defended against by your defense attorney is speculative. The prosecutor will argue the precedence of similar statutes (remember the literal parsing of the statute favors the prosecution) requires that notification is presumed as long as the conspicuous and clearly visible to the public clause is literally accepted. You and your defense attorney are the one's requiring an interpretation of the language, albeit, arguably, a reasonable one.

If the prosecutor believes he can successfully convict you he will have to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence of proof...

FIRST...that the property in question was the property of another
SECOND...that the person providing notice was the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner to give such notice
THIRD... first that all nine of the above notice elements of the statute existed meaning you were properly notified
FOURTH...that you did not have the effective consent to be on the property of another with a licensed handgun
FIFTH...that you had a licensed handgun
SIXTH...that you entered on the property or remained on and failed to depart from the property

A total of 14 elements as I count them that the prosecutor must prove to convict you. Your defense attorney must bring reasonable doubt to only one of the fourteen.

The key word that everyone gets hung up on is the word "conspicuous". The context within which it is used is the phrase "conspicuous maner clearly visible to the public". I can think of no less than 20 non-entrance display locations around the outside of a mall that are conspicuously and clearly visible to the public. If lacking a legal definition of the word, canons of statutory interpretations begin with the common usage and meaning of a word. Merriam-Webster defines conspicuous as very easy to see or notice...attracting attention by being great or impressive.

The statute states that it must be (substituting here) very easy to see or notice by and clearly visible to the public. Again, I can think of 20 non-entrance places where this is true. It might be reasonable to assume that the intent of a sign meant to forbid entrance into (remember the statute says "entry") a building must be very easy to see or notice by the public as they enter the building they are presumably meant to be forbidden from entering!. But that is an assumption and not a strict parsing of the language of the statute. The prosecutor intent on convicting you, or better stated, not losing his case, will try to convince the jury to take the strictest parsing and meaning of the "clearly visible to the public" clause. Your defense attorney will try equally hard to convince the jury that the reasonable interpretation of the visibility clause and its application, as stated above, requires a sign meant to warn of forbidden entry be posted at or near an entrance in order to serve its purpose and convey its message of forbidden entry.

And my guess is that the jury would buy that. But remember, until there is an appellate review and ruling on the interpretation of this we are stuck with the literal parsing of the law and the random interpretations of juries that have received the random legal instructions on the law from any one of almost 500 courts in the state. Any interpretation which leads to a inference or assumption is just that, an interpretation.

The elements of the statute say nothing more nor nothing less than precisely what they say, and one is always free to roll the dice on your jury's interpretation of those precise words. All of this concern for what will be a Class C misdemeanor. But its good to be able to analyse the rules.

tex