TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

gunman40 wrote: what gets me mad is that we have to follow the law as it is written, but businesses with improper signs do not. DPS said in our renewal class 2 years ago that they will not police the signs. maybe we should work on that next session; if the signs are not legal then we do not have to abide by the non legal signs. my 2 cents.

Putting up a sign that is "incorrect" or that is not effective notice to a CHL/LTC is not a crime. What would you have the police do, inform them of their mistake so they can put up the correct effective sign?

For 30.07? Yes. See my post above.

For 30.06? An invalid sign should be treated as "the owner knows it's invalid - it placates the sheep, but we both know I can still carry concealed." I'm fine with all the invalid 30.06 anyone wants to post.

gunman40 wrote:what gets me mad is that we have to follow the law as it is written, but businesses with improper signs do not. DPS said in our renewal class 2 years ago that they will not police the signs. maybe we should work on that next session; if the signs are not legal then we do not have to abide by the non legal signs. my 2 cents.

If the signs aren't legal, you DON'T have to abide by the signs. Period.

However, unlike 30.06, where nobody except you knows, with 30.07 walking past an invalid sign will almost always get either a verbal notice (which is valid) or interaction with the police (as detailed in post 1 of this thread).

What would be interesting is a CIVIL fine to those who post invalid signs and call the police department to enforce them, much like people who don't have alarm permits but police respond to their alarms. Post an invalid sign and call the police to enforce it, they will, but it'll cost you $100.

That would at LEAST get correct signs up, which for 30.07 doesn't "hurt" the status quo. In some cases they might come down because the owner doesn't want to post something large and conspicuous enough to be legal.

baldeagle wrote:

mreed911 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Substitute "anyone" for "security personnel or other agents", and the sense of the sentence is identical. An apartment manager can delegate to whomever he desires the authority to exclude people from his property. The same applies to an property manager or owner.

Yes, but the mere act of calling the police does not, in and of it self, confer authority. An affirmative step is required for such delegation.

Care to cite the law for that?

You can't possibly be asking me to prove a negative.

Look how carefully the court addressed the authority here, noting that it was specifically granted. That's a major point in upholding the conviction.

baldeagle wrote:Substitute "anyone" for "security personnel or other agents", and the sense of the sentence is identical. An apartment manager can delegate to whomever he desires the authority to exclude people from his property. The same applies to an property manager or owner.

Yes, but the mere act of calling the police does not, in and of it self, confer authority. An affirmative step is required for such delegation.

baldeagle wrote:Key word: Further. Don't misread case law.

But this case isn't on point with your claim that police have apparent authority by virtue of being called.

Specifically, here, a police officer lived in the complex in exchange for providing security services and was explicitly vested with authority.

There's nothing on point here about apparent authority at all, and it addresses a narrow example of a non-tenant with no specific rights of access, etc.

WildBill wrote:

thetexan wrote:Can you cite some of that case law please.

tex

An apartment manager has a superior right to the property against a non-tenant.
Further, an apartment manager can delegate to security personnel or other agents the authority
to exclude people from the property. State v. Jackson, 849 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1993, no pet.);

http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/twelf ... /6374.html

Key word: non-tenant.

mojo84 wrote: I can't believe this argument over a scenario that didn't even happens is still going on.

Good, constructive arguments can be very illustrative. This one brings up some good points and is staying civil.

I'm certainly no expert and lots of the replies present a perspective I didn't know.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Without knowing better, I would have assumed that police would need express authority to issue a valid criminal trespass warning (the owner asking the officer to please issue the warning), and not just apparent authority.

Lots of places either place signs that give blanket (express) authority or have someone other than the owner working who has "apparent authority" meaning the officer isn't required to validate with the owner that the person controlling the property has given them authority, etc.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I noticed this as well. "Apparent Authority" is a legal concept. Among other things, it generally means that the principal (owner in this case) is bound by the promises and is liable for the actions of the person who they allowed to possess apparent authority (the agent). I would be highly skeptical that a government agent has this level of authority for any particular business where they are not an owner or employee.

Charles - can you weigh in on this point? And does it work both ways? Can a LEO tell a CHL that they are authorized to carry past a valid 30.06 sign since they have apparent authority to act on the property owners' behalf?

Police have long been able to issue Criminal Trespass Warnings on behalf of an owner. Why would this change now?

goose wrote:

mreed911 wrote:

goose wrote:

mreed911 wrote:triple tap

looking to sell a firearm?

No, my browser and this site don't get along. It posted the same thing three times. Chrome on OS X... and it's the only forum I seem to have this problem with.

I didn't even know there was a classifieds section here. :)

I'd be fine with a mod deleting them.

I thought the "double tap" on the font thread was pretty funny. Then this one made me more leary. I get some double posts now and then as well.

I think it's the "this thread has been updated" logic that throws it/me off. Rather than posting, it's like the page resets, then I re-click, it takes forever, re-click and it posts. Sometimes once, sometimes twice.

Is there a setting to turn that off? (Sorry to post this in the thread - happy to take it to PM if that matters).

goose wrote:

mreed911 wrote:triple tap

looking to sell a firearm?

No, my browser and this site don't get along. It posted the same thing three times. Chrome on OS X... and it's the only forum I seem to have this problem with.

I didn't even know there was a classifieds section here. :)

I'd be fine with a mod deleting them.

triple tap

double tap

Keith B wrote:

jed wrote:I'm confused.....for the passed few weeks, probably longer, I have read an awful lot of posts about proper wording, letter size and such about both .06 and .07 signs. IIRC, a lot of posters were saying walk on in if signage is not 100% correct. Now, everyone seems to be all riled up because someone did just that.

Like I have said several times, if the business knows enough to include the numbers 30.06 and or 30.07 in any kind of sign, they don't want guns in their business. Why would you want to patronize a business that does not want a law abiding, licensed gun carrier in their establishment?

Totally different if you pass a non-compliant 30.06 sign concealed since if it is properly hidden, no one will know. Openly carrying past a 30.07 sign where God and everyone can see your hog leg is asking for verbal notification or worse (like in this case)

And has two bad consequences: a negative encounter with OC + law enforcement AND giving notice to the restaurant that they need COMPLIANT signs, which means they're more likely to prohibit BOTH correctly.

I'll try to avoid 30.07 posted businesses, but if I have to do business with one, I'll conceal and cover under 30.06. I won't do business with those that post 30.06 or both.

jed wrote:I'm confused.....for the passed few weeks, probably longer, I have read an awful lot of posts about proper wording, letter size and such about both .06 and .07 signs. IIRC, a lot of posters were saying walk on in if signage is not 100% correct. Now, everyone seems to be all riled up because someone did just that.

Like I have said several times, if the business knows enough to include the numbers 30.06 and or 30.07 in any kind of sign, they don't want guns in their business. Why would you want to patronize a business that does not want a law abiding, licensed gun carrier in their establishment?

For CC, walking past an invalid sign has no consequences.

For OC, walking past an invalid sign invites both verbal notice AND an encounter with law enforcement.

On your last point, we agree. No guns, no money.