TexasCHLforum.com

pt145ss wrote:

Archery1 wrote:It does no fit because public property is not private. We are part owners of public property, so restricting its use by us is legislated differently.

Where in .06/.07 does it distinguish a difference in public vs private? 46.035 does not use the term property anywhere and .06/07 uses the word property but does not carve out public vs. private. So it would be logical to assume that .06/.07 signs have the same meaning regardless of being posted on private or public property. Yet some are asserting that when on private property .06/.07 covers the entire property but when posted on public property it only covers the specific area being posted.

pt145ss wrote:

Solaris wrote:

pt145ss wrote: Please explain to me...

If a valid 30.06 sign means the entire property is off limits. Then a 30.06 sign in fornt of City Council chambers during a meeting, means the tax collector's office is also off limits because it is on the same property as City council chambers. Correct?

No.

Unfortunately the legislature mandates use of 30.06 sign even on for places it is not OK. This creates confusion. In your specific case the TC office is OK since it is not 46.03 or 46.035 as listed in 30.06.

There is also effective consent. The gas station can post 30.06 and then tell folks CC/OC is OK as long as you do not come in the building.

The argument that some are making is that because of the word "property" in the .06/.07 language, a valid posted sign renders the entire property off limits regardless of where the sign is posted on the property. In this light, I am trying to reconcile this logic with other situations.

In the case of City Council and a Tax Collectors office (multipurpose building), I think most would agree that that a .06 sign at the entrance of City Council chambers would not render the entire “property” off limits and.06 would only pertain/apply to the City Council chambers. City Council chambers are not statutorily off limits. City Council can choose to allow CC or not during meeting s that are subject to “Open Meeting.” The code does not require them to post, it only requires them to post if they want to ban CC during that meeting.

In the case of a private school, I think most would agree that they would need to post .06 at the parking lot entrances if they wanted to stop CC in the parking lot. If not post at the entrances, then CC would be ok in the parking lot.

In the case of public universities (in August), will no longer be statutorily off limits and they will need to post .06 in the areas they want to designate as off limits, but the .06 sign will not render the entire property off limits. It only renders the areas posted as off limits.

Given the scenarios above, why would posting .06/.07 on the front door of a gas station, automatically extend to the gas pumps? It does not seem to fit/reconcile with the other scenarios.

I would agree that in theory, property and premises have two different meanings, but I would submit that the practical application of .06/07 seems to ignore this difference. I would also submit that the legislative intent, is not for .06/.07 to render the entire property off limits as supported by campus carry legislation and its application of .06… regardless of the word “property.”

Caliber wrote:

Archery1 wrote:

Caliber wrote:

Archery1 wrote:Even in the Property Code, property is any and everything one can own, and you need to state "real property" to define land and improvements from just property.

"Real property" and "real estate" are not the same things and the term you are looking for is "real estate". "Real estate" is land and basically everything that's attached to it. "Real property" means rights to use property as in a lease or an easement.

No, real property means land and improvements. The legal definition is - fixed, principally land and buildings

I'm heavily involved in real estate and have been for 30 years or so and I have a brokers license and I can tell you that you are incorrect. It's common for "real property" to be used incorrectly. I'm guessing you google searched the term. I will say, though, that "real property" can include BOTH the real estate along with the rights of the real estate.

WildBill wrote:This section concerns trespass, not handguns.

Solaris wrote:

Archery1 wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am a believer in common sense, but I think this thread is about the law. There are different laws about posting signs on a property and carrying on a premise. If you read about 30.06 postings they talk about property.
My common sense tells me that you can not enter a premise without first entering the property.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06

Thanks, WildBill. That's exactly how I have been expressing it. I can enter the property and stay there up until I am told to leave or see the Notice telling me to leave. Up until that point, I am not trespassing and won't be unless I fail to leave. My common sense told me this too, as that's why I was responding to others who suggested the Notices were effective notice just by being posted. My common sense tells me that if I have not been told or cannot see the sign, the property owner has failed to communicate the message to me properly.

This is incorrect. If the sign is lawfully posted, you are trespassing whether you see it or not. Same for 30.05, purple paint, whatever. There are business that post 30.06 and hire O/D LEO to patrol. If they see you with a gun, you get arrested. Tell it to the judge you did not see the sign.

eta

I use fence & purple paint on my ranch. Game Warden sees you, he arrests you. GW knows my property is legally posted, he does not care if you saw signs, paint or even know about it.

WildBill wrote:I am a believer in common sense, but I think this thread is about the law. There are different laws about posting signs on a property and carrying on a premise. If you read about 30.06 postings they talk about property.
My common sense tells me that you can not enter a premise without first entering the property.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06

Caliber wrote:

Archery1 wrote:Even in the Property Code, property is any and everything one can own, and you need to state "real property" to define land and improvements from just property.

"Real property" and "real estate" are not the same things and the term you are looking for is "real estate". "Real estate" is land and basically everything that's attached to it. "Real property" means rights to use property as in a lease or an easement.

pt145ss wrote:True story...

There is a gas station down the street from my house, after 1/1/16 they posted both 30.06 and 30.07 (both compliant) on the glass next to the entrance door. They have since taken down the 30.06 and only have 30.07 posted. By all means this is effective notice.

Question, are the pumps, sidewalks, and public entering driveways off limits because there is a 30.07 sign on the entrance door?

2, Last week, an employee (I assume) in their infinite wisdom decided that they would park a hand truck with firewood right in front of the 30.07. It’s been there ever since. The sign is posted according to 30.07 but with the hand truck in the way, is it effective notice? Some may see it, if they are looking for it.

LucasMcCain wrote:Back on topic, and relating to my previous post, there is a difference in the law between the terms "premises" and "property." Premises specifically does not include parking lots, sidewalks, walkways, and the like. Property can include all areas owned by the entity in question. That said, I do not feel a sign on a building to be effective or conspicuous notice for the parking lot or fuel pump area. As has been mentioned, that would be up to a jury to decide, should it come to that. Personally, I would say that concealed means concealed, and if you have any doubts about the business's stance on open carry, just cover it up. Again, I hope this helps.

LucasMcCain wrote:For purposes of Texas state laws, the term "premises" does not include parking lots. In federal laws, it does. This is why you can't have a gun, licensed or not, even in your car in the parking lot at the post office. You can however, if licensed, have one in your car or on your person in school parking lots, even though you can't take it into the school building. It took me a bit of digging to make sure of this answer, but it does come from a firearms attorney. Hope this helps.

Edit: Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer, and I am often mistaken about a variety of things. This is not legal advice.

thetexan wrote:Don't confuse the requirements for proper posting of the sign itself with the message that is on the sign. What if the sign said "NO ELEPHANTS ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY" and the requirements for proper sign posting said that these signs had to be posted specifically on each mail box. The two have nothing to do with each other.

tex

thetexan wrote:

Archery1 wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean here, but right after the underlined part, there is the word "to" the person. It doesn't mean for the person to find out, it means actually "to" that person. That would mean a sign I cannot see is not notice to me until I see it. None of which alleviates me of knowing how they are supposed to get it to me.

We are debating two different things. I am stating what the raw law states. There are many instances where non-individualized public notice serves as notice. So the concept exists however I don't believe we even have to resort to that. If the intent is to give defense to visually spotting the sign for notice to have been given then the rule is written poorly since it clearly does not require that without interpretation. This is probably evidenced by the inclusion of clarifying language in the new 30.07 requiring posting at entrances. This just supports the idea that the legislature realized that 30.06 in fact DOES NOT SPECIFY a requirement to be seen, or at least, conspicuousness, for their purposes, needed to be more clearly specified.

Your position is that common sense and a pleading of ignorance will suffice at trial, and perhaps it will.

It is what it is and we each have to make the determination on how it applies to each of us.

Getting back to the original point of the thread...both .06 and .07 say and mean "property", (or at least we have no right to assume they don't mean).
Again, it is what it is.

tex

thetexan wrote:

Archery1 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Archery1 wrote:Ambiguity of notice does provide a defense, but as a gun carrier, so does responsibility provide us a duty. There's nothing written that says you have to know every possible ambiguous scenario that surrounds your legal notice or lack thereof to carry on personal property, but there does exist some duty to become educated on where you might carry. I might hunt a vast open and non-fenced space, but I better know the boundaries between my hunt and off-limits areas that are not my hunt unless I want to explain my actions to others in Court.

I am not sure of the meaning of this statement. Can you clarify or give an example that explains what you mean?

See the example of the gas pump. Yes, if they post it on the door and not the entrance, you don't have good notice if you can't see it. If they call the cops and you get ticketed, that's your defense against the ticket. Is that automatic? Well, think of what the judge might say: "You are the one wanting to carry a gun on private property, you were trained what the signs looks like, you know they typically post them at the door, so why didn't you look there then pump?" So, what I mean is that I have a good defense that I can't look everywhere for signs before entering, but I also have a prosecution in that I do know where to look.

According to you. Not according to law. There is NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SEE THE SIGN for the fulfillment of the specifications of notification to you according to 30.06.

30.06b states...

(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.

What if the statute read..." a person receives notice when the owner washes his car". In either case is there no requirement for you to do anything including actually see the sign. You can not say "you don't have good notice" unless you have interjected you own interpretation into the reading because the rule simply does not require you to see it. A BLIND MAN HAS RECEIVED NOTICE according to the strict reading of the rule.

Whether you can use your "lack of seeing" as a defense is up in the air. Perhaps you can test this for us.

tex