thetexan wrote: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 Class C misdemeanor after 1/1/16 legally perilous for anyone foolish enough to disregard them.
tex
"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?"
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.
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