Search found 3 matches

by ScottDLS
Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:08 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12995

Re: Improper signs and results

thetexan wrote: ....
I keep hearing this as if it's nothing. This isn't some traffic ticket that you can just poo poo. It effects your ability to legally meet several thresholds of legal defense while you are committing the offense.

I'm as irked as the next guy by the seemingly non necessity for a business to properly post and I understand fully the rights I have to ignore non-compliant signs. But I want to avoid a verbal notice like the plague, because of the three forms of notice that one is permanent. And then that would really become a hassel.
...
tex

Maybe it affects your "presumption" of justification for use of force/deadly force under 9.31/9.32, but like speeding, you have the right to a jury trial of the facts of the offense. If you need that presumption so badly at an assault/murder trial, I bet you're going to have a much easier time beating the class C to get the presumption, than if it were a more serious included offense.

All class C's including speeding and not wearing a seat belt are criminal offenses and you have the Constitutional right to a jury trial. The indication of the seriousness of the offense in the case of a class C, is the amount of the fine, since there aren't any with jail. $200 is less than some other class C's.

Many states have addressed this by decriminalizing traffic offenses and making them Civil Infractions...Then they use it to arbitrarily convict you without the standard required of a jury trial...but I digress...Until Texas reduces the fines C offenses below $200, I will continue to "poo poo" them to the same extent that I do speeding.

That stated, I DO NOT advocate speeding, or carrying past a valid sign, nor watering your lawn on the wrong day. :evil2:
by ScottDLS
Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:21 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12995

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:
Again, as told to me by someone who actually went to law school:

If you don't see the sign, and get caught for whatever reason, it's simple trespass, 30.06 etc. if the police are called.
If you are THEN verbally notified to leave AND YOU REFUSE you are no longer guilty of just violating 30.06 but now it rises to Criminal Trespass because you are carrying OUTSIDE the authority of GC411, which is the affirmative defense in 30.05.

All I can say is I trust my lawyer.
Technically it's not an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is a DEFENSE. There is a difference, and a DEFENSE is better for the accused. And nowhere in 30.05 does it say that you lose your DEFENSE if you are not carrying under GC 411 authority. The defense is if you HAVE a license (under GC 411).

I would have to go with Chas. on this based on your presentation of what your attorney said, but that's just my personal opinion.
by ScottDLS
Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:16 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12995

Re: Improper signs and results

mloamiller wrote: ...

12.23. CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class C misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500. (30.06/30.07 limit this to $200.)
...

But then there is this possible "gotcha":

12.01 (c) This chapter does not deprive a court of authority conferred by law to forfeit property, dissolve a corporation, suspend or cancel a license or permit, ...
No details are included about what "license" might be impacted, so I guess it's theoretically possible you could loose your LTC, but I guess the same chances would apply to losing your LTC and/or driver's license for speeding.

As noted by other posts, there is no legal penalty for ignoring a non-compliant 30.06/30.07 sign. Just know what the possible consequences are if discovered, especially if it's "close." You could end up arguing the finer points of "contrasting colors" with a LEO and/or judge. However, even with that, jail time would not be likely, just a fine. Personally, I ignore them.

...
I read this to mean that the court must have been granted LEGAL AUTHORITY to suspend that particular license and I don't see that authority in GC 411. However, I suppose anything is possible, if not probable.

Return to “Improper signs and results”