Search found 14 matches

Return to “Improper signs and results”

by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 18, 2016 5:55 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

humby66 wrote:Looking for clarification. What if say a gas station has no signs at all 30.06 or .07. But the clerk said no we don't allow open carry. I asked if they planned on getting the legal signs and they stated no. They just weren't going to allow it? What is the legality of such.
If you are carrying openly and do not leave upon receiving verbal notice, then you can be arrested and convicted of violating TPC §30.07. It would be a Class A misdemeanor.

If the oral notice was not limited to open-carry, but was something like "we don't want guns here," then both open and concealed carry would be prohibited. Signs are an option, but they are not required.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:05 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:
rtschl wrote:Words have meaning. And I sure would be showing a lot of deference to Charles since he is the one person that several legislators rely on to assist in drafting the language in our statutes regarding CHL/LTC.
I'll be polite, but deference is a bit much. If that's a requirement to be here maybe I'm in the wrong place.
I'll settle for polite and not advocating unlawful conduct. But since you've had a problem with both, it's time for you to start posting under your real name and email address. Let's see if your demeanor and confessions of unlawful conduct change. PM that information to me and I'll change your username. Or, you can decline as has every single person who's conduct gave them to option to leave the Forum or post without the benefit of anonymity. Will you put your name on what you wrote, or hide from it?

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:03 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:No, you read too much into what I said. I said that you would not be charged with the specific offense "Criminal Trespass, PC 30.05" if you violate 06 or 07.
That most certainly is not what you posted! I quoted you about and I just verified it by reviewing your prior post.
TexasRifleman wrote:. . . I also believe you're playing a word game to make it sound "scary" to people to discourage even an accidental violation of 06 or 07 by calling it "criminal trespass" That's probably a safe position from a forum administrator and your position in the gun world, but I just don't agree with it.
How do you encourage someone to have an accident?

I'm not trying to scare anyone and I'm certainly not engaging in fear mongering as you stated in an earlier post. I simply posted that any violation of §30.06 or §30.07 was a criminal trespass. You're the one who launched into a long post and "challenged" me to show you were wrong. I did and you're obviously quite irritated.

You encouraged people to violate the law by ignoring §30.06 signs. You put it in two posts also stating that's what you do. You were already on thin ice because of your blatant Rule 4 violations, then you compounded the problem by posting that, essentially, getting a Class C misdemeanor conviction was no big deal.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:Well some good news is that there are already discussions being had about decriminalizing 30.06 completely (like Oklahoma) next session so maybe it won't matter at all before long for concealed carry at least.
By whom is this being discussed?

Chas.
How about an answer to this question?

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:21 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Owlan wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.
Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.
If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?
The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN
Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.
Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.
Well, apparently you have changed your mind at least twice on this issue. Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:
  • TexasRifleman wrote:As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

    If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.
In that post you correctly stated that a violation of either §30.06 or §30.7 would be "criminal trespass." Now you want to claim that only §30.05 sets out a criminal trespass violation.

Chas.
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.
Now that's believable, as opposed to what you have been claiming up to this post. Your lawyer didn't tell you that any violation of §30.06 or §30.7 would not be a criminal trespass. Every offense in the Penal Code is criminal!!!!!

Also, you apparently you have changed your mind at least twice on this issue. Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:
  • TexasRifleman wrote:As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

    If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.
In that post you correctly stated that a violation of either §30.06 or §30.7 would be "criminal trespass." Now you want to claim that only §30.05 sets out a criminal trespass violation.


Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:04 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Owlan wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.
Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.
If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?
The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN
Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.
Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.
Even non-attorneys know the caption (a/k/a title of a section is not the operative language. TPC §30.05, §30.06 and 30.07 contain "trespass" in the captions, but not in the operative language.

Chas.
Don't know what to tell you, I got all this from an attorney so go figure.
I seriously doubt that.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:00 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: If gun owners are expected to follow the law, to the letter, so should businesses. It's in the law, with that specific wording, for a reason.

If you want to lobby that 30.06/07 be changed to allow any random no gun sign be valid then go ahead, but the law is VERY clear on the requirements today so if a store wants to prohibit carrying, they can follow the SAME law I'm required to follow.
Show me the law that requires a property owner to post a §30.06 or §30.07 sign. Show me the law that makes it illegal for a property owner to post a legally insufficient §30.06 or §30.07 sign as a courtesy notice.

I realize you are a Carry Texas member, but you aren't going to use the Forum to spew this type of garbage.

Chas.
TexasRifleman wrote:Don't misquote me and don't accuse me of spewing "garbage" when all I do is quote the Penal Code.
No, you misquoted the Penal Code.
TexasRifleman wrote:I said that if a business wants to prohibit carry they must post a specific type of sign.
Oral notice is effective under both §30.06 and §30.07. Companies can post signs that don't comply with §30.07 as a courtesy warning without violating any law. They can also orally tell someone to leave, even if they have a noncompliant sign posted.
TexasRifleman wrote:That's clearly in 06 and 07 and as you know, it's been in 06 for over a decade.
Since 1997 when HB2909 passed.
TexasRifleman wrote:I did not say it was illegal for a business to post an improper sign, I said that such a sign has no force of law behind it because of the requirements set forth in 30.06 and 07 and that if a business expects gun owners to abide by 06 and 07, it's reasonable for them to as well.
You repeated claimed that, "If gun owners are expected to follow the law, to the letter, so should businesses. It's in the law, with that specific wording, for a reason." The implication is that they are not complying with the law, but that's false.
TexasRifleman wrote:And this is precisely why the punishment was changed to be minimal.
No, you're dead wrong. The penalty was reduced to a Class C because it is possible to enter into property posted with a §30.06 sign by mistake, because the sign was obscured, posted in a non-conspicuous location, etc. You can watch the video of the first floor debate in the House if you want to confirm what I know.
TexasRifleman wrote:This isn't exactly new ground here.
Apparently it's new to you.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:48 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Owlan wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.
Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.
If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?
The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN
Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.
Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.
Even non-attorneys know the caption (a/k/a title of a section is not the operative language. TPC §30.05, §30.06 and 30.07 contain "trespass" in the captions, but not in the operative language.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:39 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:
cb1000rider wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote: And if the signs are obscured, or not meeting the legal requirements, a law abiding person should not face excessive punishment, which is the purpose of the change.
Even if he or she observes and understands the signs? There's that whole "spirit" of the law thing. We hate it when criminals get off on a technicality, why should we excuse ourselves on one?

The hassle here isn't the monetary fine. That's just a fractional piece of our system. The real problem is the arrest, subsequent bond, likely tow of the vehicle, the multi-thousand dollar lawyer fees (which is what you'll pay to defend the issue).. All that and maybe you get a good verdict - maybe. And more than that, the fact that 'Murica tends to hate on criminals.. A criminal being anyone with a conviction that isn't traffic related - which can make it a big influencer in how gainfully you're employed in your lifetime. And even people that have been arrested and found innocent - it's still an issue with some employers.

If it was just a $200 fine, I think you'd have a lot more people "testing" the system....
If gun owners are expected to follow the law, to the letter, so should businesses. It's in the law, with that specific wording, for a reason.

If you want to lobby that 30.06/07 be changed to allow any random no gun sign be valid then go ahead, but the law is VERY clear on the requirements today so if a store wants to prohibit carrying, they can follow the SAME law I'm required to follow.
Show me the law that requires a property owner to post a §30.06 or §30.07 sign. Show me the law that makes it illegal for a property owner to post a legally insufficient §30.06 or §30.07 sign as a courtesy notice.

I realize you are a Carry Texas member, but you aren't going to use the Forum to spew this type of garbage.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:36 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Owlan wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.
Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.
If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?
The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN
Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:01 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

Owlan wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.
Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.
If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?
The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:51 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:
Lena wrote:Why cause an issue?
Any sign posted is conveying the intent
The more it is pushed the worse it may become
Win the battle lose the war so to say

I saw one last night at Scotty p's in Firewheel Mall area, a statement was made, notice was given
If gun carriers have to follow all the relevant laws why shouldn't private businesses?
Businesses are not violating the law if they post a legally insufficient 30.06 or 30.07 sign. You want to force them to post a big 30.07 sign, but that's not your call. If they post a small sign purporting to ban open-carry, then they have not violated any law. They have provided a courtesy notice that open-carry is not welcome and you have every reason to expect verbal notice if you do not appreciate the courtesy notice that was given.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:48 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.
Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:47 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Improper signs and results
Replies: 91
Views: 12996

Re: Improper signs and results

TexasRifleman wrote:Well some good news is that there are already discussions being had about decriminalizing 30.06 completely (like Oklahoma) next session so maybe it won't matter at all before long for concealed carry at least.
By whom is this being discussed?

Chas.

Return to “Improper signs and results”