TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:C-dub,

The way the law is worded, carrying past a gunbuster sign is illegal for everyone. The law then specifies that there is a defense to prosecution if the reason for banning entry is carrying a pistol and the actor has a CHL for the pistol. This means that you can be arrested and charged for 30.05 violations for carrying past a gunbuster sign, but you will win in court when you show your CHL.

Scott,

You are incorrect on the way the law is worded. While the defense to prosecution has the effect of making the law meaningless to a CHL, it is still a technical violation to carry past it. And in any case of criminal trespass, the posting is enough to make the offense. You do not need to be asked to leave under the law. I will stipulate that this is true in normal police practice, but it is not the law. Just consider the way it would work if you were caught at night in a farmer's field when no owner was there. All the law requires is for you to cross a fence that is designed to keep animals in ro people out and the offense has been committed. A police officer could arrest you on sight in a field that has a fence around it without having a request from the owner. The law works the same way in all trespass cases, so the sign is all that is needed.

But, it is important to keep in mind the academic discussion of what the law says as opposed to how it is practiced in real life situations. In real life, you almost always have to be asked to leave while the officer is there and then still refuse.

tbrown wrote:

C-dub wrote:A CHL walking past a gunbuster sign is nothing.

If so, then a CHL walking into a bar that's not properly posted is also nothing.

A defense to prosecution is a defense to prosecution is a defense to prosecution.

tbrown wrote:

C-dub wrote:

tbrown wrote:Proven guilty by who? And of what? What's the crime if the sign is not compliant or not posted where required?

An establishment that can legally post a red 51% sign does not require a sign to be off limits. That's a fact. It is not like WalMart, that must post a 30.06 sign to be off limits. Not having a 51% sign properly displayed is a defense to prosecution. This means that if you were carrying and were arrested for it you will have to prove that the sign was not posted or not posted properly as a defense to prosecution.

If a company posts a gunbuster sign or some other sign prohibiting guns, carrying past the sign is criminal trespass. Having a CHL for the category handgun you're carrying is a defense to prosecution.

tbrown wrote:

C-dub wrote:Yup. Someone that has done this has broken the law. They are no longer innocent until proven guilty, they've already been proven guilty. It is now up to them to prove the "defense to prosecution" part that the sign was either improperly posted or not posted at all.

Proven guilty by who? And of what? What's the crime if the sign is not compliant or not posted where required?

apostate wrote:

Kythas wrote:That's for criminal trespass

Precisely! It's a "defense to prosecution" if you walk past a gunbuster sign or enter a 51% establishment that's not properly posted.

apostate wrote: Interestingly, I know a 51% establishment that posts the 51% sign behind the bar. Does that mean it's legal to carry there, since TPC 46.035(k) has a defense if "not given effective notice under Section 411.204, Government Code."

jmra wrote:

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:The law seems to have more to do with your own due diligence to be looking for, and aware, of the posted sign than for them to make it a "slap you across the face" sort of encounter. There can be a perfectly legal sign posted on the entrance door, and people are going to miss it for whatever reason (and we wonder why people wander around in condition white). You can not use missing a posted sign as an excuse unless it is truly blocked from view. It is like trying to get out of a speeding ticket because you did not notice the sign that changed the speed limit from 70 to 35.

The speed limit sign is "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". The 30.06 must also be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" in order to meet the requirements of the law.
I don't know about you but when I am driving I don't have to "look" for speed limit signs, they pretty much jump out at you. Nor do I read anywhere in 30.06 where the burden is placed on me to find a sign. In fact by the wording "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" the burden is placed on the displayer of the sign to ensure that it is placed where for all practical purposes I can't miss it.

Absolutely true, but they are not at or sometimes even near all the entrances to a highway. Sometimes they are not even within the section that I will drive on. And there are many speed limit signs on city streets that are blocked or semi obscured by tree limbs or bushes.

There are also some instances where I may be more concerned with the traffic around me and miss a sign. This has happened to me more than once and I've been honked at for not increasing from 60 to 65 mph. I did finally see the sign on another trip, so I now know that area is 65 mph.

I agree that highway signs do become obscured by nature but it has been my personal experience and that of my wife that when this has been pointed out to an officer on location or a judge at a hearing through photos that no ticket is issued by the officer or the ticket is thrown out by the judge. During one of these occasions the judge actually admonished the officer for wasting the courts time by writing a ticket that could not be enforced because the sign was not visible.
I am not suggesting that someone put blinders on when entering a building while carrying. I am suggesting that the displayer has the responsibility to ensure that the sign is clearly visible to the public.

I understand being concerned about traffic around you and missing a sign and I see how that could happen with a 30.06 sign in a "high traffic" entrance. But I also believe that is something the displayer must take into consideration. When you are on an 8 lane interstate in the middle of a heavily populated area an upcoming exit is going to be marked by a large overhead sign not a 12"x16" sign of the shoulder of the road. I believe this is the same intent of the law when it states "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

jmra wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:The law seems to have more to do with your own due diligence to be looking for, and aware, of the posted sign than for them to make it a "slap you across the face" sort of encounter. There can be a perfectly legal sign posted on the entrance door, and people are going to miss it for whatever reason (and we wonder why people wander around in condition white). You can not use missing a posted sign as an excuse unless it is truly blocked from view. It is like trying to get out of a speeding ticket because you did not notice the sign that changed the speed limit from 70 to 35.

The speed limit sign is "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". The 30.06 must also be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" in order to meet the requirements of the law.
I don't know about you but when I am driving I don't have to "look" for speed limit signs, they pretty much jump out at you. Nor do I read anywhere in 30.06 where the burden is placed on me to find a sign. In fact by the wording "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" the burden is placed on the displayer of the sign to ensure that it is placed where for all practical purposes I can't miss it.