If a business wants to hinder my ability to protect myself with an elective sign that provides a false sense of security then I expect that business to post signage according to the statute.Tracker wrote:If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.CJD wrote:So if you see the sign, and ignore it while entering the property, only a Class C? Then, as long as you don't look back at the sign AFTER you enter the property, you are fine? Seems weird.ELB wrote:What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.
If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.
Search found 1 match
Return to “HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading”
- Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:40 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading
- Replies: 1040
- Views: 152435