30.06 and 30.07 signs at gas stations

[jkurtz]

Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

I wrote "fence & purple paint"

Very applicable as folks have claimed not to see the purple paint where there is no fence. They got a free ride in GW pickup truck.

There is a big difference between someone claiming that they couldn't see a sign (or paint) and someone that actually could not see the sign (or paint). If a business owner posts signs in such as way that costumers cannot see the signs then notice was not given. To say that someone breaks the law because they enter a building with posted signs, despite the fact that the signs are not visible, is no different than stating that someone breaks the law if they enter a building after oral notice was given, despite the fact that they were not present to hear such notice.

Those posts were in the context of "conspicuously posted". You are referencing "signs are not visible"

Earlier you stated:

This is incorrect. If the sign is lawfully posted, you are trespassing whether you see it or not. Same for 30.05, purple paint, whatever.

My point was that just because something is posted or marked, does not mean it is done in an effective manner, thus not providing notice.

[Archery1]

Even in the Property Code, property is any and everything one can own, and you need to state "real property" to define land and improvements from just property.

"Real property" and "real estate" are not the same things and the term you are looking for is "real estate". "Real estate" is land and basically everything that's attached to it. "Real property" means rights to use property as in a lease or an easement.

No, real property means land and improvements. The legal definition is - fixed, principally land and buildings

I'm heavily involved in real estate and have been for 30 years or so and I have a brokers license and I can tell you that you are incorrect. It's common for "real property" to be used incorrectly. I'm guessing you google searched the term. I will say, though, that "real property" can include BOTH the real estate along with the rights of the real estate.

No, I work in a legal profession dealing with correct identity of personal property, real property, and real estate. Have for over 20 years. My definition is a legal one. Blacks will spell it out for you. In Real Estate, you have terms of art rather than legal.

[Solaris]

Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

I wrote "fence & purple paint"

Very applicable as folks have claimed not to see the purple paint where there is no fence. They got a free ride in GW pickup truck.

There is a big difference between someone claiming that they couldn't see a sign (or paint) and someone that actually could not see the sign (or paint). If a business owner posts signs in such as way that costumers cannot see the signs then notice was not given. To say that someone breaks the law because they enter a building with posted signs, despite the fact that the signs are not visible, is no different than stating that someone breaks the law if they enter a building after oral notice was given, despite the fact that they were not present to hear such notice.

Those posts were in the context of "conspicuously posted". You are referencing "signs are not visible"

Earlier you stated:

This is incorrect. If the sign is lawfully posted, you are trespassing whether you see it or not. Same for 30.05, purple paint, whatever.

My point was that just because something is posted or marked, does not mean it is done in an effective manner, thus not providing notice.

A "lawfully posted" sign is "conspicuously posted", meets size, contrast, wording, etc.

[thetexan]

My point was that just because something is posted or marked, does not mean it is done in an effective manner, thus not providing notice.

Says who, you? With all respect, we can't have a intellectual discussion about this if we keep throwing out assertions as fact. You are missing the entire point of the notice issue. The state of Texas HAS DEFINED...H A S D E F I N E D... in writing what constitutes notification! We don't have to guess, interpret or otherwise. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, and most of all you don't have to apply sense to it, common or otherwise. The law defines when you have been notified. That is, when the owner had properly posted SOMEWHERE on his property a compliant 30.07 sign that has been conspicuously posted visible to the public.

The sign's prohibition applies to his property. A gas station's sign can be at the door of the store, at the air pumps, at the gas pumps, at the drive entrance, on the grass or under the Exxon sign and it prohibits CC on the very same property. That's not me saying this, that's the sign saying it..."PROPERTY!!". There isn't a 30.06 sign just for doors, and another one for gas pumps, or a different one for drive entrances. IF, IF the owner meant to prohibit CC only at the gas pumps he would be REQUIRED BY LAW to use the very same sign!

You don't even have to know the sign exists for the purpose of notification fulfillment...NOT ACCORDING TO 30.06!

Let me ask this...Do you (rhetorical you) know all of the states traffic laws? Do you know all the states banking laws and regulations? Are you aware of all of the state's gaming laws? What is going to be your excuse if you break one of these out of ignorance of their existence? Are you going to ask the judge to please let you go because you weren't aware that you had to report cash withdrawals over $10000? What is your defense...ignorance of the law? Or do you suppose that the court will require you to know what you are doing and, in any case, take responsibility for your actions?

I don't know where you live but I can assure you of this...YOU PERSONALLY are in a state of having been notified that the Longview Mall is 30.06 prohibited simply because the mall has fulfilled it's posting requirements under 30.06...and that is all that is required in 30.06 to meet the definition of notification. You, me, and everyone are notified, and you probably have never even been to the mall much less seen a sign. I have been notified of every 30.06 location in Marfa and I have never even been there...assuming they have properly posted compliant signs.

None of this requires any interpretation or common sense...AS FAR AS READING THE ACTUAL LAW IS CONCERNED!

NOW...if you want to apply common sense and interpretation in a real world situation then I might agree with you in thinking that it makes sense that one would need to see the sign. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE RULE STATES AS WRITTEN.

That's all...no biggie...the legislators wrote what they wrote and probably could have written it better. They seemed to make an attempt to clarify with 30.07. One might infer that by clarifying .07 they were, in effect, admitting that .06 needed clarification. It seems strange that they would pass up the opportunity to do so while focusing on clarifying .07. They chose to leave it as is.

Personally, I might loosely interpret .06 to my advantage just like everyone else. But I can't intellectually twist the clear meaning of .06 to support my doing so. I would have to hope that a jury would accept my defense of being unaware of the signage, with probably the same result of trying to convince them that I was unaware of the 55 mph speed limit when I was caught going 75...

"I wasn't notified of the speed limit...didn't see the sign your honor".

tex

[WildBill]

If this has been covered already, my apologies - I missed it. My question is this: do the signs being posted on the doors of the gas station store/cashier building prohibiting carry, both open and concealed, extend to the pump area as well? Can I pump gas while carrying if I never enter the building? I guess this is the old premises vs. property issue. Sorry if this has been talked about before.

Yes this has been already covered ad naseum, but thanks for asking.

[jkurtz]

My point was that just because something is posted or marked, does not mean it is done in an effective manner, thus not providing notice.

Says who, you? With all respect, we can't have a intellectual discussion about this if we keep throwing out assertions as fact. You are missing the entire point of the notice issue. The state of Texas HAS DEFINED...H A S D E F I N E D... in writing what constitutes notification! We don't have to guess, interpret or otherwise. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, and most of all you don't have to apply sense to it, common or otherwise. The law defines when you have been notified. That is, when the owner had properly posted SOMEWHERE on his property a compliant 30.07 sign that has been conspicuously posted visible to the public.

The sign's prohibition applies to his property. A gas station's sign can be at the door of the store, at the air pumps, at the gas pumps, at the drive entrance, on the grass or under the Exxon sign and it prohibits CC on the very same property. That's not me saying this, that's the sign saying it..."PROPERTY!!". There isn't a 30.06 sign just for doors, and another one for gas pumps, or a different one for drive entrances. IF, IF the owner meant to prohibit CC only at the gas pumps he would be REQUIRED BY LAW to use the very same sign!

You don't even have to know the sign exists for the purpose of notification fulfillment...NOT ACCORDING TO 30.06!

Let me ask this...Do you (rhetorical you) know all of the states traffic laws? Do you know all the states banking laws and regulations? Are you aware of all of the state's gaming laws? What is going to be your excuse if you break one of these out of ignorance of their existence? Are you going to ask the judge to please let you go because you weren't aware that you had to report cash withdrawals over $10000? What is your defense...ignorance of the law? Or do you suppose that the court will require you to know what you are doing and, in any case, take responsibility for your actions?

I don't know where you live but I can assure you of this...YOU PERSONALLY are in a state of having been notified that the Longview Mall is 30.06 prohibited simply because the mall has fulfilled it's posting requirements under 30.06...and that is all that is required in 30.06 to meet the definition of notification. You, me, and everyone are notified, and you probably have never even been to the mall much less seen a sign. I have been notified of every 30.06 location in Marfa and I have never even been there...assuming they have properly posted compliant signs.

None of this requires any interpretation or common sense...AS FAR AS READING THE ACTUAL LAW IS CONCERNED!

NOW...if you want to apply common sense and interpretation in a real world situation then I might agree with you in thinking that it makes sense that one would need to see the sign. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE RULE STATES AS WRITTEN.

That's all...no biggie...the legislators wrote what they wrote and probably could have written it better. They seemed to make an attempt to clarify with 30.07. One might infer that by clarifying .07 they were, in effect, admitting that .06 needed clarification. It seems strange that they would pass up the opportunity to do so while focusing on clarifying .07. They chose to leave it as is.

Personally, I might loosely interpret .06 to my advantage just like everyone else. But I can't intellectually twist the clear meaning of .06 to support my doing so. I would have to hope that a jury would accept my defense of being unaware of the signage, with probably the same result of trying to convince them that I was unaware of the 55 mph speed limit when I was caught going 75...

"I wasn't notified of the speed limit...didn't see the sign your honor".

tex

30.06b states, "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."

It clearly states that notice has to be provided to the individual. Simply posting a sign, especially if it is not clearly visible to the individual, is not providing them notice.

Would you agree that a business owner has provided effective notice if they verbally declare that they do no allow any form of carry in their business, even if no customers are present? What if there are customers present, but the owner only mumbles is under their breath out of audible range?

The reason I ask is because you have previously stated that the law does not specify that one needs to see a sign to have received notice. The law doesn't state that one needs to hear the oral notification to receive notice either, but I doubt you would agree that the shop owner verbally stating their opinion absent of customers has effectively given notice.

[thetexan]

30.06b states, "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."

It clearly[?] states that notice has to be provided to the individual. Simply posting a sign, especially if it is not clearly visible to the individual, is not providing them notice.

Would you agree that a business owner has provided effective notice if they verbally declare that they do no allow any form of carry in their business, even if no customers are present? What if there are customers present, but the owner only mumbles is under their breath out of audible range?

The reason I ask is because you have previously stated that the law does not specify that one needs to see a sign to have received notice. The law doesn't state that one needs to hear the oral notification to receive notice either, but I doubt you would agree that the shop owner verbally stating their opinion absent of customers has effectively given notice.

All I can do is explain the my logic to which you will either agree or disagree. Here it is...

The language of 30.06 can be rewritten combining appropriate phrases, thusly...

(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 communication, or by (now substituting the definition of written communication)
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property.

Oral communication is clearly understood by its common meaning and usage (absent any superseding definition, as per canons of statutory interpretation). Written communication is specifically defined by the statute. So there is a difference in the application of communication in the wording...oral communication is communication between two people...written communication is otherwise defined with specificity and as such does not require anything more than what is specified in the paragraph that begins "WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS MEANS...".

This difference between the two, logically, in what constitutes communication is also the reason oral communication of the notification is a permanent prohibition and the written sign only lasts as long as it is posted. Because of the nature of the communication, oral vs a specifically defined written notification via signage.

By the way, I do not state that one does not need to see the sign, I state that the rule does not require that one see the sign. I simply read the rule as is trying not to assume anything, especially since, as a human with an agenda, it is to my advantage that I find a way to make the rule say what I want it to say.

Why should the rule require more than it says now? The legislators could not possibly write a statute guaranteeing by fiat that postings be so numerous as to ensure all would see it. All they would need to ensure is that the signs are clearly visible to "the public" by their conspicuousness and by doing so can ensure that "the public" is made aware or should be aware of their existence to a minimum legal certainty. 30.07 went on to specify postings at entrances for whatever reasons only the legislators can explain.

So I believe your assertion and conclusion that "simply posting a sign especially when it is not clearly visible to the individual" (this is where you insert a non-relevant straw assertion not included in the statute) "is not providing them notice" is a flawed conclusion based on elements not even present in the rule, ("the public" is what is referred to...you stretch that to mean a personalized, individualized notification and that level of specificity is not found in the rule) nor is required by a supposed common application of logic between oral and specifically defined written communications, the former requiring communication between people and the latter requiring none.


tex

[K.Mooneyham]

This post is a great example of why so many people have so little faith in our justice system. Has anyone ever heard of the Code of Hammurabi? To the best of my knowledge, it was the first time laws were actually written down for all to see. Up until then, the law was whatever the ruler made up on the spot. The punishments were harsh, of course, but at least it was written down. Now, of course, we have tons (literally if you printed it on paper) of laws, and a lot of it is no clearer to the average person who has zero intent of doing something wrong than it was before laws were written down. And, of course, we have people who love to torture the law into whatever will get someone into trouble, confounding mere mortals and perhaps consigning them to a life with a criminal record when no harm was done to anyone. The whole thing leaves me sadly shaking my head.

[jkurtz]

Deleted because I botched the quoting.

[jkurtz]

All I can do is explain the my logic to which you will either agree or disagree. Here it is...

The language of 30.06 can be rewritten combining appropriate phrases, thusly...

(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 communication, or by (now substituting the definition of written communication)
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property.



tex

I believe this is where the confusion is coming from. Unlike 30.07, 30.06 does not require signs to be posted at each entrance. In fact, 30.06 doesn't say anything about the posting having to be at an entrance. According to the law, it can be posted in the public bathroom and still meet all requirements. If signs are clearly posted at each entrance, as 30.07 requires, then notice has been "provided to" the individual as they enter the property. However, 30.06 only requires that a sign be posted, and does not dictate where it needs to be posted. As another poster said earlier, you can't exactly complain that someone trespassed if they have to trespass to receive the notice.

[pt145ss]

Please explain to me...

If a valid 30.06 sign means the entire property is off limits. Then a 30.06 sign in fornt of City Council chambers during a meeting, means the tax collector's office is also off limits because it is on the same property as City council chambers. Correct?

No.

Unfortunately the legislature mandates use of 30.06 sign even on for places it is not OK. This creates confusion. In your specific case the TC office is OK since it is not 46.03 or 46.035 as listed in 30.06.

There is also effective consent. The gas station can post 30.06 and then tell folks CC/OC is OK as long as you do not come in the building.

The argument that some are making is that because of the word "property" in the .06/.07 language, a valid posted sign renders the entire property off limits regardless of where the sign is posted on the property. In this light, I am trying to reconcile this logic with other situations.

In the case of City Council and a Tax Collectors office (multipurpose building), I think most would agree that that a .06 sign at the entrance of City Council chambers would not render the entire “property” off limits and.06 would only pertain/apply to the City Council chambers. City Council chambers are not statutorily off limits. City Council can choose to allow CC or not during meeting s that are subject to “Open Meeting.” The code does not require them to post, it only requires them to post if they want to ban CC during that meeting.

In the case of a private school, I think most would agree that they would need to post .06 at the parking lot entrances if they wanted to stop CC in the parking lot. If not post at the entrances, then CC would be ok in the parking lot.

In the case of public universities (in August), will no longer be statutorily off limits and they will need to post .06 in the areas they want to designate as off limits, but the .06 sign will not render the entire property off limits. It only renders the areas posted as off limits.

Given the scenarios above, why would posting .06/.07 on the front door of a gas station, automatically extend to the gas pumps? It does not seem to fit/reconcile with the other scenarios.

I would agree that in theory, property and premises have two different meanings, but I would submit that the practical application of .06/07 seems to ignore this difference. I would also submit that the legislative intent, is not for .06/.07 to render the entire property off limits as supported by campus carry legislation and its application of .06… regardless of the word “property.”

[txpilot]

Just a thought (perhaps to add a bit of confusion to this)...

When Campus Carry goes into effect, a university can declare some areas (but not the whole campus) off limits. So if they post a 30.06 on a laboratory space in a building that contains classrooms also, does that make the whole building off limits? Or does it make the entire campus ("Property" of the owner) off limits.

I think the legislative intent (I am not a lawyer) is that ONLY that particular area within the building if off limits (i.e. only that laboratory). Therefore I believe that trying to apply "property" to other than the posted area would be a stretch. If "property" in this case applies only to a portion of a building instead of the entire building or entire campus, I don't see how posting a gas station building can reasonably be interpreted to mean the gas pumps and parking lot also.

Guess we are really going to have to wait for case law to decide this, or a legislative cleanup bill.

[Solaris]

why would posting .06 on the front door of a gas station, automatically extend to the gas pumps?

What makes you think "property" is a synonym for "building"?

If the gas station owner stands at the front door to his building (where the 30.06 sign is) and says "Get Off My Property!" Do you think that means you can continue to stay on his property and pump gas?

As I pointed out earlier, Section 30 of the Penal Code Defines "Building":

(2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use.

If the legislature had wanted the sign to apply only to the "building" don't you think they would have used that word instead of "property"? If you look elsewhere in the code they do not use "property". They use and define "premise". It seems obvious to me they are making a clear distinction.

[Caliber]

30.06 is actually very short in length. I think the intent is that the property owner has the duty to provide notice if the they don't want guns on their property. Notice can be written or oral. If notice is written, it should be displayed where it's reasonably visible to those entering the property so that know that no guns are allowed. End of story, I don't the the intent is anymore complicated than that.

[LucasMcCain]

For those of you who would like an actual lawyer's take on the situation:

https://forum.[Pre-paid legal service].com/index. ... 106.0.html

EDIT: For some reason not covered in the forum rules (I checked) they won't let me post this link properly. I'm copy/pasting the relevant posts from the thread, which I think is okay. If it's not, please let me know. I'm just trying to be helpful here.

The question asked:
My local corner store/gas station has recently put a 30.06 and a 30.07 sign on the door. Would the covered area at the gas pumps be included in the property effected by the signs and be off limits to concealed and/or open carry?

Last week I heard someone on TV say "if the rain can hit you then you can carry" (with a few exceptions noted). The conversation was referring to parking lots and sidewalks but since this is a covered area where purchases are made would it be considered part of the premises?

The answer given:
This is a bit of a gray area for a number of reasons. One reason is that these statutes use the term “property,” instead of premises, as is used in Section 46.035. Another issue is that the language for where the signs should be posted differs between 30.06 and 30.07. An argument for the position that the signs only prohibit carrying within the building can be made given the language of posting at the “entrance to the property.” If the sign is posted on the doors, then it would be logical that the sign is prohibiting carrying past door, as the door’s purpose is to be an entrance inside the building.