"gunbuster" signs, trespassing, etc.

[wgoforth]

There are some communities, where half the shops in town have a "gun buster" or no firearms sign. If I suscribed to the view that ANY sign is sufficient, then may as well not have a CHL at all. Besides, what do they mean by the generic signage, I'm no mind reader. Since they have other signs, but not a 30.06, then I have to assume they are saying no guns UNLESS you have a CHL. AND, some post those signs to make the sheeple and/or insurance feel good, while the owners know full well it doesn't apply to CHL.

I always thought that sign was their way a telling me that they did not sell guns there....

Hmmm..... now see, hadn't thought of that! Without specific wording, it could mean about anything!

[74novaman]

depending on the image, I always took gun buster signs to mean "i hate berettas" or "i hate revolvers" depending on which model they have.

[The Annoyed Man]

I understand requiring a 30.06 sign to get someone for carrying illegally, but not for trespassing.

If someone is carrying illegally, or smoking pot illegally, no signs are required to arrest and prosecute.

In fact, to someone carrying illegally, 30.06 means nothing since it specifically addresses only people who have CHLs. If a gangbanger carries a pistol past a 30.06 sign, he may certainly be guilting of violating any number of other laws, but he hasn't actually violated 30.06 because it doesn't apply to him. Reading the text...

PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN.

Or.... read another way, it says:

PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON NOT LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN ALL DAY LONG UNTIL THE COWS COME HOME.

[C-dub]

If you are new to guns or new to CHL this is a common question. Many folks have the same question. It should have been covered in the class, but some don't get it or just forget about that part. Some are like you and that's your choice and I'm fine that. I'll walk past anything that is not a compliant 30.06 sign except for my employer. I know they can't prosecute me if I carry there because they have not given me proper notice. Except for that one detail I really like my job.

I would be willing to bet that many of those gun-buster type signs are old and have been around since before CHL in Texas. Some will be to satisfy someone that doesn't know any better and some will be because the person that put it there doesn't know any better.

[tacticool]

I always took gun buster signs to mean "i hate berettas"

And who can blame them?

[srothstein]

I don't understand why they have to verbally warn you before you can be cited for trespass. It's always a touchy subject when you are waying two peoples rights against each other. Your right to protection, vs. there right to control what is on there private property. In this case I feel pretty strongly that there property rights should be the one that governs. I know I want to have absolute control over what comes in and out of my property, and I don't know why I should have to verbally tell you when I have a sign posted.

I understand requiring a 30.06 sign to get someone for carrying illegally, but not for trespassing.

I think the basic misunderstanding is what happens when you are warned. It is not a charge of carrying illegally, but a charge of trespass. In a case like this, nothing changes the law on whether or not you can legally carry (with the minor exception of 46.035 requirements). It is merely whether you are allowed to enter that property or not.

If you look at the Texas laws on criminal trespass in general (30.05 not 30.06), one of the requirements is always that the owner must notify the person that they may not enter. This notification may take many forms, such as a sign, a locked door, a fence of specific designs, or even a purple stripe painted on trees in certain ways. This seems reasonable to me. You can control your property but you have to let me know what your wishes are.

Along comes the new CHL law and Texas tried to allow a very loose form of notification. As some have already posted, this did not work very well because some property owners did not make their notices clear and still wanted you to understand what they wanted. For example, a small no guns sign posted by the cash register was supposed to mean you could not carry inside the store. So, the legislature tried to make this work for both sides. Property owners could legally ban guns from their property (with very few exceptions such as public property) but they must make their wishes clearly known. When you read the section of the law on 30.06, you can see that the primary purpose of the law was to make the notice conspicuous and clear to the person with a CHL.

Now, then we come up to what really happens in real life and not int he academic discussions of the law. In almost every case I know of, for any criminal trespass charge to stick, there must be some evidence that the person had previously been told to not enter the property. Some cities tried to do this by tracking trespass notices in their computer. In those cases, when someone called the police to file a trespass charge, the police would check their records to see if the person had a warning on file. If so, the case was easily proven in court. If not, the police would generally not file the charge but issue the warning and note it in their records. Other cities would allow the property owner to document through a signed acknowledgement that the property owner kept. In those cases, when the police were called, they needed a copy of the original notice to prove the person had been notified. A sign meeting the requirements provides clear proof to everyone involved. The sign is notice to the CHL and also evidence to the police. It actually can simplify the charge if necessary.

And in other cases, the police would arrive for the disturbance call. When the property owner said he had told the trespasser to leave and the person refused, the police would make him tell the person again in front of them. This was to avoid the trial becoming a "I said leave - He never told me this" type of argument. And this still holds true for 30.06 if there is no sign.

So, the laws on trespassing still work out the same for everyone. You control your property but the person must be given proper notice and the police must have evidence for a trial. And if the person is illegally carrying, then the crime has nothing to do with trespass and all of this is moot.

[baldeagle]

It's entirely possible that a business that posts a gunbuster sign does it intentionally to make its customers feel comfortable without ever intending to prevent legal carry. After all, any business of any size has lawyers to inform it of the legal requirements to prevent lawful carry.

I went to Babies-R-Us last night (daughter is pregnant), and they had a sign that was obviously not a 30.06 sign. I walked right past it. Not because I want to defy the company, but because I have no way of knowing what their true intentions are. You can't tell me that a company the size of Babies(Toys)-R-Us isn't aware of the laws that govern the conduct of their business in Texas. So I see those signs as a wink-wink-nod-nod to gun owners while making people who are unaware of the law feel good about being in a gun free zone. It's not my job as a CHL holder to divine the store's intentions. It's my job to follow the law. Should management become aware of my concealed weapon and ask me to leave, I will do so politely and immediately. In the meantime, I will assume that the company and I are "in on the joke".

My position is at least as plausible as the alternative - that the company really doesn't want to allow legal carry but has no clue what the law really says.

You also need to remember that many gunbuster signs are legacies of when the CHL law first passed and everyone freaked out about shootouts in the streets. Now that companies realize that there's nothing to fear, they may well have left the signs up to placate customers while knowing full well that they do not have the force of law. It also leaves them an out. Should a CHL holder become disruptive, they can always point to the sign and demand that they leave, which does have the force of law. If you are asked to leave and refuse to do so, you can be charged with trespassing and lose your CHL.

[clarionite]

The problem with the gun buster sign, is that there are plenty of people who should know the law that don't.
I live in Boerne. Recently they built a new court house and moved the court rooms from the Municipal building.
I go in the Municipal building once a month to pay my utility bill. I disarmed when I entered the building because
there were court rooms in the building. After they moved the court rooms, I happened to be in the other court house,
and asked one of two LEO that was there if all the offices were out of the municipal building. He said that they had
finished moving them all, none remained in the old building. I said good, then I can carry there now. He said no, it
had a "Gun buster" sign. He said that prevented me from carrying there. He said I also coudn't carry at Boerne City Lake
and any of the other city offices. I didn't argue with him. But I'm sure that if that officer were to ask for my ID for some
reason while I were on city property and I gave him both my CHL and DL, he'd arrest me.

[wgoforth]

The problem with the gun buster sign, is that there are plenty of people who should know the law that don't.
I live in Boerne. Recently they built a new court house and moved the court rooms from the Municipal building.
I go in the Municipal building once a month to pay my utility bill. I disarmed when I entered the building because
there were court rooms in the building. After they moved the court rooms, I happened to be in the other court house,
and asked one of two LEO that was there if all the offices were out of the municipal building. He said that they had
finished moving them all, none remained in the old building. I said good, then I can carry there now. He said no, it
had a "Gun buster" sign. He said that prevented me from carrying there. He said I also coudn't carry at Boerne City Lake
and any of the other city offices. I didn't argue with him. But I'm sure that if that officer were to ask for my ID for some
reason while I were on city property and I gave him both my CHL and DL, he'd arrest me.

Why would he arrest you for having a CHL? If they ran your DL, they would know you had one anyway. Just check your concealment method and go for it, unless they have metal detectors.

[jimlongley]

It's entirely possible that a business that posts a gunbuster sign does it intentionally to make its customers feel comfortable without ever intending to prevent legal carry. After all, any business of any size has lawyers to inform it of the legal requirements to prevent lawful carry.

And it's just as possible, maybe even moreso, that those lawyers are in some other state and haven't bothered to acquaint themselves with the specifics of TX law.

You can't tell me that a company the size of Babies(Toys)-R-Us isn't aware of the laws that govern the conduct of their business in Texas.

Sure I can, just did, two major national/international companies that I worked for in the past had absolutely no clue, and when I tried to educate them denied that they had it wrong. Dallas Love Field still has 30.05 signs posted, despite letters and meetings, and DPD says they will consider anyone caught carrying to be trespassing. TSA, where I worked for three plus years also, despite "allowing" guns to be transported in checked bags, says CHL on airport property is illegal.

So I see those signs as a wink-wink-nod-nod to gun owners while making people who are unaware of the law feel good about being in a gun free zone.

And good luck with that if you ever chance to be in the situation where you expect them to be winking and ndding and they are cuffing and dragging.

It's not my job as a CHL holder to divine the store's intentions.

Which is why I will continue to err on the side of they have absolutely no idea what the law says but will still cause me problems if they catch me.

It's my job to follow the law. Should management become aware of my concealed weapon and ask me to leave, I will do so politely and immediately. In the meantime, I will assume that the company and I are "in on the joke".

And it is their job to follow the law too, but if their understanding happens to run counter to yours . . .

My position is at least as plausible as the alternative - that the company really doesn't want to allow legal carry but has no clue what the law really says.

Only if you first accept that ". . .a company the size of Babies(Toys)-R-Us isn't aware of the laws that govern the conduct of their business in Texas . . ." which I do not. The lawyers that tell them how to conduct their business in the state of Texas may very well spend absolutely no time reviewing the penal law, which has little or nothing to do with how they conduct their business.

You also need to remember that many gunbuster signs are legacies of when the CHL law first passed and everyone freaked out about shootouts in the streets.

Which would mean that a simple letter informing them that their sign has no meaning should encourage them to remove it.

[The Annoyed Man]

Hello, my first post here so I'm just begging to get myself flamed or kicked off, but here goes.

I'm noticing that the OP is cool hand luke's first and only post so far, posted yesterday at 8:something in the morning, and he has not yet returned to respond to any of the responses to his thread..... .....all of which have been extremely civil and rational.... .....and he thought he would get flamed or kicked off for posing the question.

It looks to me like he might have kicked himself off.

C'mon dude. Come back and let us know what you think of the responses you've gotten so far. I'm curious to see if your mind has been changed. You would be far from the only libertarian on the board, and I'm curious because other self-identified libertarians don't always seem to agree with you. What do you say?

[RottenApple]

And it is their job to follow the law too, but if their understanding happens to run counter to yours . . .

Their understanding is irrelevant. Only the law is relevant. If they have a non-30.06 sign up, then they cannot legally prevent licensed CHL holders from entering. Should they discover you are carrying and call the police (without asking you to leave) the most that should happen is that the officer requires you to leave the premises. If you are arrested for trespass, then you have a legal defense in that the store sign did not meet the legal requirements and the owner never asked you to leave.

[sjfcontrol]

If you look at the Texas laws on criminal trespass in general (30.05 not 30.06), one of the requirements is always that the owner must notify the person that they may not enter. This notification may take many forms, such as a sign, a locked door, a fence of specific designs, or even a purple stripe painted on trees in certain ways. This seems reasonable to me. You can control your property but you have to let me know what your wishes are.

Does anybody else find this... odd? I suppose a fence, by design, kinda says "stay out", but purple paint on trees? I'd never heard of such a thing until I took my CHL class. If I'm wandering thru the woods, I certainly would not have identified purple paint as saying "stay out". Of course, if I'm wandering thru the woods, I'm probably lost...

[kjolly]

Whether their sign is legal or not, it seems to me they don't want guns in their place of busniess. I'm not sure how this is different from a verbal notice. If I feel unwelcome I don't want to give them my money.
Possibly unarming yourself then having a chat with the manager can accomplish one of two things.
1. They become aware of the law and post a proper sign.
2. They need your business and take the sign down. Many signs were put up with no thought and have lived quiet unnoticed existances for years and need the owners to review their stand.

either way they become compliant and you know where you stand without being cuffed and dragged. To me it's not important as I defend their rights as much as I defend mine.

[wgoforth]

If you look at the Texas laws on criminal trespass in general (30.05 not 30.06), one of the requirements is always that the owner must notify the person that they may not enter. This notification may take many forms, such as a sign, a locked door, a fence of specific designs, or even a purple stripe painted on trees in certain ways. This seems reasonable to me. You can control your property but you have to let me know what your wishes are.

Does anybody else find this... odd? I suppose a fence, by design, kinda says "stay out", but purple paint on trees? I'd never heard of such a thing until I took my CHL class. If I'm wandering thru the woods, I certainly would not have identified purple paint as saying "stay out". Of course, if I'm wandering thru the woods, I'm probably lost...

Nope, not odd at all. Seen the painted posts/trees most my life.