30.06 signs not in compliance with State law

[cprems]

Does anyone know of any cases or if the Texas AG has formed an opinion on 30.06 signs that do not meet the statutory requirements (English, Spanish or letters not one inch tall)

We have had a new sign pop up close to where I live that has the required wording but the letters are a half inch tall. Is there any "wiggle room" for prosecuting those who fail to heed the sign?

[WildBill]

Does anyone know of any cases or if the Texas AG has formed an opinion on 30.06 signs that do not meet the statutory requirements (English, Spanish or letters not one inch tall)

We have had a new sign pop up close to where I live that has the required wording but the letters are a half inch tall. Is there any "wiggle room" for prosecuting those who fail to heed the sign?

I haven't heard of any AG opinion on the size of the letters.

[Jumping Frog]

If I would encounter a clearly non-compliant sign, I am ignoring it. The law is the law as far as I am concerned and the statute is not ambiguous.

Given so few CHL's are convicted of anything, combined with the whole concept of "concealed means concealed", I believe there are only a handful of known cases anyway. This is not enough of a problem to have garnered any kind og AG attention.

[cprems]

If I would encounter a clearly non-compliant sign, I am ignoring it. The law is the law as far as I am concerned and the statute is not ambiguous.

Given so few CHL's are convicted of anything, combined with the whole concept of "concealed means concealed", I believe there are only a handful of known cases anyway. This is not enough of a problem to have garnered any kind og AG attention.

I 100% AGREE.

I understand what you are saying. I'm coming at this from a different angle. If Government property (State) cannot be posted and enforced - especially if it is illegally posted (under State law), wouldn't it be the same if the sign didn't meet the statutory requirements.

It will be interesting to see.

[jmra]

If I would encounter a clearly non-compliant sign, I am ignoring it. The law is the law as far as I am concerned and the statute is not ambiguous.

Given so few CHL's are convicted of anything, combined with the whole concept of "concealed means concealed", I believe there are only a handful of known cases anyway. This is not enough of a problem to have garnered any kind og AG attention.

I 100% AGREE.

I understand what you are saying. I'm coming at this from a different angle. If Government property (State) cannot be posted and enforced - especially if it is illegally posted (under State law), wouldn't it be the same if the sign didn't meet the statutory requirements.

It will be interesting to see.

No such thing as an illegally posted 30.06 sign.

[cprems]

I should have said unenforceable signs on Government (State) buildings.

[Oldgringo]

This question really needs an answer. There are probably more than a few individuals willing to challenge the issue in court; however, there are probably no lawyers willing to take the case pro bono?

[jbarn]

I am not an attorney and my opinion is is worth what it is paid for, but I think people who measure the letters on 30.06 signs are taking a huge risk.

30.06 does require one be given notice in order to be in violation. It then goes on to read that " a person receives notice if......."

It does not read that a person only receives notice if....., nor does if read "if and only if".

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(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 or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of 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
(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.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

IMO, it is gray area at best. Could a prosecutor argue that a sign with 3/4 inch tall letters constitute notice? Especially if it can be proven you saw the sign because the owner saw you standing there taking a picture of the sign or measuring the letters with your ruler?

The code does not say that "notice is defined as......".

You are also gambling that a LEO called to the scene or that 6 strangers will agree with your point of view, with your freedom and license riding on your wager.

Just food for thought.

[pancho]

This question really needs an answer. There are probably more than a few individuals willing to challenge the issue in court; however, there are probably no lawyers willing to take the case pro bono?

The problem is how the people willing to be a test case for non-compliant 30.06 signs can challenge it in court without also violating the failure to conceal law. Meanwhile I'll take my chances and obey the letter and spirit of the law with a clear conscience.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The law is very explicit as to the requirements for notification and therefore prosecution. There's no gray area and any officer making an arrest for a sign that clearly doesn't meet the statutory requirements for prosecution is risking a §1983 lawsuit.

I wouldn't recommend saying you saw a sign that was 1/2" short of 1" so you went in. You should win, but why say that when all CHLs have attended class, have been shown a compliant 30.06 sign, so they could easily miss a sign that was too small because that's not what expect to see.

Chas.

[Taurus.40]

The law is very explicit as to the requirements for notification and therefore prosecution. There's no gray area and any officer making an arrest for a sign that clearly doesn't meet the statutory requirements for prosecution is risking a §1983 lawsuit.

I wouldn't recommend saying you saw a sign that was 1/2" short of 1" so you went in. You should win, but why say that when all CHLs have attended class, have been shown a compliant 30.06 sign, so they could easily miss a sign that was too small because that's not what expect to see.

Chas.

Ahhh... I didn't notice it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[TomV]

The problem is how the people willing to be a test case for non-compliant 30.06 signs can challenge it in court without also violating the failure to conceal law.

As long as people continue to push the spirit by pressing the letter of the law, then, to me, they are volunteering to become the test case. All it will take is an accidental print and a phone call.

Meanwhile I'll take my chances and obey the letter and spirit of the law with a clear conscience.

[JP171]

This question really needs an answer. There are probably more than a few individuals willing to challenge the issue in court; however, there are probably no lawyers willing to take the case pro bono?

The problem is how the people willing to be a test case for non-compliant 30.06 signs can challenge it in court without also violating the failure to conceal law. Meanwhile I'll take my chances and obey the letter and spirit of the law with a clear conscience.

there is no longer a failure to conceal in texas law it is now intentional display so no such thing to violate

[C-dub]

I am not an attorney and my opinion is is worth what it is paid for, but I think people who measure the letters on 30.06 signs are taking a huge risk.

30.06 does require one be given notice in order to be in violation. It then goes on to read that " a person receives notice if......."

It does not read that a person only receives notice if....., nor does if read "if and only if".

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(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 or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of 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
(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.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

IMO, it is gray area at best. Could a prosecutor argue that a sign with 3/4 inch tall letters constitute notice? Especially if it can be proven you saw the sign because the owner saw you standing there taking a picture of the sign or measuring the letters with your ruler?

The code does not say that "notice is defined as......".

You are also gambling that a LEO called to the scene or that 6 strangers will agree with your point of view, with your freedom and license riding on your wager.

Just food for thought.

These blue parts seem pretty clear to me.

[Oldgringo]

This question really needs an answer. There are probably more than a few individuals willing to challenge the issue in court; however, there are probably no lawyers willing to take the case pro bono?

The problem is how the people willing to be a test case for non-compliant 30.06 signs can challenge it in court without also violating the failure to conceal law. Meanwhile I'll take my chances and obey the letter and spirit of the law with a clear conscience.

there is no longer a failure to conceal in texas law it is now intentional display so no such thing to violate

All of the LEO's know this, do they?