30.06 and 30.07 signs at gas stations

[bayou]

Thanks.

[Archery1]

Ambiguity of notice does provide a defense, but as a gun carrier, so does responsibility provide us a duty. There's nothing written that says you have to know every possible ambiguous scenario that surrounds your legal notice or lack thereof to carry on personal property, but there does exist some duty to become educated on where you might carry. I might hunt a vast open and non-fenced space, but I better know the boundaries between my hunt and off-limits areas that are not my hunt unless I want to explain my actions to others in Court.

I am not sure of the meaning of this statement. Can you clarify or give an example that explains what you mean?

See the example of the gas pump. Yes, if they post it on the door and not the entrance, you don't have good notice if you can't see it. If they call the cops and you get ticketed, that's your defense against the ticket. Is that automatic? Well, think of what the judge might say: "You are the one wanting to carry a gun on private property, you were trained what the signs looks like, you know they typically post them at the door, so why didn't you look there then pump?" So, what I mean is that I have a good defense that I can't look everywhere for signs before entering, but I also have a prosecution in that I do know where to look.

If the store owner tells you that you can't carry or calls the cops leave the store and you won't be arrested.

Yes, that would be courteous and required absent a sign. If we are going by adherence to the sign in our scenario, then he doesn't need to tell me anything, the sign created the trespass.

[WildBill]

Ambiguity of notice does provide a defense, but as a gun carrier, so does responsibility provide us a duty. There's nothing written that says you have to know every possible ambiguous scenario that surrounds your legal notice or lack thereof to carry on personal property, but there does exist some duty to become educated on where you might carry. I might hunt a vast open and non-fenced space, but I better know the boundaries between my hunt and off-limits areas that are not my hunt unless I want to explain my actions to others in Court.

I am not sure of the meaning of this statement. Can you clarify or give an example that explains what you mean?

See the example of the gas pump. Yes, if they post it on the door and not the entrance, you don't have good notice if you can't see it. If they call the cops and you get ticketed, that's your defense against the ticket. Is that automatic? Well, think of what the judge might say: "You are the one wanting to carry a gun on private property, you were trained what the signs looks like, you know they typically post them at the door, so why didn't you look there then pump?" So, what I mean is that I have a good defense that I can't look everywhere for signs before entering, but I also have a prosecution in that I do know where to look.

If the store owner tells you that you can't carry or calls the cops leave the store and you won't be arrested.

Yes, that would be courteous and required absent a sign. If we are going by adherence to the sign in our scenario, then he doesn't need to tell me anything, the sign created the trespass.

The sign didn't do anything if you didn't see it. If you saw it the sign would give you effective notice. It can not create the trespass.
Once you are give effective notice you have to leave or you commit an offense.
I don't understand why you think the police would just show up and arrest you.

[ScottDLS]

Take this example....

The mall places a giant 40x70 billboard in there parking lot close to the street. On it is printed in 2 foot letters in contrasting colors the IDENTICAL language prescribed in 30.06 in English and also in Spanish. And maybe even Chinese also!

Is the sign posted on the authority of the owner or one acting for the owner as required in 30.06b of the sign notification rule? Presumably so.

Is the sign posted on the property as required in 30.06c3b?
Certainly.

Does the sign meet the language specificity, language, letter size and color contestation requirements of 30.06c3b. Yes as given.

Is the sign conspicuously displayed as per 30.06c3biii? If this doesn't meet the common definition and usage of conspicuous what does? The rule does not specify to which group of persons the sign must be conspicuous.

And, finally, is the billboard clearly visible to the public? Absolutely. The rule does not specify to which group of persons the sign must be visible.

This all becomes much more clearly understood when you remember that the sign language prohibits handguns on "property" rather necessarily, than through entrance doors.

If you enter on the black side of the mall and do not see the sign do you have an excuse, the question goes.

Yes. Read the statute! I quote from 30.06, "For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner...provides notice TO THE PERSON by oral or written communication...[by] a sign posted on the property that...is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public AND WHICH IS VISUALlY OBSERVED BY THE PERSON...".

Now I'm being sarcastic! The statute does not require anything from you for you to be notified and certainly does not specify that you see the sign. It doesn't require your observance of the sign. It only requires that the sign be compliant and posted as per the clearly understood meaning of the requirements of the rule for you to have received notification.

Anything beyond this is interpretation for which you are responsible if you interpret incorrectly and are caught.

We want "conspicuous" to fit into to our narrow definition that serves our purpose but the words on the page do not go to that level of specificity. The seeming "confusion" between the word "property" and "premises" along with an undeserved attribution of legal importance to the physical location of a sign as to the meaning of the words on the sign also serves our purpose. Confusion and convolution are two of the most ancient of argumentive tactics.

I have just given you an example of a billboard that complies with the law, as hypothetical as that may be. The point is...with this rule or any rule...be careful to know when you are subconsciously inserting interpretations or hearsay or rumor or unmerited presumption into the raw reading of the rules.

The words say exactly what they say...nothing more...nothing less assuming appropriate and scholarly statutory interpretation.

If you TRULY did not see the sign at the door then that will be your defense against the charge that it does not matter and it will be up to a jury and possibly an appellate court to render a judgement of what "conspicuous" and "clearly visible to the public" is.

What practical effect this has on everyday CC or OC is another topic. tex

The elements of the crime (Trespass) require that you carry a handgun under authority of CHL, without effective consent, and RECEIVED NOTICE.... Notice is then defined as (among other things) a SIGN posted conspicuously.

If you didn't see the sign, then it's going to be up to the State to prove that you "received notice" and entered the property before you get your $200 ticket. It's a criminal matter so the elements of the crime have to be established to a high level of certainty. It's fine that the gigantic billboard constituted notice, but did you receive this notice? No you didn't because you didn't see it. So the prosecution has to establish a falsehood to the satisfaction of your JP court jury before you get convicted (wrongly). I'm not saying it won't or hasn't happened.

[thetexan]

Ambiguity of notice does provide a defense, but as a gun carrier, so does responsibility provide us a duty. There's nothing written that says you have to know every possible ambiguous scenario that surrounds your legal notice or lack thereof to carry on personal property, but there does exist some duty to become educated on where you might carry. I might hunt a vast open and non-fenced space, but I better know the boundaries between my hunt and off-limits areas that are not my hunt unless I want to explain my actions to others in Court.

I am not sure of the meaning of this statement. Can you clarify or give an example that explains what you mean?

See the example of the gas pump. Yes, if they post it on the door and not the entrance, you don't have good notice if you can't see it. If they call the cops and you get ticketed, that's your defense against the ticket. Is that automatic? Well, think of what the judge might say: "You are the one wanting to carry a gun on private property, you were trained what the signs looks like, you know they typically post them at the door, so why didn't you look there then pump?" So, what I mean is that I have a good defense that I can't look everywhere for signs before entering, but I also have a prosecution in that I do know where to look.

According to you. Not according to law. There is NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SEE THE SIGN for the fulfillment of the specifications of notification to you according to 30.06.

30.06b states...

(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.

What if the statute read..." a person receives notice when the owner washes his car". In either case is there no requirement for you to do anything including actually see the sign. You can not say "you don't have good notice" unless you have interjected you own interpretation into the reading because the rule simply does not require you to see it. A BLIND MAN HAS RECEIVED NOTICE according to the strict reading of the rule.

Whether you can use your "lack of seeing" as a defense is up in the air. Perhaps you can test this for us.

tex

[Archery1]

The sign didn't do anything if you didn't see it. If you saw it the sign would give you effective notice. It can not create the trespass.
Once you are give effective notice you have to leave or you commit an offense.
I don't understand why you think the police would just show up and arrest you.

I fully understand and agree. But, what if a reasonable person could read the sign but you did not? What is written that says what that actually means. I also don't think any reasonable property owner or police would escalate to that point. Fact is, we have a lot of unreasonable people in the world. What is being said is that you have a good defense in this situation, just not an absolute - if such ever even exists in our legal system.

[Archery1]

The sign didn't do anything if you didn't see it. If you saw it the sign would give you effective notice. It can not create the trespass.
Once you are give effective notice you have to leave or you commit an offense.
I don't understand why you think the police would just show up and arrest you.

I fully understand and agree. But, what if a reasonable person could read the sign but you did not? What is written that says what that actually means? I also don't think any reasonable property owner or police would escalate to that point. Fact is, we have a lot of unreasonable people in the world. What is being said is that you have a good defense in this situation, just not an absolute - if such ever even exists in our legal system.

[thetexan]

Take this example....

The mall places a giant 40x70 billboard in there parking lot close to the street. On it is printed in 2 foot letters in contrasting colors the IDENTICAL language prescribed in 30.06 in English and also in Spanish. And maybe even Chinese also!

Is the sign posted on the authority of the owner or one acting for the owner as required in 30.06b of the sign notification rule? Presumably so.

Is the sign posted on the property as required in 30.06c3b?
Certainly.

Does the sign meet the language specificity, language, letter size and color contestation requirements of 30.06c3b. Yes as given.

Is the sign conspicuously displayed as per 30.06c3biii? If this doesn't meet the common definition and usage of conspicuous what does? The rule does not specify to which group of persons the sign must be conspicuous.

And, finally, is the billboard clearly visible to the public? Absolutely. The rule does not specify to which group of persons the sign must be visible.

This all becomes much more clearly understood when you remember that the sign language prohibits handguns on "property" rather necessarily, than through entrance doors.

If you enter on the black side of the mall and do not see the sign do you have an excuse, the question goes.

Yes. Read the statute! I quote from 30.06, "For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner...provides notice TO THE PERSON by oral or written communication...[by] a sign posted on the property that...is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public AND WHICH IS VISUALlY OBSERVED BY THE PERSON...".

Now I'm being sarcastic! The statute does not require anything from you for you to be notified and certainly does not specify that you see the sign. It doesn't require your observance of the sign. It only requires that the sign be compliant and posted as per the clearly understood meaning of the requirements of the rule for you to have received notification.

Anything beyond this is interpretation for which you are responsible if you interpret incorrectly and are caught.

We want "conspicuous" to fit into to our narrow definition that serves our purpose but the words on the page do not go to that level of specificity. The seeming "confusion" between the word "property" and "premises" along with an undeserved attribution of legal importance to the physical location of a sign as to the meaning of the words on the sign also serves our purpose. Confusion and convolution are two of the most ancient of argumentive tactics.

I have just given you an example of a billboard that complies with the law, as hypothetical as that may be. The point is...with this rule or any rule...be careful to know when you are subconsciously inserting interpretations or hearsay or rumor or unmerited presumption into the raw reading of the rules.

The words say exactly what they say...nothing more...nothing less assuming appropriate and scholarly statutory interpretation.

If you TRULY did not see the sign at the door then that will be your defense against the charge that it does not matter and it will be up to a jury and possibly an appellate court to render a judgement of what "conspicuous" and "clearly visible to the public" is.

What practical effect this has on everyday CC or OC is another topic. tex

The elements of the crime (Trespass) require that you carry a handgun under authority of CHL, without effective consent, and RECEIVED NOTICE.... Notice is then defined as (among other things) a SIGN posted conspicuously.

If you didn't see the sign, then it's going to be up to the State to prove that you "received notice" and entered the property before you get your $200 ticket. It's a criminal matter so the elements of the crime have to be established to a high level of certainty. It's fine that the gigantic billboard constituted notice, but did you receive this notice? No you didn't because you didn't see it. So the prosecution has to establish a falsehood to the satisfaction of your JP court jury before you get convicted (wrongly). I'm not saying it won't or hasn't happened.

I don't have to guess...

(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 license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing 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.

We have a clear definition of notice. Please highlight the portion that requires you to see the sign, or where "conspicuous" is defined.

If one wants to interpret his way to concealed carry bliss then be my guest. But most of the people I talk to, in this discipline and others don't know the difference between pre-interpreted, pre-digested rumor from the real thing because most do not even know the rule and what it says as a foundation. I am simply giving the rule as is. I add no interpretation to it one way or the other. Feel free to believe it means anything you wish.

tex

[Archery1]

Ambiguity of notice does provide a defense, but as a gun carrier, so does responsibility provide us a duty. There's nothing written that says you have to know every possible ambiguous scenario that surrounds your legal notice or lack thereof to carry on personal property, but there does exist some duty to become educated on where you might carry. I might hunt a vast open and non-fenced space, but I better know the boundaries between my hunt and off-limits areas that are not my hunt unless I want to explain my actions to others in Court.

I am not sure of the meaning of this statement. Can you clarify or give an example that explains what you mean?

See the example of the gas pump. Yes, if they post it on the door and not the entrance, you don't have good notice if you can't see it. If they call the cops and you get ticketed, that's your defense against the ticket. Is that automatic? Well, think of what the judge might say: "You are the one wanting to carry a gun on private property, you were trained what the signs looks like, you know they typically post them at the door, so why didn't you look there then pump?" So, what I mean is that I have a good defense that I can't look everywhere for signs before entering, but I also have a prosecution in that I do know where to look.

According to you. Not according to law. There is NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SEE THE SIGN for the fulfillment of the specifications of notification to you according to 30.06.

30.06b states...

(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.

What if the statute read..." a person receives notice when the owner washes his car". In either case is there no requirement for you to do anything including actually see the sign. You can not say "you don't have good notice" unless you have interjected you own interpretation into the reading because the rule simply does not require you to see it. A BLIND MAN HAS RECEIVED NOTICE according to the strict reading of the rule.

Whether you can use your "lack of seeing" as a defense is up in the air. Perhaps you can test this for us.

tex

I'm not sure what you mean here, but right after the underlined part, there is the word "to" the person. It doesn't mean for the person to find out, it means actually "to" that person. That would mean a sign I cannot see is not notice to me until I see it. None of which alleviates me of knowing how they are supposed to get it to me.

[Archery1]

Edit: deleted double post

[jkurtz]

Ambiguity of notice does provide a defense, but as a gun carrier, so does responsibility provide us a duty. There's nothing written that says you have to know every possible ambiguous scenario that surrounds your legal notice or lack thereof to carry on personal property, but there does exist some duty to become educated on where you might carry. I might hunt a vast open and non-fenced space, but I better know the boundaries between my hunt and off-limits areas that are not my hunt unless I want to explain my actions to others in Court.

I am not sure of the meaning of this statement. Can you clarify or give an example that explains what you mean?

See the example of the gas pump. Yes, if they post it on the door and not the entrance, you don't have good notice if you can't see it. If they call the cops and you get ticketed, that's your defense against the ticket. Is that automatic? Well, think of what the judge might say: "You are the one wanting to carry a gun on private property, you were trained what the signs looks like, you know they typically post them at the door, so why didn't you look there then pump?" So, what I mean is that I have a good defense that I can't look everywhere for signs before entering, but I also have a prosecution in that I do know where to look.

According to you. Not according to law. There is NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SEE THE SIGN for the fulfillment of the specifications of notification to you according to 30.06.

30.06b states...

(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.



tex

I think the more relevant part of 30.06b is "... provides notice to the person by oral or written communication."

If an owner posts a sign in such a manner that prevents it from being seen (behind a bush, behind the counter facing away from costumers, in an employee only section of the building, etc.) then you, the actor, have NOT been provided notice. Using your logic of the sign not being visible, then a store owner that provides oral notice to one person has effectively provided it to everyone, because nothing states that you must be present to have heard the notice.

[tiger1279]

I suppose taking the gun off my belt and leaving it in the car would allow me to pump gas without committing a violation, right?

[thetexan]

I'm not sure what you mean here, but right after the underlined part, there is the word "to" the person. It doesn't mean for the person to find out, it means actually "to" that person. That would mean a sign I cannot see is not notice to me until I see it. None of which alleviates me of knowing how they are supposed to get it to me.

We are debating two different things. I am stating what the raw law states. There are many instances where non-individualized public notice serves as notice. So the concept exists however I don't believe we even have to resort to that. If the intent is to give defense to visually spotting the sign for notice to have been given then the rule is written poorly since it clearly does not require that without interpretation. This is probably evidenced by the inclusion of clarifying language in the new 30.07 requiring posting at entrances. This just supports the idea that the legislature realized that 30.06 in fact DOES NOT SPECIFY a requirement to be seen, or at least, conspicuousness, for their purposes, needed to be more clearly specified.

Your position is that common sense and a pleading of ignorance will suffice at trial, and perhaps it will.

It is what it is and we each have to make the determination on how it applies to each of us.

Getting back to the original point of the thread...both .06 and .07 say and mean "property", (or at least we have no right to assume they don't mean).
Again, it is what it is.

tex

[Archery1]

I'm not sure what you mean here, but right after the underlined part, there is the word "to" the person. It doesn't mean for the person to find out, it means actually "to" that person. That would mean a sign I cannot see is not notice to me until I see it. None of which alleviates me of knowing how they are supposed to get it to me.

We are debating two different things. I am stating what the raw law states. There are many instances where non-individualized public notice serves as notice. So the concept exists however I don't believe we even have to resort to that. If the intent is to give defense to visually spotting the sign for notice to have been given then the rule is written poorly since it clearly does not require that without interpretation. This is probably evidenced by the inclusion of clarifying language in the new 30.07 requiring posting at entrances. This just supports the idea that the legislature realized that 30.06 in fact DOES NOT SPECIFY a requirement to be seen, or at least, conspicuousness, for their purposes, needed to be more clearly specified.

Your position is that common sense and a pleading of ignorance will suffice at trial, and perhaps it will.

It is what it is and we each have to make the determination on how it applies to each of us.

Getting back to the original point of the thread...both .06 and .07 say and mean "property", (or at least we have no right to assume they don't mean).
Again, it is what it is.

tex

Agree, but I would say that anywhere in law where non-individualized notice is not required as it pertains to a penal code, there must be exhausted measures tried to personally notice the person first. Now, in regular course of business, it's up to the customer to seek out and know the policies before acceptance. Penal is not about acceptance, it's about imposition. In this regard is the only place I can hang a hat that says "notice to the person" means individual notice. The business can either personally tell me, or make sure the sign is where I get it by writing - which I guess is the whole point of 30:06 and :07.

I agree fully that they mean property and not just building. Here is where one could defend that if I wanted my property posted for trespass, I can't cry trespass if a person has to trespass first in order to see the sign at my door - after they are already past the intended boundaries of trespass. That sign would have to read: "you have now just trespassed".

[pt145ss]

I must admit that I only scanned through this post but something that keeps jumping out at me. The topic header insinuates 30.06 and 30.07. Then someone makes the argument about "property" in that a sign anywhere on the property (assuming it is consicous) renders the enite property off limits... for example at the gas pumps when the sign is at the door to the building.

My question is how do we reconile that logic, seemingly bolstered by 30.006, with 30.07. 30.07 uses the same term "Property" but goes a little further and says it must be visible from each enterence to the property. Following that logic, is a 30.07 sign invalid because it is on the door of the building and may not be visible from each enterence to the property? As in many cases, where a gas station has side enterences to the "property."

Does the meaning of property change from 30.06 to 30.07?

Is it logical or illogical to use government meetings as an example. City council can post 30.06 signs in meeting rooms when meeting are taking place... Does that mean the entire building is off limits or does that mean the room where the meeting is is off limits?

Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) openly 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 entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.

(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 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"; 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 at each entrance to the property.