Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
It might be difficult to determine and prove the amount of the pecuniary loss, but you are correct.K5GU wrote:If someone puts a sign or poster on, or in my property that is not approved, and they get caught, they would probably face a criminal mischief misdemeanor charge. If it's a 30.06 or .07 and it can be proven that the sign caused a loss of business, the charges could go up to class B based on the value of sales lost.
You pondering has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is or isn't.flintknapper wrote:Yes Sir, I concede that is a possibility. The likelihood....I don't know, but you might be correct.The problem is, if you/I make it a point to receive verbal notification in place of an invalid sign, there is a strong possibility that the notice you/I receive will be sufficient to prevent any type of carry forever in that establishment for you/I.
Not entirely convinced of this yet, but I am pondering it.Verbal notice is permanent.
I honestly don't remember Charles. If you have some quote or post of mine suggesting the same, I am happy to discuss it.Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you agree with OCT's demand that TPC §30.06 be amended to apply to both open and concealed carry?
Human nature is going to prove the first part. ie "Sir, you're not allowed to carry a gun in here"flintknapper wrote:Yes Sir, I concede that is a possibility. The likelihood....I don't know, but you might be correct.The problem is, if you/I make it a point to receive verbal notification in place of an invalid sign, there is a strong possibility that the notice you/I receive will be sufficient to prevent any type of carry forever in that establishment for you/I.
Not entirely convinced of this yet, but I am pondering it.Verbal notice is permanent.
Mojo, rather than you following me around exchanging what you now believe to be posts that are 'tit for tat' lets just refrain from engaging one another's ideas. Clearly, there is nothing to be gained by it. You OK with that or not?You pondering has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is or isn't.
flintknapper wrote:Mojo, rather than you following me around exchanging what you now believe to be posts that are 'tit for tat' lets just refrain from engaging one another's ideas. Clearly, there is nothing to be gained by it. You OK with that or not?You pondering has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is or isn't.
Yes, I am not arguing the mechanics of the notice, just not certain that notice given is 'permanent' or would not be required each time a person entered an establishment that has no sign or a non-compliant sign since one element required to make it an arrest-able offense is refusal to 'leave'.Not much to ponder, once it's been said and heard, notice has been given. You can't unhear it.
I get that. It's merely my opinion that it's permanent. Kind of like being warned about trespassing, once you've been told, it's usually not a good idea to go back. Especially if they can claim or prove you've been warned. Make sensed?flintknapper wrote:Yes, I am not arguing the mechanics of the notice, just not certain that notice given is 'permanent' or would not be required each time a person entered an establishment that has no sign or a non-compliant sign since one element required to make it an arrest-able offense is refusal to 'leave'.Not much to ponder, once it's been said and heard, notice has been given. You can't unhear it.
I don't want to take this thread off course and discuss that here, but I can certainly imagine some savvy lawyers being able to make a good case for that.
No doubt, this will eventually end up in court. I will NOT be present, I can assure you.
IANAL, but here is some case law that says that a person is not required to be given oral notice each time.flintknapper wrote:Yes, I am not arguing the mechanics of the notice, just not certain that notice given is 'permanent' or would not be required each time a person entered an establishment that has no sign or a non-compliant sign since one element required to make it an arrest-able offense is refusal to 'leave'.Not much to ponder, once it's been said and heard, notice has been given. You can't unhear it.
I don't want to take this thread off course and discuss that here, but I can certainly imagine some savvy lawyers being able to make a good case for that.
No doubt, this will eventually end up in court. I will NOT be present, I can assure you.
Sigh....so this is a no? Mojo I can't possibly know what you are going to find offensive or inciting. Or for that matter what you consider 'junk' that I am "spewing". To that end....I have offered a solution (we just agree to disagree) and let it go.Quit making ridiculous comments such as, "you following me around" and some of the other junk you spew and I will have no reason to respond to you.
I have suggested possible solutions or tactics (to address what might become a problem) to be implemented if needed. You don't have to agree with that.As long as you advocate creating problems and forcing business owners to put up compliant signs,
Fine, I appreciate your passion and if compulsion is driving you....that's OK too. Just saying there is no obligation on your part to respond to everything I post that you happen to disagree with. I have offered to do the same.I will feel compelled to respond.
You've shown me nothing.Don't deny it either as I've already shown you a direct quote of you saying that is what you want
That is a very good read WildBill, certainly an airtight case, possibly applicable to our concerns as well.IANAL, but here is some case law that says that a person is not required to be given oral notice each time.
The original oral notice was given on June 2, 2001 and the arrest was made Sept 16, 2001. Upon appeal his conviction was affirmed. The court did not address any time restrictions.
http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/twelf ... /6374.html
Sorry, but you are wrong. Verbal notice not to enter the property with a gun, or with an open-carried gun, is not "for a particular point in time." There's no statutory or case law basis for your position.Unocat wrote:In regard to the permanency of a verbal instruction, it would really depend on the exact wording of the notification. Things change all the time and it is therefor that compliance by the business to the code is important.
Example - I am sorry sir you can't carry your gun in here, please remove it and come back to us another time. - this is verbal notice for a particular point in time and without a permenant compliant sign, one could return just as other will inadvertently tread on this store's premise.
Example 2 - sir, we don't allow open carry here. I am asking you to leave and not return with a openly carried pistol without talking to the management first - the case holds more weight as a semi-permanent, with condition notice.
Example 3 - excuse me, this store forbids the open carry of handguns pursuant to Texas code 30.07. I would like to also inform you that you are on camera and their is audio of my notice to you - this is not only sufficient, but their is evidence of a notice and I would not want to have that reviewed by a police office and then show up in court should I returned with open carry.
In effect, verbal notice is only as good as the recollection of those that, gave, received or overheard a verbal notice. Without corroborating evidence it isn't much and will be up to LE and maybe later a judge/jury to decide... A la the crap we see on judge Judy.
This is why it is important for business to post properly compliant signage. We should never be jerks about it, leave when told, and not press an owner into calling the cops, but verbal notice is not going to help anyone.
