Improper signs and results

[baldeagle]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

A law abiding person doesn't ignore legal signs, no matter how light the punishment is for doing so.

[TexasRifleman]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

A law abiding person doesn't ignore legal signs, no matter how light the punishment is for doing so.

And if the signs are obscured, or not meeting the legal requirements, a law abiding person should not face excessive punishment, which is the purpose of the change.

[cb1000rider]

And if the signs are obscured, or not meeting the legal requirements, a law abiding person should not face excessive punishment, which is the purpose of the change.

Even if he or she observes and understands the signs? There's that whole "spirit" of the law thing. We hate it when criminals get off on a technicality, why should we excuse ourselves on one?

The hassle here isn't the monetary fine. That's just a fractional piece of our system. The real problem is the arrest, subsequent bond, likely tow of the vehicle, the multi-thousand dollar lawyer fees (which is what you'll pay to defend the issue).. All that and maybe you get a good verdict - maybe. And more than that, the fact that 'Murica tends to hate on criminals.. A criminal being anyone with a conviction that isn't traffic related - which can make it a big influencer in how gainfully you're employed in your lifetime. And even people that have been arrested and found innocent - it's still an issue with some employers. (Ask a defense attorney if you think I'm over-blowing it)

And never mind the fact that you just took up some valuable LEO time that could be spent dealing with a real issue.

If it was just a $200 fine, I think you'd have a lot more people "testing" the system....

[TexasRifleman]

And if the signs are obscured, or not meeting the legal requirements, a law abiding person should not face excessive punishment, which is the purpose of the change.

Even if he or she observes and understands the signs? There's that whole "spirit" of the law thing. We hate it when criminals get off on a technicality, why should we excuse ourselves on one?

The hassle here isn't the monetary fine. That's just a fractional piece of our system. The real problem is the arrest, subsequent bond, likely tow of the vehicle, the multi-thousand dollar lawyer fees (which is what you'll pay to defend the issue).. All that and maybe you get a good verdict - maybe. And more than that, the fact that 'Murica tends to hate on criminals.. A criminal being anyone with a conviction that isn't traffic related - which can make it a big influencer in how gainfully you're employed in your lifetime. And even people that have been arrested and found innocent - it's still an issue with some employers.

If it was just a $200 fine, I think you'd have a lot more people "testing" the system....

If gun owners are expected to follow the law, to the letter, so should businesses. It's in the law, with that specific wording, for a reason.

If you want to lobby that 30.06/07 be changed to allow any random no gun sign be valid then go ahead, but the law is VERY clear on the requirements today so if a store wants to prohibit carrying, they can follow the SAME law I'm required to follow.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN

Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.

[JALLEN]

If you want to lobby that 30.06/07 be changed to allow any random no gun sign be valid then go ahead, but the law is VERY clear on the requirements today so if a store wants to prohibit carrying, they can follow the SAME law I'm required to follow.

The sign is only one means of providing effective notice.

The others two are telling you and giving a card with the information.

What about printing it on the menu of a restaurant, in prominent type and size?

It is not the sign but the notice that is important.

[Charles L. Cotton]

And if the signs are obscured, or not meeting the legal requirements, a law abiding person should not face excessive punishment, which is the purpose of the change.

Even if he or she observes and understands the signs? There's that whole "spirit" of the law thing. We hate it when criminals get off on a technicality, why should we excuse ourselves on one?

The hassle here isn't the monetary fine. That's just a fractional piece of our system. The real problem is the arrest, subsequent bond, likely tow of the vehicle, the multi-thousand dollar lawyer fees (which is what you'll pay to defend the issue).. All that and maybe you get a good verdict - maybe. And more than that, the fact that 'Murica tends to hate on criminals.. A criminal being anyone with a conviction that isn't traffic related - which can make it a big influencer in how gainfully you're employed in your lifetime. And even people that have been arrested and found innocent - it's still an issue with some employers.

If it was just a $200 fine, I think you'd have a lot more people "testing" the system....

If gun owners are expected to follow the law, to the letter, so should businesses. It's in the law, with that specific wording, for a reason.

If you want to lobby that 30.06/07 be changed to allow any random no gun sign be valid then go ahead, but the law is VERY clear on the requirements today so if a store wants to prohibit carrying, they can follow the SAME law I'm required to follow.

Show me the law that requires a property owner to post a §30.06 or §30.07 sign. Show me the law that makes it illegal for a property owner to post a legally insufficient §30.06 or §30.07 sign as a courtesy notice.

I realize you are a Carry Texas member, but you aren't going to use the Forum to spew this type of garbage.

Chas.

[TexasRifleman]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN

Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.

Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.

[TexasRifleman]

And if the signs are obscured, or not meeting the legal requirements, a law abiding person should not face excessive punishment, which is the purpose of the change.

Even if he or she observes and understands the signs? There's that whole "spirit" of the law thing. We hate it when criminals get off on a technicality, why should we excuse ourselves on one?

The hassle here isn't the monetary fine. That's just a fractional piece of our system. The real problem is the arrest, subsequent bond, likely tow of the vehicle, the multi-thousand dollar lawyer fees (which is what you'll pay to defend the issue).. All that and maybe you get a good verdict - maybe. And more than that, the fact that 'Murica tends to hate on criminals.. A criminal being anyone with a conviction that isn't traffic related - which can make it a big influencer in how gainfully you're employed in your lifetime. And even people that have been arrested and found innocent - it's still an issue with some employers.

If it was just a $200 fine, I think you'd have a lot more people "testing" the system....

If gun owners are expected to follow the law, to the letter, so should businesses. It's in the law, with that specific wording, for a reason.

If you want to lobby that 30.06/07 be changed to allow any random no gun sign be valid then go ahead, but the law is VERY clear on the requirements today so if a store wants to prohibit carrying, they can follow the SAME law I'm required to follow.

Show me the law that requires a property owner to post a §30.06 or §30.07 sign. Show me the law that makes it illegal for a property owner to post a legally insufficient §30.06 or §30.07 sign as a courtesy notice.

I realize you are a Carry Texas member, but you aren't going to use the Forum to spew this type of garbage.

Chas.

Don't misquote me and don't accuse me of spewing "garbage" when all I do is quote the Penal Code.

I said that if a business wants to prohibit carry they must post a specific type of sign. That's clearly in 06 and 07 and as you know, it's been in 06 for over a decade.

I did not say it was illegal for a business to post an improper sign, I said that such a sign has no force of law behind it because of the requirements set forth in 30.06 and 07 and that if a business expects gun owners to abide by 06 and 07, it's reasonable for them to as well.

And this is precisely why the punishment was changed to be minimal.

This isn't exactly new ground here.

[TexasRifleman]

And if the signs are obscured, or not meeting the legal requirements, a law abiding person should not face excessive punishment, which is the purpose of the change.

Even if he or she observes and understands the signs? There's that whole "spirit" of the law thing. We hate it when criminals get off on a technicality, why should we excuse ourselves on one?

The hassle here isn't the monetary fine. That's just a fractional piece of our system. The real problem is the arrest, subsequent bond, likely tow of the vehicle, the multi-thousand dollar lawyer fees (which is what you'll pay to defend the issue).. All that and maybe you get a good verdict - maybe. And more than that, the fact that 'Murica tends to hate on criminals.. A criminal being anyone with a conviction that isn't traffic related - which can make it a big influencer in how gainfully you're employed in your lifetime. And even people that have been arrested and found innocent - it's still an issue with some employers.

If it was just a $200 fine, I think you'd have a lot more people "testing" the system....

If gun owners are expected to follow the law, to the letter, so should businesses. It's in the law, with that specific wording, for a reason.

If you want to lobby that 30.06/07 be changed to allow any random no gun sign be valid then go ahead, but the law is VERY clear on the requirements today so if a store wants to prohibit carrying, they can follow the SAME law I'm required to follow.

Show me the law that requires a property owner to post a §30.06 or §30.07 sign. Show me the law that makes it illegal for a property owner to post a legally insufficient §30.06 or §30.07 sign as a courtesy notice.

I realize you are a Carry Texas member, but you aren't going to use the Forum to spew this type of garbage.

Chas.

Don't misquote me and don't accuse me of spewing "garbage" when all I do is quote the Penal Code.

I said that if a business wants to prohibit carry they must post a specific type of sign. That's clearly in 06 and 07 and as you know, it's been in 06 for over a decade.

I did not say it was illegal for a business to post an improper sign, I said that such a sign has no force of law behind it because of the requirements set forth in 30.06 and 07 and that if a business expects gun owners to abide by 06 and 07, it's reasonable for them to as well.

And this is precisely why the punishment was changed to be pretty much the minimum allowable, because it was WAY too lopsided.

This isn't exactly new ground here.

[cb1000rider]

If gun owners are expected to follow the law, to the letter, so should businesses. It's in the law, with that specific wording, for a reason.

As someone pointed out earlier, it's not against the law to post a non-compliant sign. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Surely you don't think it's better to force them to move to a compliant sign?

If you want to lobby that 30.06/07 be changed to allow any random no gun sign be valid then go ahead, but the law is VERY clear on the requirements today so if a store wants to prohibit carrying, they can follow the SAME law I'm required to follow.

What I do applaud is the opposite - we've now got a means to enforce against cities that post unenforceable signs on city/state owned property. That's progress, but it's also progress against cities/states who ignore the law. There is no such requirement for private property. As far as I'm concerned, private businesses can post whatever they like, in whatever form they like. There has to be some middle ground on this issue - it's not possible to have a recognition based issue without some specificity.. Personally, I generally respect their intent if they "mostly" compliant or make an attempt to comply. If they're way out in left field, like my local pizza establishment (all weapons, including concealed weapons are prohibited) - I can choose to ignore. The basis of which is what would I do if I was the LEO that got a call in that situation.

I never suggested that we expand the scope. I simply suggested that some heed might be given to those businesses that get close to compliance but don't quite get it right. I'm not one to put a caliper to the height of letters - there are simply bigger fish to fry and that particular issue doesn't offend me that much.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN

Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.

Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.

Even non-attorneys know the caption (a/k/a title of a section is not the operative language. TPC §30.05, §30.06 and 30.07 contain "trespass" in the captions, but not in the operative language.

Chas.

[TexasRifleman]

As someone pointed out earlier, it's not against the law to post a non-compliant sign. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Surely you don't think it's better to force them to move to a compliant sign?

That is correct, and all I am saying is that the opposite is true as well, I am not required to obey a non-compliant sign.

I'm not talking "spirit of the law" or anything, but the law is very clear.

If a business posts non-compliant signs, and we all obey them, what then is the purpose of having a specific sign requirement to begin with?

[TexasRifleman]

As of January 1, unless it's a place otherwise prohibited, ignoring or not seeing a 30.06 or .07 sign is a Class C misdemeanor with a max $200 fine.

If you are verbally asked to leave and don't it's criminal trespass.

Violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is a criminal trespass whether it is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Chas.

If my interpretation is correct, violation of 30.06 or 30.07 is criminal trespass, yes, but it is now only a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine (still criminal trespass), unless verbal notice is given and the licenseholder fails to depart (in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor). Is this your interpretation as well, or no?

The Code is clear and there's no interpretation required.

Chas.

I do not believe a violation of 30.06 or 07 rises to the level of Criminal Trespass Charles and I challenge you to show how that is possible.

The penal code for 30.05, criminal trespass, specifically says that it's a defense to prosecution for Criminal Trespass if the sole charge is carrying under authority of a CHL\LTC.

Straight from 30.05:


Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

BUT THEN

It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

There is no possible way that it's Criminal Trespass when the penal code for Criminal Trespass says it's NOT Criminal Trespass by specifically giving an affirmative defense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 30.06 AND 30.07 stand alone as criminal law and a violation of one or the other is simply a violation of that section. You have an affirmative defense if you're charged with violating 30.05.

There is no way it's criminal trespass. It's simple trespass, even says so in the name:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN

Challenge accepted. Now I challenge you to learn something about the law before making your pronouncements.

The Texas Penal Code sets out criminal offenses, including TPC §§ 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07. You apparently are trying to make the caption part of the offense, but you cannot do so. This is something a first year law student learns. So while TPC §30.05's caption is "Criminal Trespass," and the caption for TPC §30.06 is "Trespass by a License Holder With a Concealed Handgun," the operative language is the same. Both provisions make it a crime to enter or remain on the property under the circumstances set out in each Code provision. Neither §30.05, §30.06 or §30.07 contain the word "trespass" in the operative language.

I guess in your mind you don't consider §30.06 or §30.07 to be a "criminal" act. Otherwise, there would be no way for you to argue that violation of §30.06 is not a criminal trespass.

Chas.

Again you make a leap that is not logical.

Everything in the penal code is "criminal", but not everything has that name. "Criminal Trespass" is a specific crime, a violation of 30.05 ONLY.

A violation of 30.06 is "TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN". That's what it will say in the charges and a violation of 30.06 CAN NOT be a violation of 30.05, by the included affirmative defense.

You're fear mongering by calling 06 and 07 "Criminal Trespass". There is no other reason to use that term in relation to those 2 laws.

Even non-attorneys know the caption (a/k/a title of a section is not the operative language. TPC §30.05, §30.06 and 30.07 contain "trespass" in the captions, but not in the operative language.

Chas.

Don't know what to tell you, I got all this from an attorney so go figure.

[parabelum]

Show me the law that requires a property owner to post a §30.06 or §30.07 sign. Show me the law that makes it illegal for a property owner to post a legally insufficient §30.06 or §30.07 sign as a courtesy notice.

Chas.

To my knowledge, there is no law that would force a business to post 30.06/30.07 sign. That I would consider to be a tyranny since we are talking about private property.
Now, if they in fact do post 30.06 or 30.07, then the sign has to meet the proper criteria.

But I go back to the point I've said before. If you see that a sign is not posted properly, either report to appropriate source (not get into a verbal match on the scene), take your money elsewhere, or both.