30.06 and 30.07 signs at gas stations

[tiger1279]

If this has been covered already, my apologies - I missed it. My question is this: do the signs being posted on the doors of the gas station store/cashier building prohibiting carry, both open and concealed, extend to the pump area as well? Can I pump gas while carrying if I never enter the building? I guess this is the old premises vs. property issue. Sorry if this has been talked about before.

[Greybeard]

Gas pump area is fine. Just beyond signs is prohibited by the signs.

[crazy2medic]

You might think about changing gas stations unless that gas station is your only option, I always fueled at the chevron on hwy 199, they posted 30.07 so now I go to the Exxon down the road they aren't posted at all!

[randy634]

Yep. Only applies inside the building.

Carry on and be safe.

[longhorn86]

I wouldn't give a station that posted 30.06 any of my money despite the fact that it would be legal to carry at the pumps. Unless of course as stated earlier, you had no other option.

[thetexan]

Keeping in mind that the wording says "property...

If the sign was posted at the street entrance would you have any question what the word "property" means?

Yes No

If the sign was posted at the pumps would you have any doubt as to the meaning of the word "property"?

Yes No

If the sign is posted at the entrance to the store would you have a different definition of the word "property".

Yes No

If you carefully read paragraph 30.06d use of "property" seems contextually clear. 30.06e uses both "premises" and "property" in contrasting context which seems to confirm a "one sign does all" mechanism.

But 30.06c3b says it all when it declares that you have received notice when a sign is posted on the "property". It doesn't specify where. ONE sign on a property meets this clear requirement. There is nothing to suggest that mere physical location and placement of the sign has any legally defined importance to the application of the rule.

If one's claim is that they pumped gas with no knowledge that the sign on the door way over there existed then one would have to read into the statute that one's visually seeing the sign is a required element of the notification definition in 30.06b when it clearly is not.

There are two definitions of "premises" we use in LTC...one in 46.02 and the other in 46.03 and 46.035. Neither is which are relevant to the use of the word "property" in 30.06 or 30'.07. The definition of "property" is defined in numerous Texas codes specific for each section. However they are all common definitions contextually identical to the common definition and everyday usage of "property" and there is no superseding sectional definition for "property in 30.06 or 30.07.

30.06 and 30.07 work in concert with the general trespass section 30.05 which exclusively used the word "property". I know of no one who has any difficulty understanding the meaning of the word "property" in that statute.

Everyone is quick to point out that a government entity can not post .06 or .07 to prohibit handguns on their "PROPERTY"! so everyone seems to understand what "property" means.

A sign that can be used at the drive-in entrance to a business with equal legal muscle as the identical sign posted at the door to a building can do so only if there is no ambiguity in its statutorily defined used. And love and behold...there is no such statutory ambiguity.

If one chooses to ignore the sign at the door as not applying at the pumps does so by interpretaion, not by the clear reading of the law.

The owner, who has the authority to prohibit whom he wishes and to post a .06 sign on his property may do so anywhere on his property. 30.07 is the first example of location being a part of the posting requirement but we still have the use of the word "property" even on the .07 sign.

What all of this means in a court case is up in the air and presumably yet to be tested. Remember there could be menu court cases involving this matter that we know nothing about simply because they have not been appealed and findings published.

In short, the physical location of a posted sign has no bearing on the legal meaning of the words on that sign.

tex

[Solaris]

If this has been covered already, my apologies - I missed it. My question is this: do the signs being posted on the doors of the gas station store/cashier building prohibiting carry, both open and concealed, extend to the pump area as well? Can I pump gas while carrying if I never enter the building? I guess this is the old premises vs. property issue. Sorry if this has been talked about before.

I disagree with the above posts (eta except thetexan posted after I started my response). The Law is quite clear:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

It clearly says "property". It does not say "building". If they had wanted it to say "building", they would have used the term "building" as it is defined in Section 30:

Sec. 30.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Habitation" means a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:
(A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and
(B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.
(2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use.

But they did not use the term "building" when they clearly could have, instead they used the term "property".

[thetexan]

Keeping in mind that the wording says "property...

If the sign was posted at the street entrance would you have any question what the word "property" means?

Yes No

If the sign was posted at the pumps would you have any doubt as to the meaning of the word "property"?

Yes No

If the sign is posted at the entrance to the store would you have a different definition of the word "property".

Yes No

If you carefully read paragraph 30.06d use of "property" seems contextually clear. 30.06e uses both "premises" and "property" in contrasting context which seems to confirm a "one sign does all" mechanism. In other words 30.06e shows the authors of the statute know how to use both words in a sentence and have distinguished a different meaning between the two.

But 30.06c3b says it all when it declares that you have received notice when a sign is posted on the "property". It doesn't specify where. ONE sign on a property meets this clear requirement. There is nothing to suggest that mere physical location and placement of the sign has any legally defined importance to the application of the rule.

If one's claim is that they pumped gas with no knowledge that the sign on the door way over there existed then one would have to read into the statute that one's visually seeing the sign is a required element of the notification definition in 30.06b when it clearly is not.

There are two definitions of "premises" we use in LTC...one in 46.02 and the other in 46.03 and 46.035. Neither is which are relevant to the use of the word "property" in 30.06 or 30'.07. The definition of "property" is defined in numerous Texas codes specific for each section. However they are all common definitions contextually identical to the common definition and everyday usage of "property" and there is no superseding sectional definition for "property in 30.06 or 30.07.

30.06 and 30.07 work in concert with the general trespass section 30.05 which exclusively used the word "property". I know of no one who has any difficulty understanding the meaning of the word "property" in that statute.

Everyone is quick to point out that a government entity can not post .06 or .07 to prohibit handguns on their "PROPERTY"! so everyone seems to understand what "property" means.

A sign that can be used at the drive-in entrance to a business with equal legal muscle as the identical sign posted at the door to a building can do so only if there is no ambiguity in its statutorily defined use. And love and behold...there is no such statutory ambiguity.

If one chooses to ignore the sign at the door as not applying at the pumps does so by interpretaion, not by the clear reading of the law.

The owner, who has the authority to prohibit whom he wishes and to post a .06 sign on his property may do so anywhere on his property. 30.07 is the first example of location being a part of the posting requirement but we still have the use of the word "property" even on the .07 sign.

What all of this means in a court case is up in the air and presumably yet to be tested. Remember there could be many court cases involving this matter that we know nothing about simply because they have not been appealed and findings published.

In short, the physical location of a posted sign has no bearing on the legal meaning of the words on that sign. And, we can't read the mind of the owner to know if he just means the building or the entire property including the pumps.

tex

[bayou]

I agree with thetexan. I do have an honest question with no sarcasm or malice intended. The 30.06 statute states that the sign is to be posted in a conspicuous place. If I truly do not see the sign on the door, pay at the pump, and leave. Did I commit criminal trespass for a class c misdemeanor? If I saw the sign then state I did not then I would not be a man of my word and would have committed the misdemeanor.

[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 back 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

[VMI77]

30.06 = NO SALE

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.