30.06 and 30.07 signs at gas stations

[Archery1]

True story...

There is a gas station down the street from my house, after 1/1/16 they posted both 30.06 and 30.07 (both compliant) on the glass next to the entrance door. They have since taken down the 30.06 and only have 30.07 posted. By all means this is effective notice.

Question, are the pumps, sidewalks, and public entering driveways off limits because there is a 30.07 sign on the entrance door?

2, Last week, an employee (I assume) in their infinite wisdom decided that they would park a hand truck with firewood right in front of the 30.07. It’s been there ever since. The sign is posted according to 30.07 but with the hand truck in the way, is it effective notice? Some may see it, if they are looking for it.

Well, this is why I am wondering about the property v. premise issue a bit. I have common sense I can fall back on, but I also know that way back the word "premise" was debated and adopted for very specific case law backing, of which word adoption, I believe a very prominent member here was part of such discussion on the legislation surrounding this word use. That's what gave us specific meaning to buildings v. parking lots. What I would like to see as an answer, is that if the sign say "may not enter this property", that's it. That property, building, to which the sign is attached and referencing, leaving all other property unposted.

[Archery1]

Even in the Property Code, property is any and everything one can own, and you need to state "real property" to define land and improvements from just property.

"Real property" and "real estate" are not the same things and the term you are looking for is "real estate". "Real estate" is land and basically everything that's attached to it. "Real property" means rights to use property as in a lease or an easement.

No, real property means land and improvements. The legal definition is - fixed, principally land and buildings

[WildBill]

True story...

There is a gas station down the street from my house, after 1/1/16 they posted both 30.06 and 30.07 (both compliant) on the glass next to the entrance door. They have since taken down the 30.06 and only have 30.07 posted. By all means this is effective notice.

Question, are the pumps, sidewalks, and public entering driveways off limits because there is a 30.07 sign on the entrance door?

2, Last week, an employee (I assume) in their infinite wisdom decided that they would park a hand truck with firewood right in front of the 30.07. It’s been there ever since. The sign is posted according to 30.07 but with the hand truck in the way, is it effective notice? Some may see it, if they are looking for it.

Well, this is why I am wondering about the property v. premise issue a bit. I have common sense I can fall back on, but I also know that way back the word "premise" was debated and adopted for very specific case law backing, of which word adoption, I believe a very prominent member here was part of such discussion on the legislation surrounding this word use. That's what gave us specific meaning to buildings v. parking lots. What I would like to see as an answer, is that if the sign say "may not enter this property", that's it. That property, building, to which the sign is attached and referencing, leaving all other property unposted.

I am a believer in common sense, but I think this thread is about the law. There are different laws about posting signs on a property and carrying on a premise. If you read about 30.06 postings they talk about property.
My common sense tells me that you can not enter a premise without first entering the property.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06

[pt145ss]

True story...

There is a gas station down the street from my house, after 1/1/16 they posted both 30.06 and 30.07 (both compliant) on the glass next to the entrance door. They have since taken down the 30.06 and only have 30.07 posted. By all means this is effective notice.

Question, are the pumps, sidewalks, and public entering driveways off limits because there is a 30.07 sign on the entrance door?

2, Last week, an employee (I assume) in their infinite wisdom decided that they would park a hand truck with firewood right in front of the 30.07. It’s been there ever since. The sign is posted according to 30.07 but with the hand truck in the way, is it effective notice? Some may see it, if they are looking for it.

Well, this is why I am wondering about the property v. premise issue a bit. I have common sense I can fall back on, but I also know that way back the word "premise" was debated and adopted for very specific case law backing, of which word adoption, I believe a very prominent member here was part of such discussion on the legislation surrounding this word use. That's what gave us specific meaning to buildings v. parking lots. What I would like to see as an answer, is that if the sign say "may not enter this property", that's it. That property, building, to which the sign is attached and referencing, leaving all other property unposted.

I am a believer in common sense, but I think this thread is about the law. There are different laws about posting signs on a property and carrying on a premise. If you read about 30.06 postings they talk about property.
My common sense tells me that you can not enter a premise without first entering the property.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06

Please explain to me...

If a valid 30.06 sign means the entire property is off limits. Then a 30.06 sign in fornt of City Council chambers during a meeting, means the tax collector's office is also off limits because it is on the same property as City council chambers. Correct?

[Archery1]

I am a believer in common sense, but I think this thread is about the law. There are different laws about posting signs on a property and carrying on a premise. If you read about 30.06 postings they talk about property.
My common sense tells me that you can not enter a premise without first entering the property.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06

Thanks, WildBill. That's exactly how I have been expressing it. I can enter the property and stay there up until I am told to leave or see the Notice telling me to leave. Up until that point, I am not trespassing and won't be unless I fail to leave. My common sense told me this too, as that's why I was responding to others who suggested the Notices were effective notice just by being posted. My common sense tells me that if I have not been told or cannot see the sign, the property owner has failed to communicate the message to me properly.

[Solaris]

Please explain to me...

If a valid 30.06 sign means the entire property is off limits. Then a 30.06 sign in fornt of City Council chambers during a meeting, means the tax collector's office is also off limits because it is on the same property as City council chambers. Correct?

No.

Unfortunately the legislature mandates use of 30.06 sign even on for places it is not OK. This creates confusion. In your specific case the TC office is OK since it is not 46.03 or 46.035 as listed in 30.06.

There is also effective consent. The gas station can post 30.06 and then tell folks CC/OC is OK as long as you do not come in the building.

[Solaris]

I am a believer in common sense, but I think this thread is about the law. There are different laws about posting signs on a property and carrying on a premise. If you read about 30.06 postings they talk about property.
My common sense tells me that you can not enter a premise without first entering the property.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06

Thanks, WildBill. That's exactly how I have been expressing it. I can enter the property and stay there up until I am told to leave or see the Notice telling me to leave. Up until that point, I am not trespassing and won't be unless I fail to leave. My common sense told me this too, as that's why I was responding to others who suggested the Notices were effective notice just by being posted. My common sense tells me that if I have not been told or cannot see the sign, the property owner has failed to communicate the message to me properly.

This is incorrect. If the sign is lawfully posted, you are trespassing whether you see it or not. Same for 30.05, purple paint, whatever. There are business that post 30.06 and hire O/D LEO to patrol. If they see you with a gun, you get arrested. Tell it to the judge you did not see the sign.

eta

I use fence & purple paint on my ranch. Game Warden sees you, he arrests you. GW knows my property is legally posted, he does not care if you saw signs, paint or even know about it.

[Archery1]

I am a believer in common sense, but I think this thread is about the law. There are different laws about posting signs on a property and carrying on a premise. If you read about 30.06 postings they talk about property.
My common sense tells me that you can not enter a premise without first entering the property.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06

Thanks, WildBill. That's exactly how I have been expressing it. I can enter the property and stay there up until I am told to leave or see the Notice telling me to leave. Up until that point, I am not trespassing and won't be unless I fail to leave. My common sense told me this too, as that's why I was responding to others who suggested the Notices were effective notice just by being posted. My common sense tells me that if I have not been told or cannot see the sign, the property owner has failed to communicate the message to me properly.

This is incorrect. If the sign is lawfully posted, you are trespassing whether you see it or not. Same for 30.05, purple paint, whatever. There are business that post 30.06 and hire O/D LEO to patrol. If they see you with a gun, you get arrested. Tell it to the judge you did not see the sign.

eta

I use fence & purple paint on my ranch. Game Warden sees you, he arrests you. GW knows my property is legally posted, he does not care if you saw signs, paint or even know about it.

Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

(2) "Notice" means:

(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;

(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;

(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... Zk6X6.dpuf

[Solaris]

Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

I wrote "fence & purple paint"

Very applicable as folks have claimed not to see the purple paint where there is no fence. They got a free ride in GW pickup truck.

[WildBill]

I am a believer in common sense, but I think this thread is about the law. There are different laws about posting signs on a property and carrying on a premise. If you read about 30.06 postings they talk about property.
My common sense tells me that you can not enter a premise without first entering the property.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06

Thanks, WildBill. That's exactly how I have been expressing it. I can enter the property and stay there up until I am told to leave or see the Notice telling me to leave. Up until that point, I am not trespassing and won't be unless I fail to leave. My common sense told me this too, as that's why I was responding to others who suggested the Notices were effective notice just by being posted. My common sense tells me that if I have not been told or cannot see the sign, the property owner has failed to communicate the message to me properly.

This is incorrect. If the sign is lawfully posted, you are trespassing whether you see it or not. Same for 30.05, purple paint, whatever. There are business that post 30.06 and hire O/D LEO to patrol. If they see you with a gun, you get arrested. Tell it to the judge you did not see the sign.

eta

I use fence & purple paint on my ranch. Game Warden sees you, he arrests you. GW knows my property is legally posted, he does not care if you saw signs, paint or even know about it.

Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

(2) "Notice" means:

(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;

(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;

(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... Zk6X6.dpuf

This section concerns trespass, not handguns.

[jkurtz]

Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

I wrote "fence & purple paint"

Very applicable as folks have claimed not to see the purple paint where there is no fence. They got a free ride in GW pickup truck.

There is a big difference between someone claiming that they couldn't see a sign (or paint) and someone that actually could not see the sign (or paint). If a business owner posts signs in such as way that costumers cannot see the signs then notice was not given. To say that someone breaks the law because they enter a building with posted signs, despite the fact that the signs are not visible, is no different than stating that someone breaks the law if they enter a building after oral notice was given, despite the fact that they were not present to hear such notice.

[Archery1]

This section concerns trespass, not handguns.

I am fully aware of that, but the example conversation it pertained to was 30:05 trespass and notice.

The real conversation is here is whether a sign on the door applies to the gas pump if you have not been to the door yet to see it. Same as if you used the side entrance but the front entrance was the only posted one. You have not been to the front door yet.

The whole thing surrounds that the owner has the duty to inform you, not everyone, but you. Since you are part of everyone, if they intend to catch everyone under their ban, then they need to make it known where everyone can see it. Otherwise, as others have said, any dispute is a matter of interpretation.

[Solaris]

Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

I wrote "fence & purple paint"

Very applicable as folks have claimed not to see the purple paint where there is no fence. They got a free ride in GW pickup truck.

There is a big difference between someone claiming that they couldn't see a sign (or paint) and someone that actually could not see the sign (or paint). If a business owner posts signs in such as way that costumers cannot see the signs then notice was not given. To say that someone breaks the law because they enter a building with posted signs, despite the fact that the signs are not visible, is no different than stating that someone breaks the law if they enter a building after oral notice was given, despite the fact that they were not present to hear such notice.

Those posts were in the context of "conspicuously posted". You are referencing "signs are not visible"

[Caliber]

Even in the Property Code, property is any and everything one can own, and you need to state "real property" to define land and improvements from just property.

"Real property" and "real estate" are not the same things and the term you are looking for is "real estate". "Real estate" is land and basically everything that's attached to it. "Real property" means rights to use property as in a lease or an easement.

No, real property means land and improvements. The legal definition is - fixed, principally land and buildings

I'm heavily involved in real estate and have been for 30 years or so and I have a brokers license and I can tell you that you are incorrect. It's common for "real property" to be used incorrectly. I'm guessing you google searched the term. I will say, though, that "real property" can include BOTH the real estate along with the rights of the real estate.

[WildBill]

I must be missing something. I never realized that gas stations and gas pumps were such a big concern. I just go and fill up my tank.
Of course I pay before I drive away.