"gunbuster" signs, trespassing, etc.

[cool hand luke]

Hello, my first post here so I'm just begging to get myself flamed or kicked off, but here goes.

First, a little background. I'm very new to guns in general. I never owned one until I spent a year in Afghanistan as a contractor. That definitely changed my mind/opened my eyes. Since then I've got my collection up to 4, hoping to add more in the next few months. I'm waiting very impatiently for the DPS to process my paperwork. They received it April 6, and I'm not yet in the system to get fingerprints, etc.

On to the questions. My understanding is if a business has any other "no gun" sign besides to very specific 30.06, it does not apply to CHL holders. But if you are found to be carrying, they can issue you a verbal statement and you must either leave or be facing trespassing charges. Is this accurate?

Here is where my libertarian tendencies come out.

I don't understand why they have to verbally warn you before you can be cited for trespass. It's always a touchy subject when you are waying two peoples rights against each other. Your right to protection, vs. there right to control what is on there private property. In this case I feel pretty strongly that there property rights should be the one that governs. I know I want to have absolute control over what comes in and out of my property, and I don't know why I should have to verbally tell you when I have a sign posted.

I understand requiring a 30.06 sign to get someone for carrying illegally, but not for trespassing.

[The Mad Moderate]

First concealed means concealed, so it should not come up in the first place. Second they do have a right to keep you out of their business while carrying by simply posting a 30.06 sign. I see gunbuster signs all the time, and I just walk on past if they really wanted to keep weapons out they can put up the correct sign if not its not your problem. If you are "made" and giving a verbal 30.06 notice then I would leave and not return because if you dont want my weapon in here then you dont want me in here .

[e-bil]

It works that way because the law is very specific that verbal notice or a written 30.06 notice is what OS required. Verbal notice to leave makes anything trespass at that point if they fail to leave.

[74novaman]

I think you missed his point, LL. To the OP, if you feel like their property rights supersede your defense rights, thats fine. You can treat gunbusters signs as if they were proper postings and choose not to carry there, or not enter. No one says you can't go above and beyond the law, if you feel that strongly about property rights.

The Texas 30.06 is great. If people really do want to forbid lawful carry on their property, they have a legal means to do so. If it doesn't concern them enough to look up the law and they post the generic gun busters, they obviously don't care that much, so neither do I.

[bigred90gt]

If it is a place of business that is open to the public, you are not trespassing unless you have been asked to leave and refuse, or if you are trespassing under 30.06. The signage referenced in PC30.06 is the required signage to be posted to constitute trespass by a license holder. If no such sign is present, then you are not in violation of the law regarding trespass by a license holder. Being a public business, it is pretty much assumed that you are not trespassing simply by entering the store, so unless proper notice is given, no law has been broken, and that proper notice is very specifically called out in the law.

[The Mad Moderate]

Top
Re: "gunbuster" signs, trespassing, etc.
by 74novaman » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:50 am

I think you missed his point, LL. To the OP, if you feel like their property rights supersede your defense rights, thats fine. You can treat gunbusters signs as if they were proper postings and choose not to carry there, or not enter. No one says you can't go above and beyond the law, if you feel that strongly about property rights.

The Texas 30.06 is great. If people really do want to forbid lawful carry on their property, they have a legal means to do so. If it doesn't concern them enough to look up the law and they post the generic gun busters, they obviously don't care that much, so neither do I.

I think you're right, and I was not making my point clear enough. What I was trying to say was that if a property owner does not want CHL holders on their property then they have a RIGHT to post a complaint sign, and I have the RIGHT under the law to ignore the non complaint ones.

[Keith B]

Hello, my first post here so I'm just begging to get myself flamed or kicked off, but here goes.

First, a little background. I'm very new to guns in general. I never owned one until I spent a year in Afghanistan as a contractor. That definitely changed my mind/opened my eyes. Since then I've got my collection up to 4, hoping to add more in the next few months. I'm waiting very impatiently for the DPS to process my paperwork. They received it April 6, and I'm not yet in the system to get fingerprints, etc.

On to the questions. My understanding is if a business has any other "no gun" sign besides to very specific 30.06, it does not apply to CHL holders. But if you are found to be carrying, they can issue you a verbal statement and you must either leave or be facing trespassing charges. Is this accurate?

Here is where my libertarian tendencies come out.

I don't understand why they have to verbally warn you before you can be cited for trespass. It's always a touchy subject when you are waying two peoples rights against each other. Your right to protection, vs. there right to control what is on there private property. In this case I feel pretty strongly that there property rights should be the one that governs. I know I want to have absolute control over what comes in and out of my property, and I don't know why I should have to verbally tell you when I have a sign posted.

I understand requiring a 30.06 sign to get someone for carrying illegally, but not for trespassing.

First off, welcome to the forum.

An yes, legally they must post a 30.06 per state law to legally keep you from carrying.

Now, here is the counter-argument to your view. We will use Walmart as an example. This is a business that is open to the public, so to be 'tresspassing' for any reason, they must verbally tell you that you have to leave. No different than someone who walks up to your door to sell you seomthing. Unless you have the legal signage telling them to not enter, then you have to tell them to leave. If they refuse, THEN they are trespassingsomething.

Doesn't matter if they are carryying a gun, not wearing shoes, or anything else you don't like, the laws are specific on what constitutes trespassing, carrying or not.

Hope that answers your quesiton.

And, lots of other posts before mine.

[wgoforth]

Hello, my first post here so I'm just begging to get myself flamed or kicked off, but here goes.

First, a little background. I'm very new to guns in general. I never owned one until I spent a year in Afghanistan as a contractor. That definitely changed my mind/opened my eyes. Since then I've got my collection up to 4, hoping to add more in the next few months. I'm waiting very impatiently for the DPS to process my paperwork. They received it April 6, and I'm not yet in the system to get fingerprints, etc.

On to the questions. My understanding is if a business has any other "no gun" sign besides to very specific 30.06, it does not apply to CHL holders. But if you are found to be carrying, they can issue you a verbal statement and you must either leave or be facing trespassing charges. Is this accurate?

Here is where my libertarian tendencies come out.

I don't understand why they have to verbally warn you before you can be cited for trespass. It's always a touchy subject when you are waying two peoples rights against each other. Your right to protection, vs. there right to control what is on there private property. In this case I feel pretty strongly that there property rights should be the one that governs. I know I want to have absolute control over what comes in and out of my property, and I don't know why I should have to verbally tell you when I have a sign posted.

I understand requiring a 30.06 sign to get someone for carrying illegally, but not for trespassing.

There are some communities, where half the shops in town have a "gun buster" or no firearms sign. If I suscribed to the view that ANY sign is sufficient, then may as well not have a CHL at all. Besides, what do they mean by the generic signage, I'm no mind reader. Since they have other signs, but not a 30.06, then I have to assume they are saying no guns UNLESS you have a CHL. AND, some post those signs to make the sheeple and/or insurance feel good, while the owners know full well it doesn't apply to CHL.

[WildBill]

There are some communities, where half the shops in town have a "gun buster" or no firearms sign. If I suscribed to the view that ANY sign is sufficient, then may as weell not have a CHL at all. Besides, what do they mean by those, I'm no mind reader. Since they have those signs, but not a 30.06, then I have to assume they are saying no guns UNLESS you have a CHL. AND, some post those signs to make the sheeple feel good, while the owners know full well it doesn't apply to CHL.

This actually deterred me from getting my CHL. That and the "Non Licensed Carry" signs on every grocery, gas station and convenience store that sells beer. It wasn't until I took my class that I realized that they didn't apply to CHL.

[wgoforth]

There are some communities, where half the shops in town have a "gun buster" or no firearms sign. If I suscribed to the view that ANY sign is sufficient, then may as weell not have a CHL at all. Besides, what do they mean by those, I'm no mind reader. Since they have those signs, but not a 30.06, then I have to assume they are saying no guns UNLESS you have a CHL. AND, some post those signs to make the sheeple feel good, while the owners know full well it doesn't apply to CHL.

This actually deterred me from getting my CHL. That and the "Non Licensed Carry" signs on every grocery, gas station and convenience store that sells beer. It wasn't until I took my class that I realized that they didn't apply to CHL.

I only realized shortly before taking my CHL class that was the case. I was listening to Tom Gresham on GunTalk and he was discussing specifc wording required. He said he took the "No gun" signs as a "suggestion."

[The Annoyed Man]

Look at that..... 10 responses so far, and not one flamethrower.

[Jasonw560]

Being married to a former business owner, I cam tell you that it is up to the business owner to do the legwork. If they are serious about not wanting decent, law-abiding citizens protecting themselves in their place of business, they will research it to make sure they are complyng with the law to the letter.

I think many are misinformed as to having a gunbuster sign as a deterrant. They might be told it will decrease liability issues, I just don't know.

[i8godzilla]

There are some communities, where half the shops in town have a "gun buster" or no firearms sign. If I suscribed to the view that ANY sign is sufficient, then may as well not have a CHL at all. Besides, what do they mean by the generic signage, I'm no mind reader. Since they have other signs, but not a 30.06, then I have to assume they are saying no guns UNLESS you have a CHL. AND, some post those signs to make the sheeple and/or insurance feel good, while the owners know full well it doesn't apply to CHL.

I always thought that sign was their way a telling me that they did not sell guns there....

[jimlongley]

An yes, legally they must post a 30.06 per state law to legally keep you from carrying.

Well,they could comply with the law by posting someone at the door to announce their anti-carry policy to each person entering, or they could give you a printed card with the proper language on it.

[Hoosier Daddy]

I don't understand why they have to verbally warn you before you can be cited for trespass.

They don't have to. They can post a compliant 30.06 sign instead.

Consider this scenario. A business posts a one-inch square gunbuster sticker on the door, or next to the cash register. You're carrying and honestly don't notice the little sticker. They suspect you're carrying and call the police. You're arrested and convicted of a Class A misdemeanor and sent to jail for a year. Does that sound fair?

In this case I feel pretty strongly that there property rights should be the one that governs. I know I want to have absolute control over what comes in and out of my property, and I don't know why I should have to verbally tell you when I have a sign posted.

I see your point and I believe a hoplophobe should be able to prohibit guns on his property to the same extent a homophobe is able to prohibit gays on his property. No more and no less. Equal.

I understand requiring a 30.06 sign to get someone for carrying illegally, but not for trespassing.

If someone is carrying illegally, or smoking pot illegally, no signs are required to arrest and prosecute.