Is this sign legal?

[sjfcontrol]

It's not " notice". It's a request for you to leave the premises. .

[apostate]

Sec. 30.05. (b)(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;




(emphasis added)

[b322da]

It's not " notice". It's a request for you to leave the premises. .

"Request?" How about "demand?" For example, is a conforming 30.06 sign a "request" that you not enter the premises?

Elmo

[sjfcontrol]

It's not " notice". It's a request for you to leave the premises. .

"Request?" How about "demand?" For example, is a conforming 30.06 sign a "request" that you not enter the premises?

Elmo

OK

[srothstein]

And there is no defense that I am aware of for the no shirt signs. You can be arrested for criminal trespass if you violate that sign.

Seriously? As I see it, the "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" sign doesn't even say, "Don't come in here barefoot (or you're guilty of 30.05)", it says, "If you come in here barefoot, we won't serve you." If the management (or an officer) then tells you to leave, and you don't, THEN you've violated 30.05. But you've violated it because you've been asked to leave and didn't, not because you're barefoot and disobeyed the sign.

So are you saying that somebody can make ANY condition a violation of 30.05 by posting a sign? I can open a store with a sign "Women must wear clothing that covers their ankles." (or their face), and it would then be a 30.05 violation if any woman enters displaying those body parts? (Again, if they're ask to leave BECAUSE they've violated the sign, and don't -- that would be a violation, but disobeying the sign wouldn't be -- as I see it. Am I wrong?)

Yes, you are incorrect on your interpretation of the law. You are correct that ANY condition can be put on a 30.05 sign and be legally enforceable, with the exception of those protected classes that would make the sign a civil rights violation. For example, you could not post a sign saying "no women allowed" but you could post the sign that you mentioned. And if a police officer is on the scene, he could make an arrest of any woman in the building that was in violation of the sign. The manager would not even have to be present or ask the person anything, and the officer would not have to ask the manager if they wanted the person arrested. It is a crime being committed in their presence or view.

It is weird to some, but Texas is a state that is very big on property owner rights. well, up to a point anyway.

[srothstein]

Steve,
Gun buster is not a 30.06 valid sign. What has to be proven is already proven by the post of gun-buster sign and not a valid 30.06 sign. It is like that Prosecutor has proven that offense happened (+1) but defense says, What is proven does not apply since posted gun-buster is not a valid 30.06 sign (-1). Net result is 0.

So why allow arrest if net result is 0 and in the US every suspect is assumed innocent until proven otherwise.
False arrest or arrest were there is defense to prosecution should never go on the criminal records, since such arrest have very negative consequences to the innocent people.

We allow the arrest because the crime occurred first. Think of the case of unlawfully carrying. It is generally illegal to walk around with a pistol. But, there is a defense if the pistol is concealed and the person has a CHL. So, what would happen when the computers are down and the officer cannot verify the CHL? Well, in the current system, the officer can make the arrest and the person goes free when he can prove he has a CHL. But the arrest would be just as valid as if the person did not have a CHL.

But, if we made proving the lack of a CHL part of the original offense, then the officer could not arrest anyone when the computers are not working. He could never prove that all of the elements of the offense were true since he could not prove the person did not have a CHL.

And while we are using the CHL laws and looking at minor things for our discussion, these same rules apply to major cases like murder. Self-defense is a justification to be proven later. But the officer can arrest when he can prove who committed the killing and he doesn't have to worry about the possible defense. If he had to prove every possible defense did not exist, we might not be able to ever make a criminal case.

The laws written this way also allow the police to make the basic case, and then only worry about the specific defenses that are raised by the defendant. I don't have to prove the person is not a CHL, security guard, traveler, police officer, engaged in hunting, etc. if I catch him with a gun. He simply has to prove the defense later.


As tot he arrests going on the record, this is a very real problem. The best we can do is allow for records to be expunged when there is no conviction within a time frame. A big part of this problem is the public condemnation for being arrested and charged. The public makes no real differentiation between arrest and conviction when they should. I think this is a relatively recent change in our society (last 50 years or so), starting with the concept of lifelong disabilities for being a convict.

[sjfcontrol]

And there is no defense that I am aware of for the no shirt signs. You can be arrested for criminal trespass if you violate that sign.

Seriously? As I see it, the "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" sign doesn't even say, "Don't come in here barefoot (or you're guilty of 30.05)", it says, "If you come in here barefoot, we won't serve you." If the management (or an officer) then tells you to leave, and you don't, THEN you've violated 30.05. But you've violated it because you've been asked to leave and didn't, not because you're barefoot and disobeyed the sign.

So are you saying that somebody can make ANY condition a violation of 30.05 by posting a sign? I can open a store with a sign "Women must wear clothing that covers their ankles." (or their face), and it would then be a 30.05 violation if any woman enters displaying those body parts? (Again, if they're ask to leave BECAUSE they've violated the sign, and don't -- that would be a violation, but disobeying the sign wouldn't be -- as I see it. Am I wrong?)

Yes, you are incorrect on your interpretation of the law. You are correct that ANY condition can be put on a 30.05 sign and be legally enforceable, with the exception of those protected classes that would make the sign a civil rights violation. For example, you could not post a sign saying "no women allowed" but you could post the sign that you mentioned. And if a police officer is on the scene, he could make an arrest of any woman in the building that was in violation of the sign. The manager would not even have to be present or ask the person anything, and the officer would not have to ask the manager if they wanted the person arrested. It is a crime being committed in their presence or view.

It is weird to some, but Texas is a state that is very big on property owner rights. well, up to a point anyway.

Thanks, Steve -- I learned something today. I had no idea I could legally prevent brown-eyed people wearing purple shorts from entering my business.