TexasCHLforum.com

JP171,

Unless I misunderstand your post, I think we are all in agreement (well, you, me, and the others you mentioned) on the difference between the sign being posted being enough and the sign actually having been seen. The law says the sign must be conspicuously posted and the court will use the reasonable man test. But, if you did not see the sign because you were distracted or sleepy or some similar reason, you will be found guilty if the reasonable man would have seen the sign.


Sugar Land Dave (and others concerned with teaching hospitals),

I just wanted to point out that this is just conventional wisdom and not the law. The law does not mention a teaching hospital as off-limits other than as a hospital. The legal problem is that the law does not adequately define what is a school. Is a teaching hospital a school or not under the law? In this forum, we cannot all agree on exactly what is a school. I think most administrators of a teaching hospital would claim it as a school, for several reasons (taxes and guns being just two). I also am confident that most of us would not see most teaching hospitals as schools, unless they were directly affiliated with the university that ran them.

One confusing example might be the VA hospital in San Antonio. Last time i was down in that area, the University of Texas had an agreement with the county hospital system to use the county hospital for part of its teaching duties. They even renamed the hospital to University Hospital (though it is owned and operated by the county). But the hospital also had an agreement with the VA hospital across the street to jointly provide services. There was even a tunnel under the street to connect the two hospitals. Many of the student doctors and nurses pulled shifts in the VA hospital. I don't think any court would consider the VA hospital a school, and I am not even sure they would the county hospital, despite its name. But I would not want to bet on it and I would stay clear of the VA hospital since it is federal anyway.

jbarn wrote:One could argue, as a defense, that the sign was not conspicuous because of it's placement. However, If there is a sign that meets the requirements of section 30.06 and you claim you didn't see it, the location could come into question, but not whether or not you saw it. Observing the sign is not an element of the offense, being given the notice is an element,

I think you and I are in agreement on this. The defense would have to be the placement was not conspicuous, not that the person did not see the sign.

Jbarn,

That is one of the legal questions that will need to be decided in a court. The law says:

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

It also defines the written communication as a conspicuously posted sign.

So, the actual law says that just posting the sign is enough. But I would bet that the court would look to define conspicuous as whether or not you actually saw the sign. Even if the judge did not do so, I would demand the jury trial if it was me and see if the jury bought into my claim that if I did not see it, the sign was not conspicuous enough. Of course, I don't think I could make that argument at someplace where the signs are like billboards on stands outside the building.