TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

thetexan wrote:Agreed. But that traffic ticket doesn't make your defense attorney spend extra time and money producing evidence trying to prove the reasonableness of your decision to shoot to a jury who already has evidence that you do not obey the simplest of laws.

tex

The burden in criminal trial is on the prosecution, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that you broke the law, not on you to prove you're innocent. So first the prosecution is going to have to prove that you broke the law by walking past the non-compliant sign. After your defense takes them apart on that, they'll be left with trying to overcome the presumption of justification in 9.31 and 9.32, for shooting the bad guy...That's after they couldn't even prove you violated the 30.06 law on a stupid class C.

If you're NOT speeding... and a drunk jumps out in front of your car and is killed.... and the DA charges you with murder, they're going to have to start with proving you guilty of speeding...THEN prove that that contributed to the homicide. Enough hypotheticals that I'm just going to ignore non compliant signs.

Nope. Each element of any statutory crime from class c to third degree felony has the same proof requirement as it relates to the proof itself that is, it must be proven. The difficulty of that proof depends on that element. To prove a sign is non compliant may be as easy as proving you premeditated in a murder trial or as hard. But they both must be proven.

And while your defense attorney will try to instill reasonable doubt ( as opposed to proof as you say) he wouldn't have to do that had you not walked past a complaint sign. Or a non compliant sign the jury believes is "close enough". This is precisely the debate that is raging now about non compliance. Many people take a non compliant sign as good as the compliant. If people are so sure of themselves then why the debate. Walk past it. It will be easy to get off any Class C charge.

Oh yeah, the jury gets to decide that and with very closely compliant signs de minimis may play a factor as I have stated in other threads. So it's not necessarily a slam dunk. But it will take some litigation under the bridge to ever find out for sure.

I think we are in agreement

Agreed. But that traffic ticket doesn't make your defense attorney spend extra time and money producing evidence trying to prove the reasonableness of your decision to shoot to a jury who already has evidence that you do not obey the simplest of laws.

tex

As to the point about why worry about a class c for walking past a non compliant sign...

Let's visualize this.

You determine that a sign is non compliant so you assert your right and walk right in. Instead of a verbal warning the first indication of a problem is when you are greeted by a LEO who believes the sign is compliant. In any case you don't win the argument and are issued a ticket AND told you can't carry inside which permanently prohibits you.

So now you have your ticket and a decision to make, go to court or pay the ticket and get the record.

Somebody has got to be first. And you decide it's gonna be you. So you go to court and are promptly convicted. Oooooo, that wasn't expected! Again a decision to make, appeal or screw all this open carry crap. What do you do?

The answer to that is what is driving all of this "any form of sign is enough for me because I know the owner's intent and I don't want to go somewhere I'm not wanted or spend my money where they don't want my business" rationalization that has been the subject of countless posts on the forum.

A non-traffic class c is a Criminal Class C unless you take the time and trouble to fight to make the business account to the same law you do and force the issue at court or appeal.

As long as we assign more authority to non-compliant notifications than is deserved we will will continue to entertain each other with dances on the heads of pins and dreams of the way things could have been.

tex

RW19 wrote:My question is, does that sign meet the requirements of B(ii) and B (iii)?

In anticipation of my LTC in the next month, I've been looking for signs, but these signs do NOT stand out. In many cases, they're posted low, and the floors where I've been have been dark carpet or tile. The lettering doesn't stick out and I almost miss the sign each time.

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... wAr8w.dpuf

That's easy. It does not.

tex

ScottDLS wrote:

thetexan wrote:It's only a class c misdemeanor is a dangerous way to think. That's a big deal really in LTC land.

tex

Why is it dangerous to think that being charged for a class C for something that isn't illegal (walk past non-compliant sign) is not a big deal? I've gotten busted for "running" a yellow light. Rather than fight, I paid my Town to make it go away (aka deferred adjudication).

Walking past a non-compliant sign has not yet been interpreted in the appellate system so it is still a subjective roll of the dice where YOU are the one betting all of the chips

Here is the reason and it's a biggie.

After you have shot and killed someone in, what you hope the jury will believe is self defense, you and your defense attorney, in a desperate effort to keep you from spending 10 or 20 years taking knitting classes with a room mate named Francis, will have to prove to that jury that your belief that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death was, as per 9.31, REASONABLE. YOU will have to demonstrate this or, better stated, defend against a prosecutor's charge that it was not reasonable because reasonableness is one of the elements of the offense. All of this because you were committing a non-traffic Class C misdemeanor crime at the time of the shooting by trespassing against a 30.06 or 30.07 sign.

Had you not been committing that CRIME you could have been enjoying an attributed presumption of reasonableness required in the statute. In fact the court would instruct, not suggest, the jury to manditorily find your assessment of immediate necessity AS REASONABLE.

This presumes you were not engaged in a crime other than a traffic related Class C and did not provoke the person and he was using deadly force to commit one of the big six,which includes murder, or forcibly entering or trying to forcibly remove you from your habitation, place of business or work or vehicle.

That's a major part of your defense handed to you on a silver platter. Unless, of course, you toss it away by failing to recognize the stupidity of walking past a legitimate notification.

Whether or not the state sees a difference between a traffic and non-traffic Class C misdemeanor for other purposes is not the dangerous issue at stake here. In a criminal trial where your freedom would be at stake the compliant-NESS of the notification would most definately be a major factor in determining trespass which, in turn, goes to the entitlement to a presumption of reasonableness.

tex.

It's only a class c misdemeanor is a dangerous way to think. That's a big deal really in LTC land.

tex

jeffrw wrote:Today I noticed the following sign at my doctor's office:

20160121_115102-1.jpg

For those unable to view the picture, the English text reads: "Pursuant to Sections 30.06 and 30.07 Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with a Handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun or a handgun that is carried openly." (The equivalent Spanish follows.)

As you can see, the 30.06 and 30.07 language has been combined, attempting to ban both concealed and open carry in one sign instead of two separate signs. Is this a valid notification?

At the risk of...should I...no I shouldn't...should I really...(I having a battle with the little imp sitting on my shoulder)...ok...

At the risk of injecting a dozen previous threads into this which IS NOT MY INTENT let me say this about that...

Imagine a business that is rumored to not want anyone carrying guns but puts up no signs. In fact, we know the owner hates guns In his private life but has not taken the step of putting up signage. How many of us would carry there, certainly concealed and possibly even openly. Our willingness to carry openly in this situation (assuming we know of his hatred of guns) will be proportional to our willingness to risk being verbally notified which will serve as a permanent notice to us. The less we want to risk being verbally notified the less we will be willing to openly carry and openly test the resilience of the owner's resolve. That is why, under these circumstances LTCs would probably carry concealed.

Now imagine one day he puts up a sign that says "NO GUNS". Still non compliant but now the owner's discontent is visually expressed for all to see. We might still conceal carry but will probably or open carry for the reasons stated above.

One day he puts up a gun buster sign with some official looking but still non compliant wording with the same results.

Finally he puts up a sign that is a 30.06 and 30.07 combined sign. With the same results with a person possibly being unwilling, now, to conceal carry.

Why is this? In all cases we know of the owner's contempt for guns. In all cases this contempt is either known by reputation or by the posting of signs. Has the mere knowledge of an owner's disapproval of guns in his business become enough to keep us from entering past a non compliant sign in spite of the statutory requirement on his part to properly notify. Or is it the fear of being asked to leave with all of the ramifications of that, including embarrassment, permanence of verbal notification, desire to blend in and not draw attention to one's self (along with all of the advantages of that)?

Personally I believe that the need to stay armed and discretion being the better part of valor dictates that in situations like this one might choose to respect the non compliant "warning" to avoid the enevitable result of a permanent ban rising from a open carry.

I don't believe the non compliant 30.06 part would ward off many concealed carriers.

I think it would help that the AG clarify that oral notification is not permanent but on a ad hoc basis. He would then have to either tell me each and every time I open carry past his non compliant sign or put up proper signage to avoid the inconvenience.

tex

In their attempt to be innovative the did nothing but post a non compliant sign.

whether you wish to observe the non compliant sign and risk being given oral notification which permanently sticks to you like glue is up to you.

Most won't open carry past that sign. Many would conceal carry past that sign.

tex