TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:The Texas statutes regarding carry are not regulations, they are laws. Criminal laws in the case of 30.06/07. I think they are fairly well written, and being criminal in nature they generally must be interpreted in favor of the defendant if the facts are in doubt.

Regulations exist mostly at the federal level and they all must have enabling statutes. The bureaucracy is then responsible to draft the regulations in accordance with the enabling law. In my experience, they are rarely as clear as statutes, and are subject to wide ranging interpretation by non-lawyer officials, usually in favor of the government. If the FAA is able to draft regulations that are clearly understandable to non-lawyer pilots, they should give lessons to the IRS, EPA, FDA, USDA, SEC, and myriad other federal agencies as their expertise doesn't seem to have spread widely.

I think thetexan is trying to have one over on me. Anyone who holds some sort of Federal aviation certificate and has read the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) knows that even if pilots and mechanics had input, that the lawyers are the ones who wrote those things. The school I attended taught a whole class on them just to teach what was really in there, where to find relevant sections, and for us to understand what was most important, so we would know how to keep ourselves out of trouble with the FAA. Which is kind of what being on this forum will do for you.

We WERE discussing the rules and regulations (yes, Scott, I used that term earlier in a generic sense...I am quire aware of the difference between statutes, USC, CFR, promulgated regulations...I deal wth all of these daily)and now somehow you mooneyham want to talk about me instead of the merits of the discussion of the topic. I will rest my arguments on their merits. If you have something to offer perhaps you will do the same.

tex

I agree with that

K.Mooneyham wrote:

thetexan wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:*If this is not allowed, moderator please delete*

I want to ask "thetexan" one question: do you own some sort of business, such as a gas station, where you are trying to keep people from lawfully carrying handguns? I ask this because you seem extremely vehement about the whole thing, and I'm trying to understand why.

I'm happy to answer your question. No I do not own a business that has any bearing on this debate. I do own a service business. I have no self agenda except to bring focus to and promote assumption-free debate and analysis to what is a valuable learning environment.

It has been my experience that most regulations do not need "interpretation". Most regs are well written and do not require analytical gymnastics to understand. But many times the simplicity of the rule conflicts with what
we WANT the rules to say.

So I try to remove any of my own interpretations or biases when I state my case.

Any vehement passion you may detect is simply my attempting to bring straying arguments back to the reality of the statutes as written rather than interpretations and assumptions of what we want the rules to say.

Everyone is free to make their arguments and inputs and we can all determine what makes sense. Everyone can contribute and the free flow of ideas and collective wisdom will benefit us all. Logic and rational, reasoned thought, I trust, will always rule the day.

tex

What sort of a "service business" might that be? Despite your assurances of no self agenda, I just feel that something must be driving your intense opinion on the subject. The motivations of individuals tell me a lot about things in life. Me, I'm not police or a lawyer nor anything of the sort, just an aircraft mechanic. As an aircraft mechanic, I like things to be as concrete as they can be, something either is or is not. I don't care for ambiguities nor sophistry.

My business is an instructIona's services business. Ian an instructor pilot, I teach grind school at a college. I teach firearm instruction. All wrapped up in a single business.

My motivation is that whatever the subject is that we study it and learn it with as little interpretations s possible as was intended by the authors. If you have been keeping up then you know I have made this clear in this and many other threads.

When you were licensed by the FAA you did and still are required to follow the regs and ADs exactly as written. You are the first person I would expect to understand my passion for the correct application of the rule. We discuss the law and its application and you are a welcome contributor.

tex

K.Mooneyham wrote:*If this is not allowed, moderator please delete*

I want to ask "thetexan" one question: do you own some sort of business, such as a gas station, where you are trying to keep people from lawfully carrying handguns? I ask this because you seem extremely vehement about the whole thing, and I'm trying to understand why.

I'm happy to answer your question. No I do not own a business that has any bearing on this debate. I do own a service business. I have no self agenda except to bring focus to and promote assumption-free debate and analysis to what is a valuable learning environment.

It has been my experience that most regulations do not need "interpretation". Most regs are well written and do not require analytical gymnastics to understand. But many times the simplicity of the rule conflicts with what
we WANT the rules to say.

So I try to remove any of my own interpretations or biases when I state my case.

Any vehement passion you may detect is simply my attempting to bring straying arguments back to the reality of the statutes as written rather than interpretations and assumptions of what we want the rules to say.

Everyone is free to make their arguments and inputs and we can all determine what makes sense. Everyone can contribute and the free flow of ideas and collective wisdom will benefit us all. Logic and rational, reasoned thought, I trust, will always rule the day.

tex

By the way, most property considered public is actually private. All of these are private property.

The Exxon world headquarters and it parking lots and grounds.

The gas station on the corner.

The bank

Etc

Just because you as the public can go on their property doesn't make it public property. You are there as a personal guest of the owner with his effective consent which he may give or retract at his direction and pleasure.

tex

pt145ss wrote:

Archery1 wrote:It does no fit because public property is not private. We are part owners of public property, so restricting its use by us is legislated differently.

Where in .06/.07 does it distinguish a difference in public vs private? 46.035 does not use the term property anywhere and .06/07 uses the word property but does not carve out public vs. private. So it would be logical to assume that .06/.07 signs have the same meaning regardless of being posted on private or public property. Yet some are asserting that when on private property .06/.07 covers the entire property but when posted on public property it only covers the specific area being posted.

Again, I go back to the private school scenario. Private schools are not public property. They premises part of the school is statutorily off limits. I think most would agree that posting a .06/07 at the entrance of the private school building would be redundant and unnecessary because it is already off limits. I also think that most would agree that posting at the entrance to the build does not render the parking lot and driveway off limits. A private school, would need to post signs at the entrance to the driveways if they wanted to stop carry in the parking lot.

Would you agree with that? And if so, would that not mean that location of signs are important in indicating what areas of the property are off limits?

Back to the OP. If we apply this same logic to a gas station, a sign posted at the entrance to the store would indicate that the store itself is off limits but the pumps are OK. Furthermore, if the owners wanted to stop carry at the pumps they would need to post signs at each driveway or have sign at/near the pumps.

Not at all. Public property is mostly covered in statute. Most public property is owned by governmental entities and they are prohibited from posting by statute.


To assert that location of the sign gives additional meaning or interpretation to the message on this particular sign is not supported in the statute. This is because of the general wording on the sign. If it read, in part, "...beyond this point..." Or something similar then location would be an integral part of its interpretation.

As it stands now everything you attribute to the "logical" meaning of the sign being based on placement is entirely dependent on your interpretation of what you believe or what "logically" the owner's intentions are regarding what he is trying to accomplish; something you may guess at but cannot possibly factually know.

For all you know HE DOES want to prohibit guns on his entire property, and as far as 30.06 requirements, posting the 30.06 conspicuously and clearly visible to the public at the air pumps accomplishes the requirements of the statute for notification.

tex

Perhaps the sign should read " ...past this point on this property..."

tex

jkurtz wrote:

30.06b states, "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 clearly[?] states that notice has to be provided to the individual. Simply posting a sign, especially if it is not clearly visible to the individual, is not providing them notice.

Would you agree that a business owner has provided effective notice if they verbally declare that they do no allow any form of carry in their business, even if no customers are present? What if there are customers present, but the owner only mumbles is under their breath out of audible range?

The reason I ask is because you have previously stated that the law does not specify that one needs to see a sign to have received notice. The law doesn't state that one needs to hear the oral notification to receive notice either, but I doubt you would agree that the shop owner verbally stating their opinion absent of customers has effectively given notice.

All I can do is explain the my logic to which you will either agree or disagree. Here it is...

The language of 30.06 can be rewritten combining appropriate phrases, thusly...

(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 communication, or by (now substituting the definition of written communication)
(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 at each entrance to the property.

Oral communication is clearly understood by its common meaning and usage (absent any superseding definition, as per canons of statutory interpretation). Written communication is specifically defined by the statute. So there is a difference in the application of communication in the wording...oral communication is communication between two people...written communication is otherwise defined with specificity and as such does not require anything more than what is specified in the paragraph that begins "WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS MEANS...".

This difference between the two, logically, in what constitutes communication is also the reason oral communication of the notification is a permanent prohibition and the written sign only lasts as long as it is posted. Because of the nature of the communication, oral vs a specifically defined written notification via signage.

By the way, I do not state that one does not need to see the sign, I state that the rule does not require that one see the sign. I simply read the rule as is trying not to assume anything, especially since, as a human with an agenda, it is to my advantage that I find a way to make the rule say what I want it to say.

Why should the rule require more than it says now? The legislators could not possibly write a statute guaranteeing by fiat that postings be so numerous as to ensure all would see it. All they would need to ensure is that the signs are clearly visible to "the public" by their conspicuousness and by doing so can ensure that "the public" is made aware or should be aware of their existence to a minimum legal certainty. 30.07 went on to specify postings at entrances for whatever reasons only the legislators can explain.

So I believe your assertion and conclusion that "simply posting a sign especially when it is not clearly visible to the individual" (this is where you insert a non-relevant straw assertion not included in the statute) "is not providing them notice" is a flawed conclusion based on elements not even present in the rule, ("the public" is what is referred to...you stretch that to mean a personalized, individualized notification and that level of specificity is not found in the rule) nor is required by a supposed common application of logic between oral and specifically defined written communications, the former requiring communication between people and the latter requiring none.


tex

jkurtz wrote:
My point was that just because something is posted or marked, does not mean it is done in an effective manner, thus not providing notice.

Says who, you? With all respect, we can't have a intellectual discussion about this if we keep throwing out assertions as fact. You are missing the entire point of the notice issue. The state of Texas HAS DEFINED...H A S D E F I N E D... in writing what constitutes notification! We don't have to guess, interpret or otherwise. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, and most of all you don't have to apply sense to it, common or otherwise. The law defines when you have been notified. That is, when the owner had properly posted SOMEWHERE on his property a compliant 30.07 sign that has been conspicuously posted visible to the public.

The sign's prohibition applies to his property. A gas station's sign can be at the door of the store, at the air pumps, at the gas pumps, at the drive entrance, on the grass or under the Exxon sign and it prohibits CC on the very same property. That's not me saying this, that's the sign saying it..."PROPERTY!!". There isn't a 30.06 sign just for doors, and another one for gas pumps, or a different one for drive entrances. IF, IF the owner meant to prohibit CC only at the gas pumps he would be REQUIRED BY LAW to use the very same sign!

You don't even have to know the sign exists for the purpose of notification fulfillment...NOT ACCORDING TO 30.06!

Let me ask this...Do you (rhetorical you) know all of the states traffic laws? Do you know all the states banking laws and regulations? Are you aware of all of the state's gaming laws? What is going to be your excuse if you break one of these out of ignorance of their existence? Are you going to ask the judge to please let you go because you weren't aware that you had to report cash withdrawals over $10000? What is your defense...ignorance of the law? Or do you suppose that the court will require you to know what you are doing and, in any case, take responsibility for your actions?

I don't know where you live but I can assure you of this...YOU PERSONALLY are in a state of having been notified that the Longview Mall is 30.06 prohibited simply because the mall has fulfilled it's posting requirements under 30.06...and that is all that is required in 30.06 to meet the definition of notification. You, me, and everyone are notified, and you probably have never even been to the mall much less seen a sign. I have been notified of every 30.06 location in Marfa and I have never even been there...assuming they have properly posted compliant signs.

None of this requires any interpretation or common sense...AS FAR AS READING THE ACTUAL LAW IS CONCERNED!

NOW...if you want to apply common sense and interpretation in a real world situation then I might agree with you in thinking that it makes sense that one would need to see the sign. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE RULE STATES AS WRITTEN.

That's all...no biggie...the legislators wrote what they wrote and probably could have written it better. They seemed to make an attempt to clarify with 30.07. One might infer that by clarifying .07 they were, in effect, admitting that .06 needed clarification. It seems strange that they would pass up the opportunity to do so while focusing on clarifying .07. They chose to leave it as is.

Personally, I might loosely interpret .06 to my advantage just like everyone else. But I can't intellectually twist the clear meaning of .06 to support my doing so. I would have to hope that a jury would accept my defense of being unaware of the signage, with probably the same result of trying to convince them that I was unaware of the 55 mph speed limit when I was caught going 75...

"I wasn't notified of the speed limit...didn't see the sign your honor".

tex

pt145ss wrote:I must admit that I only scanned through this post but something that keeps jumping out at me. The topic header insinuates 30.06 and 30.07. Then someone makes the argument about "property" in that a sign anywhere on the property (assuming it is consicous) renders the enite property off limits... for example at the gas pumps when the sign is at the door to the building.

My question is how do we reconile that logic, seemingly bolstered by 30.006, with 30.07. 30.07 uses the same term "Property" but goes a little further and says it must be visible from each enterence to the property. Following that logic, is a 30.07 sign invalid because it is on the door of the building and may not be visible from each enterence to the property? As in many cases, where a gas station has side enterences to the "property."

Does the meaning of property change from 30.06 to 30.07?

Is it logical or illogical to use government meetings as an example. City council can post 30.06 signs in meeting rooms when meeting are taking place... Does that mean the entire building is off limits or does that mean the room where the meeting is is off limits?

Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.

(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.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"; 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 at each entrance to the property.

Don't confuse the requirements for proper posting of the sign itself with the message that is on the sign. What if the sign said "NO ELEPHANTS ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY" and the requirements for proper sign posting said that these signs had to be posted specifically on each mail box. The two have nothing to do with each other.

tex

Archery1 wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean here, but right after the underlined part, there is the word "to" the person. It doesn't mean for the person to find out, it means actually "to" that person. That would mean a sign I cannot see is not notice to me until I see it. None of which alleviates me of knowing how they are supposed to get it to me.

We are debating two different things. I am stating what the raw law states. There are many instances where non-individualized public notice serves as notice. So the concept exists however I don't believe we even have to resort to that. If the intent is to give defense to visually spotting the sign for notice to have been given then the rule is written poorly since it clearly does not require that without interpretation. This is probably evidenced by the inclusion of clarifying language in the new 30.07 requiring posting at entrances. This just supports the idea that the legislature realized that 30.06 in fact DOES NOT SPECIFY a requirement to be seen, or at least, conspicuousness, for their purposes, needed to be more clearly specified.

Your position is that common sense and a pleading of ignorance will suffice at trial, and perhaps it will.

It is what it is and we each have to make the determination on how it applies to each of us.

Getting back to the original point of the thread...both .06 and .07 say and mean "property", (or at least we have no right to assume they don't mean).
Again, it is what it is.

tex

ScottDLS wrote:

thetexan wrote:Take this example....

The mall places a giant 40x70 billboard in there parking lot close to the street. On it is printed in 2 foot letters in contrasting colors the IDENTICAL language prescribed in 30.06 in English and also in Spanish. And maybe even Chinese also!

Is the sign posted on the authority of the owner or one acting for the owner as required in 30.06b of the sign notification rule? Presumably so.

Is the sign posted on the property as required in 30.06c3b?
Certainly.

Does the sign meet the language specificity, language, letter size and color contestation requirements of 30.06c3b. Yes as given.

Is the sign conspicuously displayed as per 30.06c3biii? If this doesn't meet the common definition and usage of conspicuous what does? The rule does not specify to which group of persons the sign must be conspicuous.

And, finally, is the billboard clearly visible to the public? Absolutely. The rule does not specify to which group of persons the sign must be visible.

This all becomes much more clearly understood when you remember that the sign language prohibits handguns on "property" rather necessarily, than through entrance doors.

If you enter on the black side of the mall and do not see the sign do you have an excuse, the question goes.

Yes. Read the statute! I quote from 30.06, "For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner...provides notice TO THE PERSON by oral or written communication...[by] a sign posted on the property that...is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public AND WHICH IS VISUALlY OBSERVED BY THE PERSON...".

Now I'm being sarcastic! The statute does not require anything from you for you to be notified and certainly does not specify that you see the sign. It doesn't require your observance of the sign. It only requires that the sign be compliant and posted as per the clearly understood meaning of the requirements of the rule for you to have received notification.

Anything beyond this is interpretation for which you are responsible if you interpret incorrectly and are caught.

We want "conspicuous" to fit into to our narrow definition that serves our purpose but the words on the page do not go to that level of specificity. The seeming "confusion" between the word "property" and "premises" along with an undeserved attribution of legal importance to the physical location of a sign as to the meaning of the words on the sign also serves our purpose. Confusion and convolution are two of the most ancient of argumentive tactics.

I have just given you an example of a billboard that complies with the law, as hypothetical as that may be. The point is...with this rule or any rule...be careful to know when you are subconsciously inserting interpretations or hearsay or rumor or unmerited presumption into the raw reading of the rules.

The words say exactly what they say...nothing more...nothing less assuming appropriate and scholarly statutory interpretation.

If you TRULY did not see the sign at the door then that will be your defense against the charge that it does not matter and it will be up to a jury and possibly an appellate court to render a judgement of what "conspicuous" and "clearly visible to the public" is.

What practical effect this has on everyday CC or OC is another topic. tex

The elements of the crime (Trespass) require that you carry a handgun under authority of CHL, without effective consent, and RECEIVED NOTICE.... Notice is then defined as (among other things) a SIGN posted conspicuously.

If you didn't see the sign, then it's going to be up to the State to prove that you "received notice" and entered the property before you get your $200 ticket. It's a criminal matter so the elements of the crime have to be established to a high level of certainty. It's fine that the gigantic billboard constituted notice, but did you receive this notice? No you didn't because you didn't see it. So the prosecution has to establish a falsehood to the satisfaction of your JP court jury before you get convicted (wrongly). I'm not saying it won't or hasn't happened.

I don't have to guess...

(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.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) “Written communication” means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing 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.

We have a clear definition of notice. Please highlight the portion that requires you to see the sign, or where "conspicuous" is defined.

If one wants to interpret his way to concealed carry bliss then be my guest. But most of the people I talk to, in this discipline and others don't know the difference between pre-interpreted, pre-digested rumor from the real thing because most do not even know the rule and what it says as a foundation. I am simply giving the rule as is. I add no interpretation to it one way or the other. Feel free to believe it means anything you wish.

tex

Archery1 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Archery1 wrote:Ambiguity of notice does provide a defense, but as a gun carrier, so does responsibility provide us a duty. There's nothing written that says you have to know every possible ambiguous scenario that surrounds your legal notice or lack thereof to carry on personal property, but there does exist some duty to become educated on where you might carry. I might hunt a vast open and non-fenced space, but I better know the boundaries between my hunt and off-limits areas that are not my hunt unless I want to explain my actions to others in Court.

I am not sure of the meaning of this statement. Can you clarify or give an example that explains what you mean?

See the example of the gas pump. Yes, if they post it on the door and not the entrance, you don't have good notice if you can't see it. If they call the cops and you get ticketed, that's your defense against the ticket. Is that automatic? Well, think of what the judge might say: "You are the one wanting to carry a gun on private property, you were trained what the signs looks like, you know they typically post them at the door, so why didn't you look there then pump?" So, what I mean is that I have a good defense that I can't look everywhere for signs before entering, but I also have a prosecution in that I do know where to look.

According to you. Not according to law. There is NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SEE THE SIGN for the fulfillment of the specifications of notification to you according to 30.06.

30.06b states...

(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.

What if the statute read..." a person receives notice when the owner washes his car". In either case is there no requirement for you to do anything including actually see the sign. You can not say "you don't have good notice" unless you have interjected you own interpretation into the reading because the rule simply does not require you to see it. A BLIND MAN HAS RECEIVED NOTICE according to the strict reading of the rule.

Whether you can use your "lack of seeing" as a defense is up in the air. Perhaps you can test this for us.

tex

Take this example....

The mall places a giant 40x70 billboard in there parking lot close to the street. On it is printed in 2 foot letters in contrasting colors the IDENTICAL language prescribed in 30.06 in English and also in Spanish. And maybe even Chinese also!

Is the sign posted on the authority of the owner or one acting for the owner as required in 30.06b of the sign notification rule? Presumably so.

Is the sign posted on the property as required in 30.06c3b?
Certainly.

Does the sign meet the language specificity, language, letter size and color contestation requirements of 30.06c3b. Yes as given.

Is the sign conspicuously displayed as per 30.06c3biii? If this doesn't meet the common definition and usage of conspicuous what does? The rule does not specify to which group of persons the sign must be conspicuous.

And, finally, is the billboard clearly visible to the public? Absolutely. The rule does not specify to which group of persons the sign must be visible.

This all becomes much more clearly understood when you remember that the sign language prohibits handguns on "property" rather necessarily, than through entrance doors.

If you enter on the back side of the mall and do not see the sign do you have an excuse, the question goes.

Yes. Read the statute! I quote from 30.06, "For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner...provides notice TO THE PERSON by oral or written communication...[by] a sign posted on the property that...is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public AND WHICH IS VISUALlY OBSERVED BY THE PERSON...".

Now I'm being sarcastic! The statute does not require anything from you for you to be notified and certainly does not specify that you see the sign. It doesn't require your observance of the sign. It only requires that the sign be compliant and posted as per the clearly understood meaning of the requirements of the rule for you to have received notification.

Anything beyond this is interpretation for which you are responsible if you interpret incorrectly and are caught.

We want "conspicuous" to fit into to our narrow definition that serves our purpose but the words on the page do not go to that level of specificity. The seeming "confusion" between the word "property" and "premises" along with an undeserved attribution of legal importance to the physical location of a sign as to the meaning of the words on the sign also serves our purpose. Confusion and convolution are two of the most ancient of argumentive tactics.

I have just given you an example of a billboard that complies with the law, as hypothetical as that may be. The point is...with this rule or any rule...be careful to know when you are subconsciously inserting interpretations or hearsay or rumor or unmerited presumption into the raw reading of the rules.

The words say exactly what they say...nothing more...nothing less assuming appropriate and scholarly statutory interpretation.

If you TRULY did not see the sign at the door then that will be your defense against the charge that it does not matter and it will be up to a jury and possibly an appellate court to render a judgement of what "conspicuous" and "clearly visible to the public" is.

What practical effect this has on everyday CC or OC is another topic.

tex

Keeping in mind that the wording says "property...

If the sign was posted at the street entrance would you have any question what the word "property" means?

Yes No

If the sign was posted at the pumps would you have any doubt as to the meaning of the word "property"?

Yes No

If the sign is posted at the entrance to the store would you have a different definition of the word "property".

Yes No

If you carefully read paragraph 30.06d use of "property" seems contextually clear. 30.06e uses both "premises" and "property" in contrasting context which seems to confirm a "one sign does all" mechanism. In other words 30.06e shows the authors of the statute know how to use both words in a sentence and have distinguished a different meaning between the two.

But 30.06c3b says it all when it declares that you have received notice when a sign is posted on the "property". It doesn't specify where. ONE sign on a property meets this clear requirement. There is nothing to suggest that mere physical location and placement of the sign has any legally defined importance to the application of the rule.

If one's claim is that they pumped gas with no knowledge that the sign on the door way over there existed then one would have to read into the statute that one's visually seeing the sign is a required element of the notification definition in 30.06b when it clearly is not.

There are two definitions of "premises" we use in LTC...one in 46.02 and the other in 46.03 and 46.035. Neither is which are relevant to the use of the word "property" in 30.06 or 30'.07. The definition of "property" is defined in numerous Texas codes specific for each section. However they are all common definitions contextually identical to the common definition and everyday usage of "property" and there is no superseding sectional definition for "property in 30.06 or 30.07.

30.06 and 30.07 work in concert with the general trespass section 30.05 which exclusively used the word "property". I know of no one who has any difficulty understanding the meaning of the word "property" in that statute.

Everyone is quick to point out that a government entity can not post .06 or .07 to prohibit handguns on their "PROPERTY"! so everyone seems to understand what "property" means.

A sign that can be used at the drive-in entrance to a business with equal legal muscle as the identical sign posted at the door to a building can do so only if there is no ambiguity in its statutorily defined use. And love and behold...there is no such statutory ambiguity.

If one chooses to ignore the sign at the door as not applying at the pumps does so by interpretaion, not by the clear reading of the law.

The owner, who has the authority to prohibit whom he wishes and to post a .06 sign on his property may do so anywhere on his property. 30.07 is the first example of location being a part of the posting requirement but we still have the use of the word "property" even on the .07 sign.

What all of this means in a court case is up in the air and presumably yet to be tested. Remember there could be many court cases involving this matter that we know nothing about simply because they have not been appealed and findings published.

In short, the physical location of a posted sign has no bearing on the legal meaning of the words on that sign. And, we can't read the mind of the owner to know if he just means the building or the entire property including the pumps.

tex