TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

jbarn wrote:
Wait, are you saying that if a 30.06 compliant sign is posted a conviction requires the state prove you saw the sign?

That would be my argument in this case if I had not seen it so I never received notice the location was off limits; wouldn't it be yours? We are not clairvoyant, so unless you see it how do you know?

No. My argument would be that the sign was not conspicuous; therefore, it was not reasonable for me to have seen it. Again, if it's at eye level right by or on the door; claiming you didn't see it would likely not be accepted as a defense. You'd have a tough time there even establishing reasonable doubt that it was not conspicuous.

Or I'll just close my eyes from now on when I enter a business.

srothstein wrote: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.

I am well aware of the law.....

But I do not believe seeing the sign is an issue. 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,

If the sign is at....eye level just for argument's sake, I don't think that arguing that since you were texting you didn't see it would be one to envoke a not guilty. And it certainly does not eliminate the PC required for an officer to make an arrest.

At any rate, the statement that if you don't see it you can carry is a dangerous one.

So I can just stop looking for 30.06 signs and claim, "haahaa, to bad I didn't see it?"

Good luck with that in court, y'all

WildBill wrote:

slotsavegas wrote:Here are a couple of pictures I took a couple of days ago.

The close-up of the sign is to provide a clear look at the wording.

I am primarily concerned with whether I broke the law the times I entered with my handgun prior to seeing
this notice.

Welcome to the forum.

I cannot see any pictures, but in my opinion you did not break the law since you were not given notice.

Since you have now seen the signs, you been given notice and you cannot enter without breaking the law.

Of course that assumes that the sign meets the legal requirements of a 30.06.

IANAL

Wait, are you saying that if a 30.06 compliant sign is posted a conviction requires the state prove you saw the sign?