TexasCHLforum.com

snapcap45 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:00 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:42 pm

snapcap45 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:03 pm The HEB I shop at on Research Blvd in Northwest Austin used to have 30.07 signs on their two front doors. A couple days after Constitutional Carry started they updated the signs on their doors to the new 30.05 unlicensed carry signs.

Did they keep the 30.07? If not you could theoretically open carry in there with a license though I'm pretty sure they'd verbally notify you not to.

They did not keep the 30.07 sign. So I guess I can open carry.

Good luck with that...

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:11 am

cyphertext wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:50 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:41 am

Liberty wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:16 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:52 am It sure sounds like HEB is anti 2nd amendment. We have one opening in Plano soon. I will be skipping a visit to that grocery store.

If they were anti 2nd amendment, they would post a 30.07 sign also. I think they a just "Karen" appeasers.

There are a couple of restraunts that I won't go to because of their Dress code. I hate wearing neckties. I won't go to nudist camps or beaches either. I don't care for their dress codes.

No. they are anti gun. No getting around it. "Karen" has no clue what 30.05 means. None what so ever. "Karen" does not even read those signs. Claiming one is against constitutional carry IS anti second amendment. Whether they are honest with themselves or not. The second amendment has NO provision for special approval from the government.

You are correct that Karen may not know what the signs mean or even read the signs... But what HEB knows about Karen is that she freaks out at the sight of a firearm. HEB isn't in the gun business, they want to sell groceries to Karen so they ask their customers who carry firearms to just keep them concealed. But, with the new unlicensed carry, they don't have a way to post a sign to restrict open carry only, so they post the legal sign. If they were an anti gun company, they would post all the signs to keep all firearms, licensed or unlicensed out. See Zales Jewelers and Kay Jewelers for example.

Do that have this opinion listed somewhere in their policies or is this just conjecture on your part?

A simple check of texas3006.com will confirm that HEB regularly posts 30.07 signs, but not 30.06.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:41 am

Liberty wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:16 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:52 am It sure sounds like HEB is anti 2nd amendment. We have one opening in Plano soon. I will be skipping a visit to that grocery store.

If they were anti 2nd amendment, they would post a 30.07 sign also. I think they a just "Karen" appeasers.

There are a couple of restraunts that I won't go to because of their Dress code. I hate wearing neckties. I won't go to nudist camps or beaches either. I don't care for their dress codes.

No. they are anti gun. No getting around it. "Karen" has no clue what 30.05 means. None what so ever. "Karen" does not even read those signs. Claiming one is against constitutional carry IS anti second amendment. Whether they are honest with themselves or not. The second amendment has NO provision for special approval from the government.

You are correct that Karen may not know what the signs mean or even read the signs... But what HEB knows about Karen is that she freaks out at the sight of a firearm. HEB isn't in the gun business, they want to sell groceries to Karen so they ask their customers who carry firearms to just keep them concealed. But, with the new unlicensed carry, they don't have a way to post a sign to restrict open carry only, so they post the legal sign. If they were an anti gun company, they would post all the signs to keep all firearms, licensed or unlicensed out. See Zales Jewelers and Kay Jewelers for example.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:25 pm

cyphertext wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:22 pm ...
When the bill says "substantially similar", that leaves a lot open to interpretation. If they want to to preclude entry by signage, the bill should state "shall", not "may"... just like many states moved from "may" issue to "shall" issue on concealed carry license. Ambiguity is not good in law... creates loopholes and unintended consequences.
...

You can be the test case if you like. Funny that you bring up the purple paint markers... those seem to be a lot harder to understand the meaning of than the no guns pictograph.

Substantially similar is not THAT vague a term. In fact, I don't think it's vague at all in the context of what we're discussing. A sticker with NO writing in NO language is not substantially similar to the prescribed sign.

Granted, all this stuff is subject to interpretation. However, in criminal cases the burden is on the prosecution and all the elements of the crime must be proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. I "reasonably doubt" that a sticker is substantially similar to the format and wording of the sign prescribed in 30.05.

We're never going to get the proverbial "test case" for the same reason that we will never get one for the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act (TAM should be very impressed that I worked that into this thread ). The circumstances are so unlikely to occur for it to be tested:

-You conceal past a sticker, that you may or may not have noticed, without having a LTC.
-A store employee notices and rather than asking you to depart, calls the police.
-The police rather than telling the store employee to tell you to leave, actually comes to the store.
-The police officer confronts you before you have left the store and makes you leave the store.
-The police officer detains or arrests you for a no jail $200 class C ticket in order to search you so that he may discover that you actually were carrying and it wasn't just your insulin pump.
-The cop writes you the ticket.
-The county (JP) prosecutor or municipal attorney decides to go to trial even after you insist that you didn't see the sign.
-You ask for a jury trial, as is your right.
-The prosecutor proves to the jury that the witness actually saw a concealed handgun (through your concealment) and that it wasn't in fact your insulin pump.
-Prosecutor establishes that you received notice despite notice being defined as a sign "substantially similar" to one with 1" letters, 2 languages, and specific wording as compared to the sticker.
-The Justice of the Peace or Municipal Judge lets this go to the jury.
-The jury convicts
-You appeal
-The appellate court rules despite all of the above that a circle / gun sticker is in fact substantially similar.
- It becomes case law.

I agree that it probably doesn't matter for concealed carry. May be different for open carry.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:57 pm

cyphertext wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:10 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:02 am

..."substantially similar" to the "big ugly sign" spelled out in PC 30.05... The law should say what it means, period...

Do you not see how these two statements contradict each other? I agree, the law should say what it means, not "substantially similar" or "may".

I'm fine with the signs not carrying the force of law. After all, if a business posts 30.05 but not 30.07 (which isn't likely), how would they know if the patron is carrying unlicensed or under the LTC without asking?

This whole "may" and substantially similar issue is a complete red herring, drummed up by [prepaid legal service] in a poorly articulated FAQ that I contend is designed more to drum up business for [prepaid legal service] than to inform.

A sticker with a circle / pictogram is not REMOTELY similar to the language or format specified in the revised 30.05 statute. Instead of purple paint markers and "no trespassing" signs posted on trees, are we now to look for little stickers?

The "may" word in the statute is very simple to understand. If the owner wants to provide notice they "may" post the specified sign, or they "may" inform you orally, OR they "may" not do either, in which case they didn't provide notice under 30.05. If they don't so one of these two ways then they haven't provided you notice. In 30.06/7 there's no may OR shall, there is simply a description of notice. The word is legally meaningless in the context of the 30.05 statute, at least in the way that [pre-paid legal service] wants you to believe.

I agree that they are probably taking a harder stance then necessary and don't want to foot the bill to fight it if it was to go to court so they are telling their customers to take the most conservative approach, but I don't think it is a red herring at all. When the bill says "substantially similar", that leaves a lot open to interpretation. If they want to to preclude entry by signage, the bill should state "shall", not "may"... just like many states moved from "may" issue to "shall" issue on concealed carry license. Ambiguity is not good in law... creates loopholes and unintended consequences.
You can be the test case if you like. Funny that you bring up the purple paint markers... those seem to be a lot harder to understand the meaning of than the no guns pictograph.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:02 am

..."substantially similar" to the "big ugly sign" spelled out in PC 30.05... The law should say what it means, period...

Do you not see how these two statements contradict each other? I agree, the law should say what it means, not "substantially similar" or "may".

I'm fine with the signs not carrying the force of law. After all, if a business posts 30.05 but not 30.07 (which isn't likely), how would they know if the patron is carrying unlicensed or under the LTC without asking?

Flightmare wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:00 am

cyphertext wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:09 am

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:13 am The "big ugly signs" allow property owners to retain their rights, and those same signs function to keep those carrying out of trouble (as long as the signs are heeded).

So I guess this is where we disagree... I look at this very simply. Again, I know what the law states, this is just my opinion...

LTC (legal hoops to carry) = 30.06 /30.07 sign required(legal hoops to deny) The equation is balanced. Both sides are complying with extra measures imposed by regulation. You took a state required class to understand all the signs and what they mean, and businesses post those legal signs that you were taught to look for.

Unlicensed carry (no legal hoops) = 30.05 sign required (legal hoops to deny) This is not balanced. Unlicensed carriers don't take training and may not even know to look for signs barring their entry. So something prominently posted, in plain everyday language makes more sense to me. Something that someone would know what is meant by it by just seeing it, not stopping to read in detail. The circle slash gun buster sign is clear... people have understood pictographs since the dawn of time (think cave drawings). No English and Spanish needed.

One only has to visit OCT Facebook page to see that many gunowners in general do not understand the laws. And new carriers are turning to groups like that for information, not the actual law. People over there are arguing that the signs at HEB are not legal because they are not "contrasting colors" and hard to see... yet they were easy enough to see to argue about, as well as take pictures. Even with proper signage, folks are looking for a loophole.

One counter to your argument about the gun buster signs is the statutorily stated 30.05 signs actually indicate the specific section of the penal code that outlines the trespass law regarding unlicensed carry. People from other states may see a gun-buster sign and interpret that to mean how it does in their own state. In many states, it has no force of law. In some, it does. It would potentially also cause confusion when an uninformed and unlicensed individual sees a licensed individual carry past a sign, not knowing that the person had a license and the gun-buster only applied to unlicensed as opposed to ALL carry. By having the appropriate PC reference and language that specifically states "unlicensed" carry, as opposed to an arguably ambiguous gunbuster pictograph, it makes it easier to understand specifically what is being asked of patrons entering.

While I do not agree with a business' decision to post compliant signage, I appreciate being able to see that from a distance. If the location is a place I need to go, the last thing I want is to have to turn around and store my firearm in my vehicle. Criminals are often looking for opportunities to get their hands on weapons. A person walking up to a building, only to turn around to their vehicle and put something inside makes it fairly obvious what was being stored there.

The uninformed are uninformed... they no more understand the 30.05 sign any more than they understand the 51% sign, or 30.06 or 30.07. They would have the same question if there was a 30.05 sign but no 30.07 and they saw someone openly carrying. For people coming from other states, it is their responsibility to understand our laws (especially if carrying under a reciprocity agreement). Also, the new sign is not as specific as the 30.06 and 30.07 due to that phrase "substantially similar"... what does that really mean? If a sign says "Do not enter with a firearm", does that meet the "substantially similar" requirement? Or how about "No guns allowed"?

And there is another weasel word in there on 30.05. It states "A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:..." It doesn't say shall provide with the specific language, it states may. All of this are points that would be argued within a training class, which the unlicensed carrier is not going to take. This is why I say it is complicated and ambiguous and may require a court case to create case law.

I also appreciate seeing it from a distance, but with 3 legal signs now, you can't always read them from the parking lot. When it was only 30.06, it was simple! Now I actually have to read signs.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:13 am The "big ugly signs" allow property owners to retain their rights, and those same signs function to keep those carrying out of trouble (as long as the signs are heeded).

So I guess this is where we disagree... I look at this very simply. Again, I know what the law states, this is just my opinion...

LTC (legal hoops to carry) = 30.06 /30.07 sign required(legal hoops to deny) The equation is balanced. Both sides are complying with extra measures imposed by regulation. You took a state required class to understand all the signs and what they mean, and businesses post those legal signs that you were taught to look for.

Unlicensed carry (no legal hoops) = 30.05 sign required (legal hoops to deny) This is not balanced. Unlicensed carriers don't take training and may not even know to look for signs barring their entry. So something prominently posted, in plain everyday language makes more sense to me. Something that someone would know what is meant by it by just seeing it, not stopping to read in detail. The circle slash gun buster sign is clear... people have understood pictographs since the dawn of time (think cave drawings). No English and Spanish needed.

One only has to visit OCT Facebook page to see that many gunowners in general do not understand the laws. And new carriers are turning to groups like that for information, not the actual law. People over there are arguing that the signs at HEB are not legal because they are not "contrasting colors" and hard to see... yet they were easy enough to see to argue about, as well as take pictures. Even with proper signage, folks are looking for a loophole.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:14 pm

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 5:59 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:57 am

The inconsistency I see is the burden of property rights is OK for you if it's required (two big ugly signs) to keep out LTC, but there should be less burden to keep out the unlicensed. Why not a circle / sticker to (legally) keep out everyone carrying, licensed or otherwise.

Because, as I already stated, many who will carry unlicensed are not going to bother reading laws. They heard on the news that they can now carry without a license, so signage should be clear in a way that is easy to understand, not legalese. If it is now easy for someone to carry unlicensed, then why should it be difficult for a business to bar it? If you lessen the requirements on one side of the equation, why not lessen the requirements on the other? If you have jumped through the hoops to obtain the LTC, then you at least have a basic understanding of Texas law that those without a license have not demonstrated. Consider it a perk of maintaining a LTC, such as reciprocity, bypassing NICS, campus carry, etc.

I've already spent much more energy on this than I really care about. In my area, I doubt it will be that big of a deal unless you carry openly and I rarely see anyone openly carrying.

My point is it shouldn't be "easy" to use a sign to invoke the police power of the State to enforce your (a business's) personal preferences on behavior that is not even readily identifiable (carrying concealed). Actually, I don't think any signs should do this for carry, as they don't for other things, without requiring an oral request to depart. That is assuming the location is normally open to the public. I don't believe permitless carry should be subject to additional burdens at all.

I stated in an earlier post that I would be fine with none of the signs carrying the weight of law.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:29 pm

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:13 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:06 pm
I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

Oh, I want to see "Big Ugly Signs", IF the business owner wants to tell me, under the law, that they don't want me to come into their establishment while I am carrying a firearm. IF I see the proper "Big Ugly Sign", then I will follow the law and not enter their establishment. I don't want some tiny little "gunbuster" sign, that I might miss, up on a door, then have law enforcement called on me. Those "Big Ugly Signs" exist for both sides of this. The property owner tells me to stay out while carrying, and I comply. And law enforcement can then concentrate on more important things, like catching actual violent criminals.

So do you not have a LTC? Do you open carry? I'm not suggesting that anything should change for LTC.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:57 am

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:18 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:36 pm

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:13 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:06 pm
I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

Sounds like you are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment. It seems you believe it is some right that has to be earned rather than a god given right to self defense.

Not sure how you got that because I believe in private property rights...

The inconsistency I see is the burden of property rights is OK for you if it's required (two big ugly signs) to keep out LTC, but there should be less burden to keep out the unlicensed. Why not a circle / sticker to (legally) keep out everyone carrying, licensed or otherwise.

Because, as I already stated, many who will carry unlicensed are not going to bother reading laws. They heard on the news that they can now carry without a license, so signage should be clear in a way that is easy to understand, not legalese. If it is now easy for someone to carry unlicensed, then why should it be difficult for a business to bar it? If you lessen the requirements on one side of the equation, why not lessen the requirements on the other? If you have jumped through the hoops to obtain the LTC, then you at least have a basic understanding of Texas law that those without a license have not demonstrated. Consider it a perk of maintaining a LTC, such as reciprocity, bypassing NICS, campus carry, etc.

I've already spent much more energy on this than I really care about. In my area, I doubt it will be that big of a deal unless you carry openly and I rarely see anyone openly carrying.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:36 pm

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:13 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:06 pm
I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

Sounds like you are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment. It seems you believe it is some right that has to be earned rather than a god given right to self defense.

Not sure how you got that because I believe in private property rights...

seph wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:16 pm
Any comparison to no smoking signs, etc is not a valid comparison to gun signs. Those other signs have no force of law behind them. Verbal notice to leave would still have to be provided before trespassing could be applied. Proper gun signs carry the force of law, which is my mind is wrong. All three signs (30.06, 30.07, & 30.05) should all be eliminated from law along with all trespassing related to a firearm too. A business can post whatever sign they want and they will carry the same force of law as no smoking, mask required, no shoes no shirt no service, etc, which is none. A business that does not want guns in their business and verbally tell anyone just like the others listed. If the person does not leave, they can call the police and ask for a trespassing notice just like the others.

I would be perfectly ok with this approach as well.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:06 pm
I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:05 pm
You keep missing my point. A sticker with a circle / pictogram may very well convey the owner's intent. What it does not do is legally convey that the entry of non-license holders, without some other exception or Defense to 30.05, while carrying a firearm, is prohibited.

Ok, finally we agree. My stance has been that the sign conveys the wishes of the owner to not allow guns, not that it simply shows "his bias". I agree that per my interpretation of the law, it is not effective notice. I am not arguing that it has the force of law, despite the prepaid legal folks saying that it may. My PERSONAL OPINION though is that if you are openly carrying, licensed or not, and you see this sign on the door of a restaurant and you choose to stroll in past it, then you are asking for trouble.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:05 pm
Why do you believe that a sticker with a pictogram, should legally be able to bar entry to non-LTC, when you said yourself as a LTC you would carry past such a sign? Don't you respect the owner's wishes? Or do you get to disregard the owner's wishes because you have a LTC?

I think it makes sense that if I am unlicensed to carry, then anything that conveys that guns are not allowed should suffice. If I want further legal protections or exceptions, then get a license. Many who will carry unlicensed will not read all the legal minutia in the bill about effective notice and legal signs because all of that is not part of the soundbites on the news. To keep it simple, post it in a simple manner that everyday people without a law degree understand. Again, in my OPINION, a pictograph does this. It is an internationally understood sign, so there is no language barrier or anything.

Window space at a business is often used for advertising. Requiring yet another big sign, in two languages for a business to prohibit unlicensed carry is overkill. Even if they don't use the space for advertising, it makes it unattractive and uninviting.

It also makes it more difficult for those of us with a license as now we have to stop and read the sign to see if it applies to us.
When it was just 30.06, things were simple... as you drive up, you see the big sign, you immediately know what it is and don't even need to waste time getting out of the car. Throw 30.07 in to the mix, now I have to look closer. Add in a third sign, now I am going to have to stop and look to see what, if anything, pertains to me.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:05 pm See for me the answer is consistent. I don't respect the owner's wishes, whether I have LTC or not. The owner's wishes communicated by a pictogram sign or even a legally deficient 30.06 sign are stupid and unworthy of respect.

Any owner, or owner's agent, who wishes to legally bar my entry with a gun, must post the specific 3 signs to do so. Even then their wishes are still stupid, and I still won't respect them, because I have a legal exception/Defense to all of them.

That's great for you... those of us who don't have the exception must look at whatever is posted and decide if it means anything to us or not. Personally, if I see something that appears to be a legit 30.06 sign, then I don't enter. I don't get out a tape measure to see if it is 1" block letters, or look to see if it is in Spanish, or pull up the text to see if it is the exact text or if it is the older version... I take that sign for the intent and take my business elsewhere. Unless it is the mall, then I look for a door that is not posted and just avoid that particular store (looking at you Nordstroms).