TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:Gun buster signs have zero legal force. They mean nothing to you as an LTC. Nothing. Except to inform you that the owner apparently doesn't want guns in his establishment. Wonderful. That owner is BOUND...

Let me repeat... That owner is BOUND...

I don't think you heard me...that owner is BOUND legally, ethically, statutorily, and any other way you can think of...

B O U N D.....

To notify you of his exercising his sovereign right to prohibit you from entering his property with a gun by following the procedures established by state law to do so...namely 30.06 and 30.07.

I am not interested in his DESIRE to not have guns on his property any more than he is interested in my DESIRE to carry a gun on his property. What we both have in common is a set of statutes that specify where and when I may carry and the same group of statutes that specify where and when the owner may prohibit me from carrying.

Yes there is case law. Not only in this specific area but also in trespass 30.05 situations and in other non-related non weapon cases where wording of a notice is specific and a required element of the statute.

Remember, the owner and LTC are BOUND by the same rules. The owner doesn't get a pass just because he thinks a gun buster sign is cool.

Note: This has nothing to do with whether you are arrested and take the ride. If you are legal you will prevail. Show me a LEO who arrests you because you carried past a gun buster sign and I will show you a LEO who does not know his statutes. But you may still take the ride.

Know the statutes and the law and carry with confidence.

One last note. Do not take this as encouragement to have an "in your face", self-righteous, belligerent attitude. Always try to be gracious and understanding. But don't let that deprive you of your rights.

Tex

Please post the relevant case law regarding .06/.07, as well as for .05 as it relates to licensed/unlicensed carry of a firearm. That would be the first time I've seen it, & I would like to add those to my reference materials. It would also provide better debunking material for those who say there's case law to support the counter view, such as the OPs Instructor.

Keith B wrote:

twomillenium wrote:WOW! The DPS is starting to show a kind of deterioration of there understanding of the law and how it is written. This was evident at the instructors renewal class this year. I was hoping they were just having a bad day.

I disagree with the statement above. There is no deterioration in my opinion. They have made this statement all along, well as long as I have been an instructor anyway. And I believe they are just parroting what the DPS lawyers are saying. Right or wrong, we on this forum know that it would be a stretch for them to make the arrest, much less a conviction.

Let's get real about what they say and how it would be affected. First, you would have to be found carrying. If you are concealed properly, no one is going to see it and no issue should arise. If you carry past any sign openly, you are just asking to be given verbal notice, and you now have been properly advised you have to leave. If not, then they can arrest you for failure to depart.

SO, IMO the chances are between slim and none, and Slim has left town, that a properly concealed carrier would ever run into this situation.

As the shirt says, Be Calm and Carry On

Keith,

When I went through the Instructor Course in July 2012 they clearly stated that the 30.06 signage must meet the statutory requirements in order for it to be considered notice (based on the clear & plain wording of the Legislature), however they did caveat that with "since there's 254 counties in the state of Texas", you really need to consult with your local sheriff &/or prosecutor to determine their interpretation / enforcement (or something to that effect). They also advised us that regardless of the enforceability of gun buster signs, since the local jurisdiction may or may not understand/interpret correctly, that it would be prudent to encourage our students to "not become the test case" for this since there was no case law yet (...and to my knowledge, there's still no case law for precedent...). This was in no way presented as encouraging the instructors to mis-represent what the statute actually said, but to rather put the onus on the students to check with their specific jurisdiction for how they would intend to handle it, & to encourage the license holder to err on the side of caution to avoid problems down the road.

During the Instructor Renewal class in 2013 I don't recall it being addressed any differently. Same core cadre as 2012.

During the Instructor Renewal class this year (2017), this block had a different tone, to the effect of "well if you see this, then you aught to know what the intention of the property owner is. Why would you carry past this?" Several of the LTC Instructors in attendance pointed out the discrepancy, & it went nowhere but in circles. (I don't recall if the Trooper said he would arrest on this, but the delivery was definitely not in line with the statute).

I agree with twomillennium that there's been a shift in at least being able to temper fact from feeling.

ETA: I do agree with the rest of your sentiments, though. However, I do feel its important that (1) LTC Instructors understand the law, & present it accurately, & (2) LTC holders understand the law, & follow it. Misunderstandings & hyperbole from the 'schoolhouse' will continue to have an effect down stream unless corrected.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Mike S wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:I'm splitting hairs here, but
1) if I have an LTC, and
2) there is no valid 06/07 up that tells me the "no guns" sentiment applies to LTC's as well as the common horde
then IF they somehow figure out I'm carrying and ask me to leave and I DON'T, wouldn't I be arrested under 30.05 rather than .06/.07/UCW?

If you're asked to leave and DON'T (in your example I assume CC for a person with an LTC), then I think .06 would be the appropriate charge (a Class A Misdemeanor since oral notice was given & refused to leave, even if no .06 signage, no gun buster, etc);

.07 would be for OC using the same example, with or without .07 signage but having received oral notice to depart & refusing;

.05 would be more appropriate for someone who doesn't have a firearm on them, but refused to leave when asked.

UCW (what it sounds like the OP's instructor said he would arrest under) would be for anyone carrying in public WITHOUT an LTC, regardless of signage anyway (of course with the exceptions of the MPA, private property, property under your control, etc)

Except that the OP’s example stated that his instructor, acting in his capacity as LEO, would make an arrest if called by the proprietor of an establishement posted with a gun buster sign. He did NOT include whether or not the proprietor had given the customer notice.....only that the proprietor called the cops. In that event, on its own, the gun buster sign does NOT constitute proper notice in any way shape or form. Now, I do OC from time to time, but this is also a good case for CC. What the proprietor can’t see, he can’t get his feathers ruffled over. It is incumbent on the proprietor - by law - to post the proper signage if he wants to bar someone from carrying into his establishment. It’s not MY fault if he’s too ignorant to do that. And if I’m CC’ing, how’s he even going to know?

100%

I was replying to JustSomeOldGuy's question about the appropriateness of 30.05. I've edited mine to clarify that the UCW charge that the OP's instructor referenced would likely be inappropriate.

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:I'm splitting hairs here, but
1) if I have an LTC, and
2) there is no valid 06/07 up that tells me the "no guns" sentiment applies to LTC's as well as the common horde
then IF they somehow figure out I'm carrying and ask me to leave and I DON'T, wouldn't I be arrested under 30.05 rather than .06/.07/UCW?

If you're asked to leave and DON'T (in your example I assume CC for a person with an LTC), then I think .06 would be the appropriate charge (a Class A Misdemeanor since oral notice was given & refused to leave, even if no .06 signage, no gun buster, etc);

.07 would be for OC using the same example, with or without .07 signage but having received oral notice to depart & refusing;

.05 would be more appropriate for someone who doesn't have a firearm on them, but refused to leave when asked.

UCW (what it sounds like the OP's instructor said he would incorrectly arrest under) would be for anyone carrying in public WITHOUT an LTC, regardless of signage anyway because the act of carrying a handgun in public WITHOUT a LTC doesn't require notice to be unlawful (of course with the exceptions of the MPA, private property, property under your control, etc).

Since the Legislature was clear in defining what constitutes 'notice', & a gun buster sign doesn't, then oral notice would have to be given & the LTC holder refused to leave prior to an offense being committed.