TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

kw5kw wrote:

srothstein wrote:Allow me to explain my logic please. It really makes the beauty of the 30.06/07 law more clear and something to be thankful for.

I have been saying all along that the 30.06/30.07 sign in Texas is a blessing for us and we need not be bad mouthing it.

Obviously, I agree.

kw5kw wrote:

srothstein wrote: Criminal Trespass is a violation of the law under section 30.05. That law says that if you enter onto any property without the effective consent of the owner you have violated the law. The lack of effective consent may be communicated orally or by printed sign or in a few other specific means (such as a fence designed to keep animals in or people out).

In the Panhandle/South Plains electric fences are common to keep livestock in while grazing on wheat fields. Said electric fences are to keep livestock in; would that be enough to keep people out as well?

Yes, the criminal trespass law (30.05) would make their crossing it illegal.

kw5kw wrote:

srothstein wrote:Please note that there is no law requiring the notice to have any specific format. In many cases under the law, the notification may be something fairly obscure. One example that people may not be aware of is a purple stripe painted on a fence post or even a tree. It has a few specific rules, such as height and width, but how many Texans are aware of the purple stripe law. And note that this actually applies anywhere in Texas. A purple stripe painted 1000 feet apart in a city means the entry is forbidden. That may not be known or clear to the visitor but it applies.

I was aware of this law, but I have a question:
Can the purple stripe be on only one tree, say in my front yard, or does it have to be between two trees or a combination of trees/fence posts?
So, could I simply tie a purple ribbon on the only tree in my front yard in lue of a "No Tresspassing" sign on my front door?

The law is not clear on how many trees or posts it has to be on. It is clear that it has to be paint, one inch by 8 inches (minimum) and placed between three and five feet from the ground. Assuming your property is less than 1000 feet wide, one tree might be enough, but I would suggest two to be safe.

kw5kw wrote:

srothstein wrote:The law may be unclear on what is required. For example, it specifies a fence obviously designed to keep livestock in or intruders out. If I have a plot of land that is 10 acres in size and plain pasture so you can see the whole thing and it is completely empty, is a three rail pipe fence designed to keep livestock in or intruders out? When there are no livestock on the land? But the law applies.

And finally, the law says a sign posted that is reasonably likely to come to the attention of a visitor is notice. It has no requirements for size or specific wording or coloration. So any sign would apply. The good thing is that it doesn't apply to a person with an LTC or a current peace officer if the reason is a gun.

So any sign that tells me that entry is forbidden would apply to me. ...

So, why not and get a LTC and be covered?
And, along these lines; Since, I'm assuming that all of here have a CHL/LTC, is there anytime we can say lay down our license and carry not under the authority that it gives? (say walk past a 30.06 sign or carry in the seat beside you and not in a belt holster ?) I know, another can of worms.

I have been considering getting an LTC and probably will with the lower costs now. It only give me one real benefit, which is the NICS check exemption. I currently carry under my retired peace officer license and LEOSA, and I don't really ever expect this one situation to come up for me. But getting the LTC would cover it if it happens.

One of the tricks I would be able to take advantage of then is that 30.06 and 30.07 do not apply to me and with the LTC 30.05 would give me an out also. This kind of answers your second question here, but you can always choose which authority you are carrying under if you have more than one. Otherwise, every peace officer who also got an LTC would have problems with 30.06/07 signs while on duty too.

An interesting side application of this comes with hotels that are posted. You can always carry when traveling under that exemption. And is there much better proof of traveling than being in a different city than yours and staying in a hotel? There is a caveat there that after you check in and get in your room, there is a question of whether you are traveling or not still. I believe there is a federal appellate precedent that would say no, but it is not from our circuit and the Fifth Circuit might disagree, especially if presented with better facts in a case.