TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:17 pm

billypat wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:34 pm Will stores and other public locations use 46.03 signs rather than utilize the 30.06 and 30.07, 30.05 signs? Isn't the intent of the 46.03 to post one sign for locations that are Prohibited by state law under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03? Does this make it a legal "location" or a "legal" sign in that respect?

If a business that was not off limits under 46.03 (in the new law), used that sign instead of the one prescribed in 30.05, then it's hard to see how someone would be able to be successfully prosecuted under 30.05.

At the threat of derailing this thread, here's an interesting question - Is it legal to intentionally post a sign that contains incorrect legal advice? Let's assume the person posting the sign is not a lawyer.

If someone posts a 46.03 sign at a location that is not off limits per 46.03 they are incorrectly advising the public of the law, either intentionally or unintentionally. By analogy, if I posted a sign on my door saying that solicitation at my house is a felony in Texas, punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison, would that be OK? I'm thinking this might be a decent way to deter the solicitors who always seem to rile my dog up right when I'm in the middle of a meeting, lol.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:17 pm

billypat wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:34 pm Will stores and other public locations use 46.03 signs rather than utilize the 30.06 and 30.07, 30.05 signs? Isn't the intent of the 46.03 to post one sign for locations that are Prohibited by state law under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03? Does this make it a legal "location" or a "legal" sign in that respect?

If a business that was not off limits under 46.03 (in the new law), used that sign instead of the one prescribed in 30.05, then it's hard to see how someone would be able to be successfully prosecuted under 30.05.

If they use anything other than a 30.05 sign, then a non-LTC holder is good to go. The only possible question that is not completely black and white is whether an LTC holder will be fine walking past a lone 30.06 sign, like a non-LTC holder will be able to do.

Personally, I think the law is clear that an LTC holder is not restricted unless the business posts both a 30.05 and a 30.06 sign (ignoring OC for a minute*), but I could see an aggressive anti-2A DA trying to thread the needle and saying that an LTC holder cannot walk past a lone 30.06 sign, and hoping they can get a $200 fine out of the LTC holder after the DA wastes tens of thousands of dollars of tax payer money.

*I ignored OC, because if a property owner doesn't want anyone with a gun there they can just tell the OC'er that they need to leave, and that trumps any signage considerations.