TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:55 pm

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:06 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:51 am

locke_n_load wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:23 pm US law shield is of the opinion that a simple gunbuster sign may hold force of law to prohibit unlicensed carry. And based on the penal code verbiage, I may be inclined to agree with them.

Can you elaborate on this?

Here is the link to their CC packet they put together..


https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/ ... igital.pdf

They are in the business of sowing fear, so I view anything from them as biased. I was more curious about your reference to having read the actual statute language.

Unfortunately there isn't a clear answer here, just "informed options".

Here is the exact text as written...

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, a general residential operation operating as a residential treatment center, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;

However if you move down the statute a bit you run into this.

(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

So as you can see, it can be interpreted in different ways....

If you would like to read HB 1927 for yourself, here is the link. You can form your own opinion.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/b ... navpanes=0

And this is why I tell anyone who wants to carry a firearm that they would be much better off getting their LTC..

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:51 am

locke_n_load wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:23 pm US law shield is of the opinion that a simple gunbuster sign may hold force of law to prohibit unlicensed carry. And based on the penal code verbiage, I may be inclined to agree with them.

Can you elaborate on this?

Here is the link to their CC packet they put together..


https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/ ... igital.pdf

AJSully421 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:23 pm I saw one at a restaurant that had zero reason to post one... so I ignored it like every other sign. See sig line.

Yeah, many are clueless. I had to tell the manager of a French bistro that is only open for breakfast and lunch to take down their 51% sign.

Some 30.05's but only a few.

Also you are posting two very different signs... 30.05 is for unlicensed carry whereas the 46.03 is for no carry in prohibited places such as schools, federal property, secure areas of airports, etc.