TexasCHLforum.com

Renegade wrote: It was interesting 12+ years ago when it was relevant. 80% is not relevant now, as it has been supplanted with new law. The answers from that AGO are what prompted 30.06 2 years later. Did you even read it yourself? Apparently not. it supports almost everything I have said.

The addition of 30.06 didn't change the meaning or application of 30.05. In fact, it was widely believed that even after 30.06 was added, 30.05 (and this opinion) still applied to CHL holders until the legislature clarified it several years later.

For instance:

The AGO also writes:

Clearly, under Texas law as it existed prior to the passage of Senate Bill 60, a business owner or operator could file a criminal complaint against a person who came on to the business premises contrary to the terms of a posted notice.

Thus acknowledging the signs are NOT pre-emptive as I said they were not.

I'm really not sure what you're saying. The SB 60 refered to is the original Texas CHL law, pre 30.06. The AG clear states in that letter that a someone (at the time including CHL holders) who knowingly violates a "No Firearms on Premises" sign could be prosecuted under 30.05. Since the relevant portions of 30.05 haven't changed, I don't know why the interpretation would. If by pre-emptive you mean that someone carrying a gun will burst into flames ala uninvited vampires, then no, it isn't. But if you mean pre-emptive as in you are trespassing as soon as you break the threashold, then it is.

It the part I quoted, The AG clearly says that under 30.05 specific language isn't needed, and that a posted sign is effective. The part you quoted refers to violations of 46.035, and it still doesn't require specific language, just notice that nadguns are prohibited. If you want to go in front of a jury and argue that the gun with a line through it is ambiguous, then good luck.

In another section, the AG says:

as discussed below we believe that Senate Bill 60 does not affect the rights of a private property owner to prohibit the carrying of handguns on their private property. This could include privately owned driveways, streets, sidewalks or walkways, parking lots, parking garages, and other parking areas. For this reason, conduct which is not an offense under section 46.035 of the Penal Code because it occurs at a place excluded from the definition of the term "premises" may be an offense under section 30.05 of the Penal Code.

I don't think this is a real issue for a CHL holder, because I think the argument that you have a CHL, but a 30.06 sign on a parking lot doesn't apply because you are "traveling" is going to fly like a nuclear submarine. My point is only that even if you win that argument, you still lose the game.

Renegade wrote: Of course if could show me in 30.05 (Under 30.05, a "no guns" sign is sufficient notice that if you are carrying a gun you are not welcome.) where these signs are defined, I would be wrong. till then we all assume they mean different things and as I said, that is/was the problem.

This might interest you:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... hl/AGO.HTM

Especially:

Under section 30.05 of the Penal Code, any person, including a license holder, who enters or remains on property or in a building of another carrying a concealed handgun without effective consent to carry and who has had notice that concealed handguns are prohibited commits a criminal offense. Senate Bill 60 is not intended to and does not permit a license holder to carry a concealed handgun on the premises of a private business contrary to notice as defined by the criminal trespass statute prohibiting the carrying of a concealed handgun.

We believe that the above discussion also addresses your next question: "If the bill does not prohibit such, does it provide any specific requirements that the business owner/operator must comply with in order to restrict [a license holder] from carrying concealed [handguns] on [the owner's or operator's] premises?" We would further note that although Senate Bill 60 does not set forth any specific requirements that a business owner or operator must comply with in order to restrict a license holder from carrying concealed handguns on the premises of the business, we believe that the business owner or operator must provide notice, as defined by the criminal trespass statute, that concealed handguns are prohibited. Given that a business owner or operator should not be able to ascertain that a person is carrying a concealed handgun, making oral communication impractical, a posted sign would be the most effective notice.

Note that this was before 30.06 and the changes to 30.05 limiting it's applicability against CHL holders.

An Attorney General's interpretation of the law is not "The Law", but it's close enough. Unless you can prove that it is clearly wrong, a court will most likely follow it.

Your argument with the sign in your picture would be that it doesn't give reasonable notice. But if the same sign were posted on the door of a specific business, I don't think you would win that argument. I wouldn't hang your hat on the fact that DPD's policy is only to arrest after an officer witnesses a criminal trespass warning. You might not be so lucky elsewhere.

Renegade wrote: I mean you are instantly in violation of the law the instant you enter the property, without any further notice. This is why we have 30.06, it provides for instant violation. Prior to 30.06, there was no instant violation, as the ghost-buster signs had no known legal meaning, and still do not.

Thise signs do have legal meaning, and prior to the changes to 30.05 might have even affected CHL holders. I think the answer to the original question is that regardless of whether you have a CHL (snd are carrying under authority of it) or not you can't go there or risk a trespassing charge. You're either carrying on authority of the CHL and get prosecuted under 30.06, or you're not, and you get prosecuted under 30.05. Under 30.05, a "no guns" sign is sufficient notice that if you are carrying a gun you are not welcome.