TexasCHLforum.com

pt145ss wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I would only carry concealed in my car if the parking lot was posted, because then I wouldn't be violating 30.06, since I would not be carrying under the authority of my LTC.

Does carry via MPA exempt you from the federal gun free zone stuff? Just curious.

jkurtz wrote:

thetexan wrote:

Archery1 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Archery1 wrote:Ambiguity of notice does provide a defense, but as a gun carrier, so does responsibility provide us a duty. There's nothing written that says you have to know every possible ambiguous scenario that surrounds your legal notice or lack thereof to carry on personal property, but there does exist some duty to become educated on where you might carry. I might hunt a vast open and non-fenced space, but I better know the boundaries between my hunt and off-limits areas that are not my hunt unless I want to explain my actions to others in Court.

I am not sure of the meaning of this statement. Can you clarify or give an example that explains what you mean?

See the example of the gas pump. Yes, if they post it on the door and not the entrance, you don't have good notice if you can't see it. If they call the cops and you get ticketed, that's your defense against the ticket. Is that automatic? Well, think of what the judge might say: "You are the one wanting to carry a gun on private property, you were trained what the signs looks like, you know they typically post them at the door, so why didn't you look there then pump?" So, what I mean is that I have a good defense that I can't look everywhere for signs before entering, but I also have a prosecution in that I do know where to look.

According to you. Not according to law. There is NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SEE THE SIGN for the fulfillment of the specifications of notification to you according to 30.06.

30.06b states...

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.



tex

I think the more relevant part of 30.06b is "... provides notice to the person by oral or written communication."

If an owner posts a sign in such a manner that prevents it from being seen (behind a bush, behind the counter facing away from costumers, in an employee only section of the building, etc.) then you, the actor, have NOT been provided notice. Using your logic of the sign not being visible, then a store owner that provides oral notice to one person has effectively provided it to everyone, because nothing states that you must be present to have heard the notice.

thetexan wrote:Take this example....

The mall places a giant 40x70 billboard in there parking lot close to the street. On it is printed in 2 foot letters in contrasting colors the IDENTICAL language prescribed in 30.06 in English and also in Spanish. And maybe even Chinese also!

Is the sign posted on the authority of the owner or one acting for the owner as required in 30.06b of the sign notification rule? Presumably so.

Is the sign posted on the property as required in 30.06c3b?
Certainly.

Does the sign meet the language specificity, language, letter size and color contestation requirements of 30.06c3b. Yes as given.

Is the sign conspicuously displayed as per 30.06c3biii? If this doesn't meet the common definition and usage of conspicuous what does? The rule does not specify to which group of persons the sign must be conspicuous.

And, finally, is the billboard clearly visible to the public? Absolutely. The rule does not specify to which group of persons the sign must be visible.

This all becomes much more clearly understood when you remember that the sign language prohibits handguns on "property" rather necessarily, than through entrance doors.

If you enter on the black side of the mall and do not see the sign do you have an excuse, the question goes.

Yes. Read the statute! I quote from 30.06, "For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner...provides notice TO THE PERSON by oral or written communication...[by] a sign posted on the property that...is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public AND WHICH IS VISUALlY OBSERVED BY THE PERSON...".

Now I'm being sarcastic! The statute does not require anything from you for you to be notified and certainly does not specify that you see the sign. It doesn't require your observance of the sign. It only requires that the sign be compliant and posted as per the clearly understood meaning of the requirements of the rule for you to have received notification.

Anything beyond this is interpretation for which you are responsible if you interpret incorrectly and are caught.

We want "conspicuous" to fit into to our narrow definition that serves our purpose but the words on the page do not go to that level of specificity. The seeming "confusion" between the word "property" and "premises" along with an undeserved attribution of legal importance to the physical location of a sign as to the meaning of the words on the sign also serves our purpose. Confusion and convolution are two of the most ancient of argumentive tactics.

I have just given you an example of a billboard that complies with the law, as hypothetical as that may be. The point is...with this rule or any rule...be careful to know when you are subconsciously inserting interpretations or hearsay or rumor or unmerited presumption into the raw reading of the rules.

The words say exactly what they say...nothing more...nothing less assuming appropriate and scholarly statutory interpretation.

If you TRULY did not see the sign at the door then that will be your defense against the charge that it does not matter and it will be up to a jury and possibly an appellate court to render a judgement of what "conspicuous" and "clearly visible to the public" is.

What practical effect this has on everyday CC or OC is another topic. tex