Thank you for the reply, this does make a lot of sense.Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:48 pm Answering question 2 first - In the current amended version of HB 1927 there is no legally defined sign for preventing unlicensed handgun carriers from entering a building.
To answer question 2: In my opinion (which is worth what you have paid for it), based off of the legal definition of notification required for trespass provided in TPC 30.05 which includes:TPC 30.05 (b)(2)(C) wrote: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;
As well as the Dan Morales AG opinion prior to the creation of the 30.06 statute, I believe that many of the most commonly used 30.06/7 signs with a gun-buster logo would serve as a trigger for criminal trespass charges. Additionally, in many respects it will be much easier to prohibit unlicensed carry as any "Weapons Prohibited" sign likely to come to the attention of intruders could also serve as notice. Now keep in mind that much like for LTC holders and 30.06/7, any trespass violation will be a class C misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $200 unless they are asked to depart and then do not. If they promptly depart, they have a defense to prosecution.
In practice, there will likely be very few places that an unlicensed person could carry that a licensed person could not.
Based on what you are saying any business that has a 30.06/30.07 sign but no generic "gun busters" or the like would be legal for an unlicensed individual but not for a LTC holder. I have no idea how many of those are out there. I guess it would just be an even stronger statement of "We really don't want your business".
Who knows, maybe it would be a net positive if word got out that putting up a gun buster sign had legal meaning for people carrying without an LTC and places might not bother with a compliant 30.06 sign.