TexasCHLforum.com

I have a question about this given proper notice loophole that is in the law. In particular the 30.06 signs being proper notice.
On the 30.06 website that has all the sign postings, there is a discussion regarding a mall that has signs at its main entrance, but not on all the other entrances including entrances to anchor stores that then allow passage into the mall.

If you go through a non-posted entrance, then are inside carrying 'without proper notice' and are forced to use your gun to defend yourself inside, will you be arrested?
The legit excuse, in this situation, is that you didn't see a sign because it wasn't posted on the door you came in, but wouldn't that always be an 'excuse' people would give?

As I type this, I am guessing you'd be questioned heavily (personally I wouldn't answer without an attorney), and if they found that there is in fact un-posted doors along with other factors like the fact that your car is near one of these doors, so it lends to your case that you came in that way, that you'd be let go.
So, I'm guessing you'd be taken in for questioning and let go, but what's the answer? Am I estimating incorrectly on this one?

I ask because I've done this. I've carried in a mall that has postings at one entrance, but not at their anchor stores' entrances. I come in through one particular anchor store almost every time and didn't see a sign ever, but when browsing the 30.06 page, I found this mall was posted!

G192627 wrote:I have a question about this given proper notice loophole that is in the law. In particular the 30.06 signs being proper notice.
On the 30.06 website that has all the sign postings, there is a discussion regarding a mall that has signs at its main entrance, but not on all the other entrances including entrances to anchor stores that then allow passage into the mall.

If you go through a non-posted entrance, then are inside carrying 'without proper notice' and are forced to use your gun to defend yourself inside, will you be arrested?
The legit excuse, in this situation, is that you didn't see a sign because it wasn't posted on the door you came in, but wouldn't that always be an 'excuse' people would give?

As I type this, I am guessing you'd be questioned heavily (personally I wouldn't answer without an attorney), and if they found that there is in fact un-posted doors along with other factors like the fact that your car is near one of these doors, so it lends to your case that you came in that way, that you'd be let go.
So, I'm guessing you'd be taken in for questioning and let go, but what's the answer? Am I estimating incorrectly on this one?

I ask because I've done this. I've carried in a mall that has postings at one entrance, but not at their anchor stores' entrances. I come in through one particular anchor store almost every time and didn't see a sign ever, but when browsing the 30.06 page, I found this mall was posted!

First off welcome to the forum G192627.

To basically answer your question, if you were actually unaware of the 30.06 postings of the business, then it will depend on how the officer wants to handle it. If they believed you, then they might let you go. If not, they may arrest you, or at least take your information to pass along to the DA and see if they want to follow up with criminal trespass charges.

Bottom line, the police CAN take you in if they feel they have reasonable cause. As many say, You may beat the rap, but not the ride.

Also, the search feature on the forum will reveal a lot of threads in this exact discussion, so there is a lot of info here on just this matter.

Keith. Thanks for the informative and polite reply.

I'm a noob here, but not new to forums in general. I did try the search, and frankly, there was sooooo much information on 30.06 postings, and 'given notice' that it was difficult to find specifically this answer, so I appreciate your response and I appreciate the polite way of reminding the noobie to 'search'.

I think your answer is dead on. That was my guess as I was typing up my question. Texas being Texas, I think your odds are in your favor assuming you've used your rights properly in true SD.

G192627 wrote: Texas being Texas, I think your odds are in your favor assuming you've used your rights properly in true SD.

Well, you might think so, but Grapevine PD will arrest you (or at least pursue charges) if you carry past the non-compliant signs at Grapevine Mills Mall and are discovered carrying.

Well, you might think so, but Grapevine PD will arrest you (or at least pursue charges) if you carry past the non-compliant signs at Grapevine Mills Mall and are discovered carrying.

Ah, good to know. The mall I'm thinking of is Katy Mills in Katy, Texas. Coincidentally, it's owned by the same people as Grapevine Mills.
There is a Bass Pro attached, and it is NOT posted. I always go in through those doors just because I like Bass Pro to browse.

However, you are actually aware of the posting at Katy Mills, so once you go into the mall and not Bass Pro who is firearm friendly, you would be in violation.

Keith B wrote:However, you are actually aware of the posting at Katy Mills, so once you go into the mall and not Bass Pro who is firearm friendly, you would be in violation.

Correct. I'm aware now. I wasn't until I read the 30.06 web site this morning!
Next time, I'll go shop at Bass Pro, and nobody inside Katy Mills is getting another dime from me.

Keith B wrote:However, you are actually aware of the posting at Katy Mills, so once you go into the mall and not Bass Pro who is firearm friendly, you would be in violation.

And that would have to be proven

92f-fan wrote:

Keith B wrote:However, you are actually aware of the posting at Katy Mills, so once you go into the mall and not Bass Pro who is firearm friendly, you would be in violation.

And that would have to be proven

Not sure what you mean. Katy Mills is properly posted, so entering into the mall is a violation if you are aware of the posting or walk past a 30.06 sign.

Keith - I meant to ask you this, but didn't - what exactly did your conversation entail with the person at the GV PD? Did you point out what the wording of the sign is and what the wording of a valid 30.06 has to be (to be valid)? Just curious.

I would truly like* to see GV PD arrest someone for this and then have it go really bad for the PD - as in - successful suit for false arrest, establish case law on correct wording for 30.06 signage, judge scolding GV PD and Tarrant Co. DA (they'd have to agree to prosecute), etc....

NOTE: *like - as in I think it would be good for this to happen as it would set a legal precedent, not like as in looking forward to this happening to someone as I'm sure it could be a headache.

When these discussions come up, usually one of the first responses is a "do you want to be the test case?" remark. Well, let's seriously talk about that. How would one go about being the bona-fide test case for something like this? You wouldn't want to purposely un-conceal. So, how would you go about this without piling on additional charges?

Keith B wrote:

G192627 wrote: Texas being Texas, I think your odds are in your favor assuming you've used your rights properly in true SD.

Well, you might think so, but Grapevine PD will arrest you (or at least pursue charges) if you carry past the non-compliant signs at Grapevine Mills Mall and are discovered carrying.

PUCKER wrote:Keith - I meant to ask you this, but didn't - what exactly did your conversation entail with the person at the GV PD? Did you point out what the wording of the sign is and what the wording of a valid 30.06 has to be (to be valid)? Just curious.

Yes, I did bring it up and he understood my statement about the verbiage. However, the PD actually went and took photos of the signs, discussed it internally and the administration feels the current signage is valid and will pursue charges if found.

PUCKER wrote:I would truly like* to see GV PD arrest someone for this and then have it go really bad for the PD - as in - successful suit for false arrest, establish case law on correct wording for 30.06 signage, judge scolding GV PD and Tarrant Co. DA (they'd have to agree to prosecute), etc....

NOTE: *like - as in I think it would be good for this to happen as it would set a legal precedent, not like as in looking forward to this happening to someone as I'm sure it could be a headache.

When these discussions come up, usually one of the first responses is a "do you want to be the test case?" remark. Well, let's seriously talk about that. How would one go about being the bona-fide test case for something like this? You wouldn't want to purposely un-conceal. So, how would you go about this without piling on additional charges?

I wouldn't recommend anyone trying this. But, I could picture someone chatting with a GVPD officer at the mall about CHL and that the signs were no valid. It leads to the office asking if the person was a CHL and carrying. Then, they could answer. It would then be up to the officer how he proceeded per the departments verbal policy.

I would not try this as it will more than likely end up costing $$$. I have a lot better things to do than give my money to lawyers (no offense Charles. ) It could also lead to a criminal trespass charge, and depending on the ruling that you knew the intent, loss of your CHL. You never know how this type of thing would turn out.

I am working on a more benign method of bringing this issue to the limelight. Won't discuss it, but hopefully it will get the issue and policy squared up where it needs to be.

Keith B wrote:

G192627 wrote: Texas being Texas, I think your odds are in your favor assuming you've used your rights properly in true SD.

Well, you might think so, but Grapevine PD will arrest you (or at least pursue charges) if you carry past the non-compliant signs at Grapevine Mills Mall and are discovered carrying.

[/quote]

Thank you for the answer Keith - I still can't, for the life of me, understand/comprehend GV PD's stance...

I'd like to hear about your idea when the time is right.

Keith B wrote:

92f-fan wrote:

Keith B wrote:However, you are actually aware of the posting at Katy Mills, so once you go into the mall and not Bass Pro who is firearm friendly, you would be in violation.

And that would have to be proven

Not sure what you mean. Katy Mills is properly posted, so entering into the mall is a violation if you are aware of the posting or walk past a 30.06 sign.

No. It's not properly posted. There is no sign as you enter Bass Pro, and if you walk out of Bass Pro straight into Katy Mills, there is no sign there either. The only way to see a sign is to walk into the mall via a mall entrance. If you go in through Bass Pro or one of the other anchor stores, you will not see a sign. I still have not seen a sign in the 10 or so times I've been since getting my CHL and that's because I've entered through Bass Pro each time.

G192627 wrote: No. It's not properly posted. There is no sign as you enter Bass Pro, and if you walk out of Bass Pro straight into Katy Mills, there is no sign there either. The only way to see a sign is to walk into the mall via a mall entrance. If you go in through Bass Pro or one of the other anchor stores, you will not see a sign. I still have not seen a sign in the 10 or so times I've been since getting my CHL and that's because I've entered through Bass Pro each time.

It's doesn't have to be posted at every entrance. It just has to be 'conspicuously' posted. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it isn't properly posted.

G192627 wrote:[No. It's not properly posted. There is no sign as you enter Bass Pro, and if you walk out of Bass Pro straight into Katy Mills, there is no sign there either. The only way to see a sign is to walk into the mall via a mall entrance. If you go in through Bass Pro or one of the other anchor stores, you will not see a sign. I still have not seen a sign in the 10 or so times I've been since getting my CHL and that's because I've entered through Bass Pro each time.

Well, properly posted is questionable. There is nothing in the statute that says it has to be posted at every entrance, just:

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

So, since there is no test case on this as to where or how often the signs must be posted.......

And, since you are aware of the posting on the mall, then you are in violation if you enter. Now, there is another caveat; since the anchor stores are attached to the mall, are they actually part of it and covered by the mall posting 30.06? or, are they separate entities, and can make their own rules about allowing CHL?? Another gray area.

Edit to add: KC5AV beat me to it as I was typing a longer response.