Someone placing 30.07 signs in front of businesses...

[thetexan]

In regard to the permanency of a verbal instruction, it would really depend on the exact wording of the notification. Things change all the time and it is therefor that compliance by the business to the code is important.

Example - I am sorry sir you can't carry your gun in here, please remove it and come back to us another time. - this is verbal notice for a particular point in time and without a permenant compliant sign, one could return just as other will inadvertently tread on this store's premise.

Example 2 - sir, we don't allow open carry here. I am asking you to leave and not return with a openly carried pistol without talking to the management first - the case holds more weight as a semi-permanent, with condition notice.

Example 3 - excuse me, this store forbids the open carry of handguns pursuant to Texas code 30.07. I would like to also inform you that you are on camera and their is audio of my notice to you - this is not only sufficient, but their is evidence of a notice and I would not want to have that reviewed by a police office and then show up in court should I returned with open carry.

In effect, verbal notice is only as good as the recollection of those that, gave, received or overheard a verbal notice. Without corroborating evidence it isn't much and will be up to LE and maybe later a judge/jury to decide... A la the crap we see on judge Judy.

This is why it is important for business to post properly compliant signage. We should never be jerks about it, leave when told, and not press an owner into calling the cops, but verbal notice is not going to help anyone.

Let's play a little game.

I tell you to get off my property or I will press trespass charges against you. You leave and come back 10 minutes later. Does the warning you received 10 minutes ago still apply? What if you come back 20 minutes later? How about an hour later? 5 hours? 24 hours? 2 days later? At what point are you willing to draw the line legally? Sort of like determining when life begins. Somewhere between conception and birth. Since there is no case law that I can find (which is odd since there is lots of trespassing case law) you would have to choose between one of two possibilities...one...that one notified it is permanent unless revoked in the future...or two...that there is a timed out limit to the warning. Since you can't prove #two you must assume #one.

That's why most people want to avoid being verbally told. If I were told I would later try to mitigate that with them by clarifying if they meant for just a short time or what...only to save me from a permanent ban. It probably wouldn't work but I might try.

[jerry_r60]

If walk up to a store an tear down the sign is it any different if i add a sign either way i am defacing the store, if i place a 06/07 sign and they lose 3-4% of revenue am i not liable for that loss?

Well, in the case of tearing down a sign, you are damaging someone else's property. If you stick a sign in their grass, you have left your own property.

Now there may be laws / issues with leaving a sign the turns customers away or as someone else put it akin to putting up your own stop signs. I really don't know but just on the difference you asked about, there seems to be the distinction I made.

[NTexCopRetired]

In my experience, criminal trespass has worked in this manner. Someone is ask to leave a property. They comply and come back later. The owner calls the police. If the individual is still there, the owner issues a criminal trespass warning in the presence of the officer. The officer should make a report and provide the owner with a case number. If the individual returns, the owner calls police, gives them the case number and the individual goes to jail.

If they do not leave initially, the process is shortened.

Criminal trespass with a weapon would most likely work the same way.

If they refuse to leave with the officer there, they are arrested then and there.

[Unocat]

In effect, verbal notice is only as good as the recollection of those that, gave, received or overheard a verbal notice. Without corroborating evidence it isn't much and will be up to LE and maybe later a judge/jury to decide... A la the crap we see on judge Judy.

This is why it is important for business to post properly compliant signage. We should never be jerks about it, leave when told, and not press an owner into calling the cops, but verbal notice is not going to help anyone.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Verbal notice not to enter the property with a gun, or with an open-carried gun, is not "for a particular point in time." There's no statutory or case law basis for your position.

If the defendant admits he was told no to enter with a gun (or an openly carried gun) then his conviction is assured. If he claims he was never given oral notice, or that the oral notice specifically gave a limited duration, then it would be for the jury to decide if they believe the defendant or the property owner.

Chas.

Wasn't that exactly my point? - that a verbal notice is only as good as the recollections of those that were involved, save any recorded media. Even in the example you describe a person admitting they were given notice. Maybe that person doesn't remember, maybe the accused just doesn't take the stand and has his lawyer say it never happened... maybe, maybe, maybe. The point I was trying to make is that a compliant sign goes a long way toward a positive notification and leave little room for argument.

I do love how people are so adamant about calling each other wrong instead of reading, understanding, and discussing? Anyway this is a forum and no one is going to be able to interpret law save a court.

[Unocat]

Let's play a little game.

I tell you to get off my property or I will press trespass charges against you. You leave and come back 10 minutes later. Does the warning you received 10 minutes ago still apply? What if you come back 20 minutes later? How about an hour later? 5 hours? 24 hours? 2 days later? At what point are you willing to draw the line legally? Sort of like determining when life begins. Somewhere between conception and birth. Since there is no case law that I can find (which is odd since there is lots of trespassing case law) you would have to choose between one of two possibilities...one...that one notified it is permanent unless revoked in the future...or two...that there is a timed out limit to the warning. Since you can't prove #two you must assume #one.

That's why most people want to avoid being verbally told. If I were told I would later try to mitigate that with them by clarifying if they meant for just a short time or what...only to save me from a permanent ban. It probably wouldn't work but I might try.

I'll play your game - If your statement were true I would still be in my room from when I was grounded. If your statement were true a soldier would have to march on indefinitely unless being told to halt. It is a fun philosophical game!

I personally would honor any instructions that were given to me by a legal owner of a property. I am curious why so many people are seem to be bent out of shape on this forum. I must admit I am new here and found it after looking at the postings on the Tecas3006 site. It seem to me there are a lot of people here that are anti open carry. I guess I need to stop posting and read some more posts on this forum to understand it and not anger anyone.

[Vol Texan]

Let's play a little game.

I tell you to get off my property or I will press trespass charges against you. You leave and come back 10 minutes later. Does the warning you received 10 minutes ago still apply? What if you come back 20 minutes later? How about an hour later? 5 hours? 24 hours? 2 days later? At what point are you willing to draw the line legally? Sort of like determining when life begins. Somewhere between conception and birth. Since there is no case law that I can find (which is odd since there is lots of trespassing case law) you would have to choose between one of two possibilities...one...that one notified it is permanent unless revoked in the future...or two...that there is a timed out limit to the warning. Since you can't prove #two you must assume #one.

That's why most people want to avoid being verbally told. If I were told I would later try to mitigate that with them by clarifying if they meant for just a short time or what...only to save me from a permanent ban. It probably wouldn't work but I might try.

I'll play your game - If your statement were true I would still be in my room from when I was grounded. If your statement were true a soldier would have to march on indefinitely unless being told to halt. It is a fun philosophical game!

I personally would honor any instructions that were given to me by a legal owner of a property. I am curious why so many people are seem to be bent out of shape on this forum. I must admit I am new here and found it after looking at the postings on the Tecas3006 site. It seem to me there are a lot of people here that are anti open carry. I guess I need to stop posting and read some more posts on this forum to understand it and not anger anyone.

Reductio ad absurdum

[Charles L. Cotton]

In my experience, criminal trespass has worked in this manner. Someone is ask to leave a property. They comply and come back later. The owner calls the police. If the individual is still there, the owner issues a criminal trespass warning in the presence of the officer. The officer should make a report and provide the owner with a case number. If the individual returns, the owner calls police, gives them the case number and the individual goes to jail.

If they do not leave initially, the process is shortened.

Criminal trespass with a weapon would most likely work the same way.

If they refuse to leave with the officer there, they are arrested then and there.

I'm glad you brought this up. What you describe is typical for most agencies. The "trespass warning" is recorded in the agencies records to prove that a warning was given and it doesn't expire. Excellent point!

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

In effect, verbal notice is only as good as the recollection of those that, gave, received or overheard a verbal notice. Without corroborating evidence it isn't much and will be up to LE and maybe later a judge/jury to decide... A la the crap we see on judge Judy.

This is why it is important for business to post properly compliant signage. We should never be jerks about it, leave when told, and not press an owner into calling the cops, but verbal notice is not going to help anyone.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Verbal notice not to enter the property with a gun, or with an open-carried gun, is not "for a particular point in time." There's no statutory or case law basis for your position.

If the defendant admits he was told no to enter with a gun (or an openly carried gun) then his conviction is assured. If he claims he was never given oral notice, or that the oral notice specifically gave a limited duration, then it would be for the jury to decide if they believe the defendant or the property owner.

Chas.

Wasn't that exactly my point? - that a verbal notice is only as good as the recollections of those that were involved, save any recorded media. Even in the example you describe a person admitting they were given notice. Maybe that person doesn't remember, maybe the accused just doesn't take the stand and has his lawyer say it never happened... maybe, maybe, maybe. The point I was trying to make is that a compliant sign goes a long way toward a positive notification and leave little room for argument.

No, that was not your point. Here is what you stated:

Example - I am sorry sir you can't carry your gun in here, please remove it and come back to us another time. - this is verbal notice for a particular point in time and without a permenant compliant sign, one could return just as other will inadvertently tread on this store's premise.

I do love how people are so adamant about calling each other wrong instead of reading, understanding, and discussing? Anyway this is a forum and no one is going to be able to interpret law save a court.

I've been an attorney for almost 30 years and I was a police officer for 10 years. Are you an attorney for a peace officer? Attorneys interpret statutory and case law all the time; that's how we advise clients, settle cases and try cases. I don't claim expertise on issues and topics beyond my experience and knowledge. Perhaps you should adopt that personal policy.

Take your insults back to OCT or you won't be here long.
Chas.

[Javier730]

In effect, verbal notice is only as good as the recollection of those that, gave, received or overheard a verbal notice. Without corroborating evidence it isn't much and will be up to LE and maybe later a judge/jury to decide... A la the crap we see on judge Judy.

This is why it is important for business to post properly compliant signage. We should never be jerks about it, leave when told, and not press an owner into calling the cops, but verbal notice is not going to help anyone.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Verbal notice not to enter the property with a gun, or with an open-carried gun, is not "for a particular point in time." There's no statutory or case law basis for your position.

If the defendant admits he was told no to enter with a gun (or an openly carried gun) then his conviction is assured. If he claims he was never given oral notice, or that the oral notice specifically gave a limited duration, then it would be for the jury to decide if they believe the defendant or the property owner.

Chas.

Wasn't that exactly my point? - that a verbal notice is only as good as the recollections of those that were involved, save any recorded media. Even in the example you describe a person admitting they were given notice. Maybe that person doesn't remember, maybe the accused just doesn't take the stand and has his lawyer say it never happened... maybe, maybe, maybe. The point I was trying to make is that a compliant sign goes a long way toward a positive notification and leave little room for argument.

No, that was not your point. Here is what you stated:

Example - I am sorry sir you can't carry your gun in here, please remove it and come back to us another time. - this is verbal notice for a particular point in time and without a permenant compliant sign, one could return just as other will inadvertently tread on this store's premise.

I do love how people are so adamant about calling each other wrong instead of reading, understanding, and discussing? Anyway this is a forum and no one is going to be able to interpret law save a court.

I've been an attorney for almost 30 years and I was a police officer for 10 years. Are you an attorney for a peace officer? Attorneys interpret statutory and case law all the time; that's how we advise clients, settle cases and try cases. I don't claim expertise on issues and topics beyond my experience and knowledge. Perhaps you should adopt that personal policy.

Take your insults back to OCT or you won't be here long.
Chas.

[oljames3]

In effect, verbal notice is only as good as the recollection of those that, gave, received or overheard a verbal notice. Without corroborating evidence it isn't much and will be up to LE and maybe later a judge/jury to decide... A la the crap we see on judge Judy.

This is why it is important for business to post properly compliant signage. We should never be jerks about it, leave when told, and not press an owner into calling the cops, but verbal notice is not going to help anyone.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Verbal notice not to enter the property with a gun, or with an open-carried gun, is not "for a particular point in time." There's no statutory or case law basis for your position.

If the defendant admits he was told no to enter with a gun (or an openly carried gun) then his conviction is assured. If he claims he was never given oral notice, or that the oral notice specifically gave a limited duration, then it would be for the jury to decide if they believe the defendant or the property owner.

Chas.

Wasn't that exactly my point? - that a verbal notice is only as good as the recollections of those that were involved, save any recorded media. Even in the example you describe a person admitting they were given notice. Maybe that person doesn't remember, maybe the accused just doesn't take the stand and has his lawyer say it never happened... maybe, maybe, maybe. The point I was trying to make is that a compliant sign goes a long way toward a positive notification and leave little room for argument.

No, that was not your point. Here is what you stated:

Example - I am sorry sir you can't carry your gun in here, please remove it and come back to us another time. - this is verbal notice for a particular point in time and without a permenant compliant sign, one could return just as other will inadvertently tread on this store's premise.

I do love how people are so adamant about calling each other wrong instead of reading, understanding, and discussing? Anyway this is a forum and no one is going to be able to interpret law save a court.

I've been an attorney for almost 30 years and I was a police officer for 10 years. Are you an attorney for a peace officer? Attorneys interpret statutory and case law all the time; that's how we advise clients, settle cases and try cases. I don't claim expertise on issues and topics beyond my experience and knowledge. Perhaps you should adopt that personal policy.

Take your insults back to OCT or you won't be here long.
Chas.

[Unocat]

Thank you for your thoughts and commentary. It is great to have a place were we can all come together and discuss these thing and learn from each other.