Combined 30.06 and 30.07 sign

[Soccerdad1995]

It's only a class c misdemeanor is a dangerous way to think. That's a big deal really in LTC land.

tex

Why is it dangerous to think that being charged for a class C for something that isn't illegal (walk past non-compliant sign) is not a big deal? I've gotten busted for "running" a yellow light. Rather than fight, I paid my Town to make it go away (aka deferred adjudication).

Here is the reason and it's a biggie.

After you have shot and killed someone in, what you hope the jury will believe is self defense, you and your defense attorney, in a desperate effort to keep you from spending 10 or 20 years taking knitting classes with a room mate named Francis, will have to prove to that jury that your belief that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death was, as per 9.31, REASONABLE. YOU will have to demonstrate this or, better stated, defend against a prosecutor's charge that it was not reasonable because reasonableness is one of the elements of the offense. All of this because you were committing a non-traffic Class C misdemeanor crime at the time of the shooting by trespassing against a 30.06 or 30.07 sign.

Had you not been committing that CRIME you could have been enjoying an attributed presumption of reasonableness required in the statute. In fact the court would instruct, not suggest, the jury to manditorily find your assessment of immediate necessity AS REASONABLE.

This assumes you were not engaged in a crime other than a traffic related Class C and did not provoke the person and he was using deadly force to commit one of the big six,which includes murder, or forcibly entering you habitation, place of business or work or vehicle.

That's a major part of your defense handed to you in a silver platter. Unless, of course, you toss it away by failing to recognize the stupidity of walking past a legitimate notification.

tex

I think you are missing a key part of the post you quoted. Scott said that being CHARGED for a Class C for something that IS NOT illegal is not a big deal. The discussion is about walking into a place that does not have a compliant sign.

Your hypothetical is where someone walks past a non-compliant sign (or is in a place with no sign whatsoever since that is the exact same thing), and they then need to use their weapon in what is an otherwise justified manner, and they are prosecuted, and the prosecutor is ignorant of the law, and the prosecutor tries to argue that the shooter committed a crime because they were somewhere they had every right to be with a gun. In that case, the shooter can probably get this red herring tossed even if they are acting as their own lawyer.

If I am ever tried for a crime, I hope and pray that I am up against a prosecutor who is as bad as the one in your hypothetical.

[RW19]

My question is, does that sign meet the requirements of B(ii) and B (iii)?

In anticipation of my LTC in the next month, I've been looking for signs, but these signs do NOT stand out. In many cases, they're posted low, and the floors where I've been have been dark carpet or tile. The lettering doesn't stick out and I almost miss the sign each time.

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(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.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... wAr8w.dpuf

[chamberc]

The law leaves a lot to be determined later in a court.

[jeffrw]

I appreciate all the responses. For the most part, they confirm what I had been thinking:

1) The sign probably isn't compliant or enforceable.

2) OC'ing past the sign would still be foolish, because it would result in an immediate verbal notification.

3) CC'ing past the sign is probably fine, but there is a small risk that a LEO and a jury might interpret it as compliant. However, that only becomes an issue if you do a bad job concealing, or if you are forced to use deadly force (in which case your primary concern is staying alive, not legalities).

[safety1]

I believe the intent of those (Charles, Alice and others) that fought to get the violation of a 30.06/30.07 sign reduced
was so that if you accidently violated a sign (now a Class C) you wouldn't loose your CHL/LTC. If someone wants to
go for the ride over it that's their prerogative, not one I would suggest. Let's also be mindful that this will only ensure
those places that are improperly posted become properly posted.

[thetexan]

My question is, does that sign meet the requirements of B(ii) and B (iii)?

In anticipation of my LTC in the next month, I've been looking for signs, but these signs do NOT stand out. In many cases, they're posted low, and the floors where I've been have been dark carpet or tile. The lettering doesn't stick out and I almost miss the sign each time.

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(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.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... wAr8w.dpuf

That's easy. It does not.

tex

[thetexan]

As to the point about why worry about a class c for walking past a non compliant sign...

Let's visualize this.

You determine that a sign is non compliant so you assert your right and walk right in. Instead of a verbal warning the first indication of a problem is when you are greeted by a LEO who believes the sign is compliant. In any case you don't win the argument and are issued a ticket AND told you can't carry inside which permanently prohibits you.

So now you have your ticket and a decision to make, go to court or pay the ticket and get the record.

Somebody has got to be first. And you decide it's gonna be you. So you go to court and are promptly convicted. Oooooo, that wasn't expected! Again a decision to make, appeal or screw all this open carry crap. What do you do?

The answer to that is what is driving all of this "any form of sign is enough for me because I know the owner's intent and I don't want to go somewhere I'm not wanted or spend my money where they don't want my business" rationalization that has been the subject of countless posts on the forum.

A non-traffic class c is a Criminal Class C unless you take the time and trouble to fight to make the business account to the same law you do and force the issue at court or appeal.

As long as we assign more authority to non-compliant notifications than is deserved we will will continue to entertain each other with dances on the heads of pins and dreams of the way things could have been.

tex

[ScottDLS]

A non-traffic class c is a Criminal Class C unless you take the time and trouble to fight to make the business account to the same law you do and force the issue at court or appeal.

A traffic class C is a criminal class C too. A class C misdemeanor is a CRIME, whether it's for traffic, seat belt, trespass or watering your lawn on the wrong day.

[thetexan]

Agreed. But that traffic ticket doesn't make your defense attorney spend extra time and money producing evidence trying to prove the reasonableness of your decision to shoot to a jury who already has evidence that you do not obey the simplest of laws.

tex

[ScottDLS]

Agreed. But that traffic ticket doesn't make your defense attorney spend extra time and money producing evidence trying to prove the reasonableness of your decision to shoot to a jury who already has evidence that you do not obey the simplest of laws.

tex

The burden in criminal trial is on the prosecution, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that you broke the law, not on you to prove you're innocent. So first the prosecution is going to have to prove that you broke the law by walking past the non-compliant sign. After your defense takes them apart on that, they'll be left with trying to overcome the presumption of justification in 9.31 and 9.32, for shooting the bad guy...That's after they couldn't even prove you violated the 30.06 law on a stupid class C.

If you're NOT speeding... and a drunk jumps out in front of your car and is killed.... and the DA charges you with murder, they're going to have to start with proving you guilty of speeding...THEN prove that that contributed to the homicide. Enough hypotheticals that I'm just going to ignore non compliant signs.

[thetexan]

Agreed. But that traffic ticket doesn't make your defense attorney spend extra time and money producing evidence trying to prove the reasonableness of your decision to shoot to a jury who already has evidence that you do not obey the simplest of laws.

tex

The burden in criminal trial is on the prosecution, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that you broke the law, not on you to prove you're innocent. So first the prosecution is going to have to prove that you broke the law by walking past the non-compliant sign. After your defense takes them apart on that, they'll be left with trying to overcome the presumption of justification in 9.31 and 9.32, for shooting the bad guy...That's after they couldn't even prove you violated the 30.06 law on a stupid class C.

If you're NOT speeding... and a drunk jumps out in front of your car and is killed.... and the DA charges you with murder, they're going to have to start with proving you guilty of speeding...THEN prove that that contributed to the homicide. Enough hypotheticals that I'm just going to ignore non compliant signs.

Nope. Each element of any statutory crime from class c to third degree felony has the same proof requirement as it relates to the proof itself that is, it must be proven. The difficulty of that proof depends on that element. To prove a sign is non compliant may be as easy as proving you premeditated in a murder trial or as hard. But they both must be proven.

And while your defense attorney will try to instill reasonable doubt ( as opposed to proof as you say) he wouldn't have to do that had you not walked past a complaint sign. Or a non compliant sign the jury believes is "close enough". This is precisely the debate that is raging now about non compliance. Many people take a non compliant sign as good as the compliant. If people are so sure of themselves then why the debate. Walk past it. It will be easy to get off any Class C charge.

Oh yeah, the jury gets to decide that and with very closely compliant signs de minimis may play a factor as I have stated in other threads. So it's not necessarily a slam dunk. But it will take some litigation under the bridge to ever find out for sure.

I think we are in agreement

[T.Chaney]

If the sign doesn't meet the several legal requirements,carry on! I see signs all the time that are worded wrong,generic,or don't meet the proper letter size ect.I carry right past them.Concealed is Concealed.If nobody has cause to verbally inform you,then why out yourself.

[K.Mooneyham]

If any sign now has the exact same CONSEQUENCES as the proper 30.06 and/or 30.07 signs, then what is the POINT of the law in PC 30.06 and/or 30.07? If that part of the penal code doesn't do anything for you, as someone who is otherwise following the law, then the antis have won, and so have actual violent criminals, without firing a shot. Now, I'm not talking about a sign that's real close, maybe the letters are just a bit too small, or a word is mis-spelled, or the background isn't contrasting. That stuff is still close enough for me. I'm speaking about gun busters, or "no guns allowed" or some made up stuff that isn't remotely like the PC 30.06 and/or 30.07 wording and requirements.

Are we to believe that the "justice system" and those that enforce it, are so biased against the otherwise law-abiding and thus practically useless against actual criminals because the criminally minded folks don't care about the small stuff? So, does the rule of law mean nothing anymore? Is that what some folks on here are saying? Why have laws then? We'll just go back to deferring to the lords and ladies (those who can buy their way out of it) and revert to being the "common rabble" then, and doff our caps to those in gilded carriages. Maybe we should get some powdered wigs on the judges, while we're at it. Is that what it has come to now?

[chamberc]

If the sign doesn't meet the several legal requirements,carry on! I see signs all the time that are worded wrong,generic,or don't meet the proper letter size ect.[sic]I carry right past them.Concealed is Concealed.If nobody has cause to verbally inform you,then why out yourself.

That will work until you're in a situation where you have to use your firearm, then, be aware, if the sign is close it might be used against you. It may not make a difference with criminal charges, but may very well have bearing in a civil case.

[Unocat]

If the sign doesn't meet the several legal requirements,carry on! I see signs all the time that are worded wrong,generic,or don't meet the proper letter size ect.[sic]I carry right past them.Concealed is Concealed.If nobody has cause to verbally inform you,then why out yourself.

That will work until you're in a situation where you have to use your firearm, then, be aware, if the sign is close it might be used against you. It may not make a difference with criminal charges, but may very well have bearing in a civil case.

True, when it comes down to it anyone can be arrested for anything... and anyone maybe sued civily for anything. If I am pulling my pistol, it is because the alternative would have been the long sleep for me, my wife or friends. The old adage of "I'd rather be judged by nine, than carried by six" comes to mind.