Off the wall 30.06 posting situation

[03Lightningrocks]

There is a Cheesecake Factory in the Frisco Mall. No signage at all anywhere on the door or entry into the place. Nothing on either side of the door. I get in and we are seated along the entry area side glass. I look to my left where the glass is along the side of the entrance and spot a huge 30.06 sign. There is no way a person would spot that sign unless they were looking at all the windows along the sides of the entry area. In other words, one would have to look to their left at the window to see it. My granddaughter has a birthday on the 23rd. She told her mom she wanted cheesecake factory. I will try to get some pics of how the signage is located but it seems if it is not visible on the entry doors it is not a compliant signage situation. Anyone have an opinion on how the law works on this situation? Heck, I was already in the place and was not walking the 200 yards back to the car to dispose of my handgun so I just stayed and ate.

[LDB415]

Lettering on glass is not a valid sign regardless of location. The rule requires contrasting colors. Glass is clear. It has no color. So it isn't a valid sign.

[Tex1961]

You have what we lovingly call “Defense to prosecution”. A location must give proper notice for a sign to be legal as defined within Texas statute. IE, correct size, placement, etc. However it can be argued that once you did notice the signs you have now been given notification and should leave the premises. Just remember, it’s only a minor misdemeanor unless your caught and refuse to leave. Then you can be charged with trespass. Keep covered and carry on.

[03Lightningrocks]

You have what we lovingly call “Defense to prosecution”. A location must give proper notice for a sign to be legal as defined within Texas statute. IE, correct size, placement, etc. However it can be argued that once you did notice the signs you have now been given notification and should leave the premises. Just remember, it’s only a minor misdemeanor unless your caught and refuse to leave. Then you can be charged with trespass. Keep covered and carry on.

Noticed you are from Frisco. No doubt you must know the Cheesecake factory I am talking about. If you are near that entrance to the mall, take a look at how the signage is set up. I only carry concealed and as the old saying goes, concealed is concealed. If some bad guy is trying to kill me or mine, I could not care less if I am in violation of a 30.06 sign. Staying alive and facing court beats dead and no court every day in my mind.

[Tex1961]

You have what we lovingly call “Defense to prosecution”. A location must give proper notice for a sign to be legal as defined within Texas statute. IE, correct size, placement, etc. However it can be argued that once you did notice the signs you have now been given notification and should leave the premises. Just remember, it’s only a minor misdemeanor unless your caught and refuse to leave. Then you can be charged with trespass. Keep covered and carry on.

Noticed you are from Frisco. No doubt you must know the Cheesecake factory I am talking about. If you are near that entrance to the mall, take a look at how the signage is set up. I only carry concealed and as the old saying goes, concealed is concealed. If some bad guy is trying to kill me or mine, I could not care less if I am in violation of a 30.06 sign. Staying alive and facing court beats dead and no court every day in my mind.

Yeah, I’ve had to stay covered up there once before. I absolutely refuse to go to anyplace like a mail without carrying. I can count on one hand though how many times I’ve been there in the last 10-15 years though.

[RPBrown]

I had a similar situation last week. My wife needed a battery for her watch. We take our watches to a little place in the Irving Mall. I haven't been there in a few years and will not go there unarmed. There used to be notices on the doors although not valid (size, contrasting colors, English and Spanish). I noticed when I pulled up that the signs were gone from the doors. Cool. The place I go is just inside one of the entrances so I never really worried about it much. Dropped watch off and was told it would only be about 15 minutes. Okay, I will walk around a few minutes. I got out to the main walking area with stores on both sides and had walked maybe 50' and there was an upright stand alone white sign with black lettering. 30.07 english on 1 side and spanish on the other. Didn't worry about it as I was concealed anyway. Walked down to the next turn and there was another stand alone upright sign. 30.06 english on 1 side and spanish on the other. Now, IANAL but I see no way these are compliant. By then my watch should have been completed so I walked back past the signs shaking my head as I go.
Now, my question is, by the way these signs are made, are these people that stupid, are the just uninformed, or do they want to appear to be anti-2A for the leftist amongst us? Or am I mistaken that these are compliant?

[crazy2medic]

My Understanding is the signs must be posted at the Entrances and they have to be visible from the parking lot!

[chamberc]

Lettering on glass is not a valid sign regardless of location. The rule requires contrasting colors. Glass is clear. It has no color. So it isn't a valid sign.

This has not been decided in court. At this point, it is only an opinion based on the reading of the law.

[Scott in Houston]

I had a similar situation last week. My wife needed a battery for her watch. We take our watches to a little place in the Irving Mall. I haven't been there in a few years and will not go there unarmed. There used to be notices on the doors although not valid (size, contrasting colors, English and Spanish). I noticed when I pulled up that the signs were gone from the doors. Cool. The place I go is just inside one of the entrances so I never really worried about it much. Dropped watch off and was told it would only be about 15 minutes. Okay, I will walk around a few minutes. I got out to the main walking area with stores on both sides and had walked maybe 50' and there was an upright stand alone white sign with black lettering. 30.07 english on 1 side and spanish on the other. Didn't worry about it as I was concealed anyway. Walked down to the next turn and there was another stand alone upright sign. 30.06 english on 1 side and spanish on the other. Now, IANAL but I see no way these are compliant. By then my watch should have been completed so I walked back past the signs shaking my head as I go.
Now, my question is, by the way these signs are made, are these people that stupid, are the just uninformed, or do they want to appear to be anti-2A for the leftist amongst us? Or am I mistaken that these are compliant?

I take a situations like this as most likely a result of insurance and lawyers for the corporations that own the malls and shopping centers.
They "check a box" that the signs are "up" and aren't very concerned about whether valid or not. They're just happy to be able to let the insurance carrier and their legal teams know that, 'the signs are up.' <check>

I could be wrong about my interpretation, but in my line of work, I see similar things done all the time for various types of compliance.

Regardless, I stay concealed and carry. My safety > potential misdemeanor ticket and fine.

[K.Mooneyham]

And these sorts of situations are why the entire 30.0x section needs clean-up legislation. The text of the section should be without ambiguity. Anyone who reads it should know exactly what is required, depending upon which section is posted. And the law should state that if the exact letter is not adhered to that the signage is invalid and unenforceable. We respect property rights in Texas, and that's most certainly well and good. However, these entities shouldn't be able to dance around the subject like they do and expect that when it suits their whims, they can utilize the law against someone, most likely for a political purpose. Otherwise our state will eventually end up like Commifornia and Nu-Yawk.

[Soccerdad1995]

Lettering on glass is not a valid sign regardless of location. The rule requires contrasting colors. Glass is clear. It has no color. So it isn't a valid sign.

This has not been decided in court. At this point, it is only an opinion based on the reading of the law.

I agree this has not been tested in court. But I do think the law is pretty clear when it says "contrasting colors". It is a fact that clear glass does not have a color. IANAL, but I think that point would be pretty easy to prove in court. The only real argument I could see is if the color of whatever is beyond the glass contrasts with the color of the lettering. But to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor would have to able to prove exactly what was behind the glass at the precise moment that the LTC holder had the opportunity to look at it. Assuming black lettering, a lady wearing a white dress would be contrasting, but the same lady wearing a black dress would obviously not be contrasting.

This will likely remain an academic exercise since the odds of a case actually being brought to trial are extremely low given that all of the following would have to occur for that to happen:
-A concealed carry holder is somehow noticed to be carrying a gun (but the observer does not actually see the gun itself as that would fall under 30.07).
-The observer informs a person in control of the location about the gun (or they are that person)
-The person in control calls the police without first asking their customer to take the gun back to their car (refusing to leave after being asked is a separate offense)
-The police arrive while the customer is still at the location
-The police actually issue a citation instead of just telling the LTC holder that management wants them to leave
-A prosecutor decides to prosecute the offense
-The defendant decides to go to trial instead of just paying the fine
-The defendant is not a VESP, or other person with another defense to prosecution

I think I covered all of the necessary steps here, but may have missed one or more

[srothstein]

This will likely remain an academic exercise since the odds of a case actually being brought to trial are extremely low given that all of the following would have to occur for that to happen:
-A concealed carry holder is somehow noticed to be carrying a gun (but the observer does not actually see the gun itself as that would fall under 30.07).
-The observer informs a person in control of the location about the gun (or they are that person)
-The person in control calls the police without first asking their customer to take the gun back to their car (refusing to leave after being asked is a separate offense)
-The police arrive while the customer is still at the location
-The police actually issue a citation instead of just telling the LTC holder that management wants them to leave
-A prosecutor decides to prosecute the offense
-The defendant decides to go to trial instead of just paying the fine
-The defendant is not a VESP, or other person with another defense to prosecution

I think I covered all of the necessary steps here, but may have missed one or more

You missed two very important steps:
- The defendant is convicted as a result of the trial.
- The defendant appeals to higher level courts, and keeps appealing until it gets to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Incidentally, this requires the trial to have a transcript, which is an added expense at class C trials and not normally done.

While a lower court ruling may be informative, it has no binding authority, even on the court that made the ruling. An appeals court decision is precedent that is binding on the entire circuit and may be used as a strong argument for cases within another circuit.

One question I am not sure of is whether the county court ruling counts as binding when it is an appeal court. Municipal and JP courts appeal to County Court.

[srothstein]

My Understanding is the signs must be posted at the Entrances and they have to be visible from the parking lot!

Nothing in the law says this. For example, 30.06 just says:

(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.

As a general rule, I believe the signs can be posted anywhere in the building but only apply to the portions behind the sign.

[Excaliber]

I once worked in a building in downtown Houston that had gunbuster signs posted at the entrance.

I had occasion to speak with the building management and asked what the intent was because the signs were noncompliant and I knew that some personnel in some of the tenant spaces carried on a regular basis as part of their business.

The building manager smiled and said he knew the signs were non-compliant, but he posted them to keep the rabid antis happy while being fully aware that the armed personnel in the building knew they were noncompliant and simply carried on.

Management at other premises may be using this strategy as well, because the antis never bother to educate themselves on the law and get all kinds of good feelings from seeing non-compliant signs that don't interfere with the rights of people who exercise their concealed carry rights.

[03Lightningrocks]

Back when Toys R Us was still open, they had a "gunbuster" style sign. I use to chuckle to myself every time I walked past it. I swear, as long as I live I will never understand how any rational thinking human being can think that any "no guns allowed" sign will make them safer. Do these clowns really believe some guy wanting to commit a mass shooting or robbery is going to see that sign and decide he better not break that law while he was willing to break the law forbidding murder or armed robbery? I just can't get my head around that kind of thinking.