Anyone Seen a 3005 Sign?

[Grayling813]

Dumb question but...

What about all the TABC Signs? Going into the local 7-11, that sells beer, it says that it's a felony to carry unlicensed
Do those signs need to come down?

What about the 51% signs?

TABC blue are no longer valid, only 51% now. 30.05 and gun buster signs are valid for unlicensed carry only. LTC still adhere to 51%, 30.06 and 30.07

What is a "gun buster" sign and what part of the Texas Penal Code makes it applicable to permitless carry in a location open to the public?

Yes, I am curious about that, as well. Seems like the law defines what the new sign should have on it, or "substantially similar", right?

My understanding was that the new laws required a 30.05 sign to prohibit unlicensed carry.

SECTIONA17.Section 30.05, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsections (c) and (d-3) and amending Subsections (d) and (f) to
read as follows:
(c)A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited
on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property
that:
(1)includes language that is identical to or
substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05,
Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this
property with a firearm";
(2)includes the language described by Subdivision (1)
in both English and Spanish;
(3)appears in contrasting colors with block letters
at least one inch in height; and
(4)is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly
visible to the public.

[RPBrown]

I found this link interesting. Apparently the organization who published the document advises local governments.
https://www.tml.org/DocumentCenter/View ... e-2021-PDF

If I am reading this correctly, according to this you cannot go on the premise, parking lot, sidewalk or other part of the grounds whether or not you are licensed. Did this change this year or are they incorrect?

This is directly from the link:

"State law prohibits the carrying of certain types of firearms in certain places. A “firearm” generally
means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the
energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that
use. TEX. PENAL CODE § 46.01(a)(3). A “handgun” is a subset of “firearm” and means any firearm
that is designed, made, or adapted to be fired with one hand. Id. § 46.01(a)(5).
A person commits a third-degree felony if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
possesses or goes with any firearm, whether or not they hold a license:
1. on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on
which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a
passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school
Page 7 of 46
or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or
written authorization of the institution. Id. § 46.03(a)(1).
Note: The attorney general has concluded that this provision “prohibits handguns from
places on which a school-sponsored activity is occurring, which places can include grounds
such as public or private driveways, streets, sidewalks or walkways, parking lots, parking
garages, or other parking areas.” Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. KP-0050. Other local
governments frequently lend their facilities to host activities sponsored by a school or
education institution. During that time, no person may come onto the “grounds” of the
facility, and no signage is required. (A local government could perhaps decide to post
signage to assist those carrying a firearm to know a school-sponsored activity is taking
place, but the law doesn’t require it, or even expressly allow it.)"

[NotRPB]

just now saw one 30.05 sign HEB (had to look for it, at shoe level) along with no smoking, no photography & 30.07 ...& one taped up...masks are optional if vaxxed

[jmorris]

Dumb question but...

What about all the TABC Signs? Going into the local 7-11, that sells beer, it says that it's a felony to carry unlicensed
Do those signs need to come down?

What about the 51% signs?

TABC blue are no longer valid, only 51% now. 30.05 and gun buster signs are valid for unlicensed carry only. LTC still adhere to 51%, 30.06 and 30.07

What is a "gun buster" sign and what part of the Texas Penal Code makes it applicable to permitless carry in a location open to the public?

Yes, I am curious about that, as well. Seems like the law defines what the new sign should have on it, or "substantially similar", right?

My understanding was that the new laws required a 30.05 sign to prohibit unlicensed carry.

SECTIONA17.Section 30.05, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsections (c) and (d-3) and amending Subsections (d) and (f) to
read as follows:
(c)A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited
on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property
that:
(1)includes language that is identical to or
substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05,
Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this
property with a firearm";
(2)includes the language described by Subdivision (1)
in both English and Spanish;
(3)appears in contrasting colors with block letters
at least one inch in height; and
(4)is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly
visible to the public.

Some have taken "substantially similar" to include even gun buster sign. See the recently posted [pre-paid legal service] link. I don't have it handy.

[philip964]

Dumb question but...

What about all the TABC Signs? Going into the local 7-11, that sells beer, it says that it's a felony to carry unlicensed
Do those signs need to come down?

What about the 51% signs?

TABC blue are no longer valid, only 51% now. 30.05 and gun buster signs are valid for unlicensed carry only. LTC still adhere to 51%, 30.06 and 30.07

This I think is all LTC need to know about this, right?

Or if personally asked to leave.

[Tex1961]

Dumb question but...

What about all the TABC Signs? Going into the local 7-11, that sells beer, it says that it's a felony to carry unlicensed
Do those signs need to come down?

What about the 51% signs?

TABC blue are no longer valid, only 51% now. 30.05 and gun buster signs are valid for unlicensed carry only. LTC still adhere to 51%, 30.06 and 30.07

This I think is all LTC need to know about this, right?

Or if personally asked to leave.

Yeah, pretty much as far as sign are concerned. A couple of other changes are no longer restricted to belt or shoulder holsters.

[NotRPB]

Dumb question but...

What about all the TABC Signs? Going into the local 7-11, that sells beer, it says that it's a felony to carry unlicensed
Do those signs need to come down?

What about the 51% signs?

TABC blue are no longer valid, only 51% now. 30.05 and gun buster signs are valid for unlicensed carry only. LTC still adhere to 51%, 30.06 and 30.07

What is a "gun buster" sign and what part of the Texas Penal Code makes it applicable to permitless carry in a location open to the public?

Yes, I am curious about that, as well. Seems like the law defines what the new sign should have on it, or "substantially similar", right?

My understanding was that the new laws required a 30.05 sign to prohibit unlicensed carry.

SECTIONA17.Section 30.05, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsections (c) and (d-3) and amending Subsections (d) and (f) to
read as follows:
(c)A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited
on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property
that:
(1)includes language that is identical to or
substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05,
Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this
property with a firearm";
(2)includes the language described by Subdivision (1)
in both English and Spanish;
(3)appears in contrasting colors with block letters
at least one inch in height; and
(4)is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly
visible to the public.

Some have taken "substantially similar" to include even gun buster sign. See the recently posted [pre-paid legal service] link. I don't have it handy.

Wonder if pictographs pictures are "language" and if so, do they need TWO pictures both a gun manufactured in England and one manufactured in Spain pictographed to comply with one in English & one in Spanish

[ScottDLS]

I'm not sure where this idea that a sticker with a pictograph of a gun and slash through represents effective notice of trespass under 30.05. I know [prepaid legal service] put out a document suggesting this. But the debate has been going on as long as CHL. Some point to Texas AG Dan Morales' 26 year old opinion DM 363. I've read that opinion numerous times and I have no idea where this idea comes from.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/si ... dm0363.pdf

The Code TXPC 30.05 requires a person to receive notice that their entry (with a handgun) is prohibited to be guilty of trespass. HB 1927 adds a mechanism that may be used specifically to communicate this via a sign. A cartoon frowny face in crayon next to a pictograph of a Beretta style squirt gun...doesn't seem to make it clear that a person's entry to a location normally open to the public is prohibited (presumably by virtue of them carrying a firearm).

[chasfm11]

With a bit of topic drift, the "Unlicensed" signs are definitely not coming down, even in the big retailers. I didn't expect Wal-Mart to put up a 30.05 sign. I did expect them in Sprouts, Whole Foods, etc. But I thought TABC would at least try to comply and send out correspondence to license holders. They seemed to be pretty aggressive at warning license holders that they were responsible for incidents in their places of business when open carry was implemented. Of course, the bureaucrats at TABC may be deliberately stalling, too.

Is it just me or is no one taking this new law seriously?

[ScottDLS]

With a bit of topic drift, the "Unlicensed" signs are definitely not coming down, even in the big retailers. I didn't expect Wal-Mart to put up a 30.05 sign. I did expect them in Sprouts, Whole Foods, etc. But I thought TABC would at least try to comply and send out correspondence to license holders. They seemed to be pretty aggressive at warning license holders that they were responsible for incidents in their places of business when open carry was implemented. Of course, the bureaucrats at TABC may be deliberately stalling, too.

Is it just me or is no one taking this new law seriously?

TABC really had no statutory authority to hold ABC license holders responsible for weapons incidents in their stores any more then they did prior to open carry. All I ever saw after open carry was signs saying (incorrectly) that it was illegal to carry arms other than licensed handguns in these stores (i.e. concealed rifle). That wasn't illegal, though TABC could revoke a liquor license for stores that allowed it...presumably why they put up the (incorrect) signs.

[chasfm11]

TABC really had no statutory authority to hold ABC license holders responsible for weapons incidents in their stores any more then they did prior to open carry. All I ever saw after open carry was signs saying (incorrectly) that it was illegal to carry arms other than licensed handguns in these stores (i.e. concealed rifle). That wasn't illegal, though TABC could revoke a liquor license for stores that allowed it...presumably why they put up the (incorrect) signs.

Perhaps so. But I knew the owner of a taco restaurant who is a really strong gun enthusiast and 2nd Amendment supporter. We were all shocked when he posted 30.07 signs in his restaurant. I asked he why and he said that if a customer came in an created a fuss over open carry and the police were called, he was required to report the incident to TABC in writing. The result could be him loosing his license and he wasn't willing to take that risk It could have been bunk and he could have had a different reason for the sign. Separately, I know that there was an incident in a local restaurant with guys carrying black powder pistols after a reenactment. A customer pitched a fit at seeing the guns and even the police lt who ended up on the scene could not calm her down. She demanded that they all be arrested. They managed to get her to leave instead. I understand that incident and the response to it from TABC was the genesis of the concerns. I have no first hand knowledge of any of it and can only go off what I've heard. It seems easy to believe given the way TABC handled things like municipalities putting up 51% signs at their events. I readily admit my natural bias toward bureaucratic fiefdoms and I consider the TABC to be one of them.

[K.Mooneyham]

I'm not sure where this idea that a sticker with a pictograph of a gun and slash through represents effective notice of trespass under 30.05. I know [prepaid legal service] put out a document suggesting this. But the debate has been going on as long as CHL. Some point to Texas AG Dan Morales' 26 year old opinion DM 363. I've read that opinion numerous times and I have no idea where this idea comes from.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/si ... dm0363.pdf

The Code TXPC 30.05 requires a person to receive notice that their entry (with a handgun) is prohibited to be guilty of trespass. HB 1927 adds a mechanism that may be used specifically to communicate this via a sign. A cartoon frowny face in crayon next to a pictograph of a Beretta style squirt gun...doesn't seem to make it clear that a person's entry to a location normally open to the public is prohibited (presumably by virtue of them carrying a firearm).

Oh, I'm with you on this one, for certain. It seems there's a movement of some sort to build a "common knowledge consensus" instead of the law being taken as it is written. I, for one, really, really don't like that. There is absolutely no way that a pictogram is "substantially similar" to the wording of the law in TPC 30.05, despite "common knowledge". My uneducated guess is that it will have to be, unfortunately, tested in court at some point. And there are, also unfortunately, certain jurisdictions in this state where a jury can be put together that can be talked into agreeing with that (wrong) "common knowledge". I just hope that hypothetical test case is somewhere more reasonable.

[Flightmare]

The Code TXPC 30.05 requires a person to receive notice that their entry (with a handgun) is prohibited to be guilty of trespass. HB 1927 adds a mechanism that may be used specifically to communicate this via a sign. A cartoon frowny face in crayon next to a pictograph of a Beretta style squirt gun...doesn't seem to make it clear that a person's entry to a location normally open to the public is prohibited (presumably by virtue of them carrying a firearm).

Not only that, but that said pictograph ONLY applied to unlicensed carry. I agree that a pictograph is too vague to convey the correct meaning. In my non-lawyer opinion, it is not "language that is identical to or substantially similar" to wording in HB 1927.

[cyphertext]

I might be in the minority here, but I am fine with a no guns "ghostbuster" sign applying to unlicensed carriers. If you take the approach that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right without any requirements of a government permit or training, then the same logic should apply to the property owner that he can restrict firearms without specific, government regulated signs. No guns allowed with a pictograph is pretty clear in what the intent is. Seems a lot more intuitive than wading through the myriad of signs we have today.

[ScottDLS]

I might be in the minority here, but I am fine with a no guns "ghostbuster" sign applying to unlicensed carriers. If you take the approach that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right without any requirements of a government permit or training, then the same logic should apply to the property owner that he can restrict firearms without specific, government regulated signs. No guns allowed with a pictograph is pretty clear in what the intent is. Seems a lot more intuitive than wading through the myriad of signs we have today.

The only thing government regulated specific signs are for is to legally enlist the State in enforcing one's personal biases re: guns via criminal prosecution. No guns allowed with a pictograph is moderately clear as a statement of whomever put the sign up personal biases. However it is not at all clear that it references the wishes of the owners of the property that you not enter under penalty of criminal law. I am the (part) owner of WalMart, ExxonMobil, and Albertsons as well as 497 other companies through my ownership of ETF's. I want everyone to carry regardless of signage on all these properties. I, as the owner, have made my intent quite clear (I posted a happy face and a gun emoji on this post ). Just as this post is not a Defense to Prosecution under 30.05, a sticker with a slash through it and a Beretta squirt gun pictograph is not a legal notification under TXPX 30.05 that you can't enter a particular location open to the public.