TexasCHLforum.com

Anyone else seeing 46.03 signs popping up?

Thoughts?

Have not seen the second one, but local HEBs have the 30.05 in addition to the 30.07, but NO 30.06.

Some 30.05's but only a few.

Also you are posting two very different signs... 30.05 is for unlicensed carry whereas the 46.03 is for no carry in prohibited places such as schools, federal property, secure areas of airports, etc.

Mostly at hospitals and medical clinics. Their lawyers know the game.

I saw one at a restaurant that had zero reason to post one... so I ignored it like every other sign. See sig line.

AJSully421 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:23 pm I saw one at a restaurant that had zero reason to post one... so I ignored it like every other sign. See sig line.

Yeah, many are clueless. I had to tell the manager of a French bistro that is only open for breakfast and lunch to take down their 51% sign.

oohrah wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 12:55 pm Mostly at hospitals and medical clinics. Their lawyers know the game.

I agree. Ascension Seton is strongly against guns and they know what is required. I was surprised to see the Austin hospital posted with al 4 signs - 05, 06, 07, and 46.03.

I have yet to find a Seton building that is not at least posted with the 30.05, 06, and 07 signs.

US law shield is of the opinion that a simple gunbuster sign may hold force of law to prohibit unlicensed carry. And based on the penal code verbiage, I may be inclined to agree with them.

I am not seeing these signs, but I am seeing alot of signs that dispense incorrect legal advice / opinions by stating that "unlicensed carry of a firearm is a felony" aka the old blue TABC signs. I think a lawyer here previously said that posting signs with incorrect legal advice is not a crime (at least if you are not a lawyer), but then again, IANAL, so I really don't know.

It is frustrating nonetheless.

locke_n_load wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:23 pm US law shield is of the opinion that a simple gunbuster sign may hold force of law to prohibit unlicensed carry. And based on the penal code verbiage, I may be inclined to agree with them.

Can you elaborate on this?

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:51 am

locke_n_load wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:23 pm US law shield is of the opinion that a simple gunbuster sign may hold force of law to prohibit unlicensed carry. And based on the penal code verbiage, I may be inclined to agree with them.

Can you elaborate on this?

Here is the link to their CC packet they put together..


https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/ ... igital.pdf

locke_n_load wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:23 pm US law shield is of the opinion that a simple gunbuster sign may hold force of law to prohibit unlicensed carry. And based on the penal code verbiage, I may be inclined to agree with them.

I will agree with you as well. If you wind up facing a jury, you will judged by idiots who know nothing about guns or gun laws, and will find it perfectly reasonable that a gunbuster sign intent is clear.

oohrah wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 11:07 am

locke_n_load wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:23 pm US law shield is of the opinion that a simple gunbuster sign may hold force of law to prohibit unlicensed carry. And based on the penal code verbiage, I may be inclined to agree with them.

I will agree with you as well. If you wind up facing a jury, you will judged by idiots who know nothing about guns or gun laws, and will find it perfectly reasonable that a gunbuster sign intent is clear.

Well, again, if Texas legislators keep writing ambiguous laws, then antis are going to take advantage of that ambiguousness. The entirety of 36.05, .06 and .07, as well as 46.03, need to be reworked to be very clear about what each sign means, how it MUST appear, and where those signs should be posted. I know that this is Texas and there are strong property rights, as it should be. However, the mechanisms to exclude those legally carrying for self-defense should be crystal clear to all concerned, exactly worded, and posted at every entrance that the public might enter some facility, and the law should further state that no other permutation or combination of signs will hold any legal authority. Businesses want to keep out legal carriers, fine, that's their right...but they need to be held to a standard and forced to do that the correct way.

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:06 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:51 am

locke_n_load wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:23 pm US law shield is of the opinion that a simple gunbuster sign may hold force of law to prohibit unlicensed carry. And based on the penal code verbiage, I may be inclined to agree with them.

Can you elaborate on this?

Here is the link to their CC packet they put together..


https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/ ... igital.pdf

They are in the business of sowing fear, so I view anything from them as biased. I was more curious about your reference to having read the actual statute language.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:55 pm

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:06 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:51 am

locke_n_load wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:23 pm US law shield is of the opinion that a simple gunbuster sign may hold force of law to prohibit unlicensed carry. And based on the penal code verbiage, I may be inclined to agree with them.

Can you elaborate on this?

Here is the link to their CC packet they put together..


https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/ ... igital.pdf

They are in the business of sowing fear, so I view anything from them as biased. I was more curious about your reference to having read the actual statute language.

Unfortunately there isn't a clear answer here, just "informed options".

Here is the exact text as written...

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, a general residential operation operating as a residential treatment center, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;

However if you move down the statute a bit you run into this.

(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.

So as you can see, it can be interpreted in different ways....

If you would like to read HB 1927 for yourself, here is the link. You can form your own opinion.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/b ... navpanes=0

And this is why I tell anyone who wants to carry a firearm that they would be much better off getting their LTC..