Unlicensed possession on these premises... Sign

[Maxwell]

It is my understanding that this sign has no Power of Law since Constitutional Carry was passed.

Am I wrong? I ask because I keep seeing new one in windows...

M

[oohrah]

If you are asking about the TABC Blue sign, you are correct. That was canceled by the CC Law.

However, any no trespassing sign for unlicensed carry may still apply to private property if you are unlicensed. If you are licensed, the signs may apply, depending on what the property owner has posted.

[RoyGBiv]

I'm slightly surprised that TABC isn't making alcohol sellers take down those signs. In the context of TABC, I'm fairly certain they were obviated by Constitutional Carry law (opinion!).

Outside of TABC rules, 30.05 is the required sign to prohibit unlicensed carry, so, those TABC signs would still not be useful other than as window dressing.

[Mike S]

Outside of TABC rules, 30.05 is the required sign to prohibit unlicensed carry, so, those TABC signs would still not be useful other than as window dressing.

I'd like for the Legislature to clean this up next session.

The wording of 30.05 is different from that used in 30.06/30.07.

30.06/.07 requires that the exact verbiage in the statute be included on the sign for the sign to be considered as "effective notice".

30.05 merely requires the wording to be "substantially similar", not exact. The problem with this lower threshold of specificity is that depending on the jurisdiction that the "jury of your peers" is drawn from, you may lose that fight.

As a matter of law, if it's an invalid 30.06/.07 the judge should rule or instruct the jury that effective notice wasn't given unless another form of effectivenotice was provided (and if the judge doesn't, I'd think it could be grounds for an appeal). Much more room for interpretation with what's 'close enough' regarding the 30.05, which is why the Texas lawyers I've heard speak on the 30.05 opine that any sign that prohibits carry of a handgun aught to be regarded as 'effective notice' for unlicensed carry. ((I agree with this as 'practical' advice to keep people away from any potential drama, BUT it irks me that the law was likely drafted with this ambiguity as a compromise to get it passed during that session. I want laws that are clearly written, & mean what they say. I don’t want to be guessing what 'substantially similar' means in the 254 different counties in Texas. To me, substantially similar means it can be off by a word or two; not just a Gun Buster image somewhere near the entrance)).

[PriestTheRunner]

I'm slightly surprised that TABC isn't making alcohol sellers take down those signs. In the context of TABC, I'm fairly certain they were obviated by Constitutional Carry law (opinion!).

TABC has publicly addressed this, and stated that all blue signs are to come down. It just hasn't been followed through.
They simply now exclude the blue signs from the requirements: https://www.tabc.texas.gov/texas-alcoho ... uirements/

The sections for the TABC blue sign was directly repealed:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/b ... 01927F.pdf

(3)AAwas not given effective notice under Section 30.06
or 30.07 of this code, as applicable.
SECTIONA26.AAThe following provisions are repealed:
(1)AASection 11.041, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2)AASection 11.61(e), Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(3)AASection 61.11, Alcoholic Beverage Code;

[ScottDLS]

Outside of TABC rules, 30.05 is the required sign to prohibit unlicensed carry, so, those TABC signs would still not be useful other than as window dressing.

I'd like for the Legislature to clean this up next session.

The wording of 30.05 is different from that used in 30.06/30.07.

30.06/.07 requires that the exact verbiage in the statute be included on the sign for the sign to be considered as "effective notice".

30.05 merely requires the wording to be "substantially similar", not exact. The problem with this lower threshold of specificity is that depending on the jurisdiction that the "jury of your peers" is drawn from, you may lose that fight.

As a matter of law, if it's an invalid 30.06/.07 the judge should rule or instruct the jury that effective notice wasn't given unless another form of effectivenotice was provided (and if the judge doesn't, I'd think it could be grounds for an appeal). Much more room for interpretation with what's 'close enough' regarding the 30.05, which is why the Texas lawyers I've heard speak on the 30.05 opine that any sign that prohibits carry of a handgun aught to be regarded as 'effective notice' for unlicensed carry. ((I agree with this as 'practical' advice to keep people away from any potential drama, BUT it irks me that the law was likely drafted with this ambiguity as a compromise to get it passed during that session. I want laws that are clearly written, & mean what they say. I don’t want to be guessing what 'substantially similar' means in the 254 different counties in Texas. To me, substantially similar means it can be off by a word or two; not just a Gun Buster image somewhere near the entrance)).

To me this isn't a particular priority for the Legislature. There aren't going to be too many jury trials in municipal court or JP court on a $200 no jail ticket, that is never going to be issued because if the store even notices someone carrying in theoretical violation of their "sign" they are probably just going to tell the person to leave. If they also call the cops, by the time they show up, if they bother, the person is going to be gone.

My preference for the legislature this session is to do nothing. The last time they passed legislation allowing permitless carry, they made the law significantly worse for LTC and for the carry of long guns. First, do no harm.