But I didn't see it!

[RottenApple]

Lots of threads lately about 30.06 signs, effective notice, etc. one thing that keeps coming up is a kind of "but I didn't see it" defense. I.E. - A business posts a valid 30.06, but its towards the rear of the inside of the store, on the front of the building away from the entrance, at some entrances but not others, etc. Regardless of the exact location, the sign is clearly visible to the public, but it doesn't jump out and smack you when you approach/enter the building.

So I'm kinda curious about this "defense". It seems to me that the mall/police/DA only has to prove that the posted location is valid. I.E. - that the sign meet all requirements, including being in a location "conspicuous to the public" (which, sadly, has no legal definition). Assuming that they do, would it then not be up to the defendant to prove that they didn't receive notice because they didn't see the sign?

Ooh. And what about a blind CHL holder? Would ANY sign be considered effective notice???

Now, I'm not interested in the "moral" or "ethical" obligation that some feel necessary to obey in regards to invalid postings. Y'all have your opinion (which i respect) and i have mine. And I suspect we aren't gonna change each others minds about that. I'm only curious about this "I didn't see it" defense.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Wait there are blind CHL holders?

[RottenApple]

Wait there are blind CHL holders?

Yes. They are few and far between, but there's nothing in the law that prevents them from obtaining a CHL and carrying as long as they can meet all the requirements. I know that there have been a few threads here about how instructors accommodate visually impaired persons.

I've actually met a legally blind CHL holder out at GPSR once. He was a darn good shot too! He shoots based on audible cues. For target practice, he had a helper (his son, I believe) use a buzzer right where the bull's eye was. Then, once the range was hot, he could remember that exact position and hit it very accurately. It was quite impressive.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Learn something every day!

To the point, I'm probably wrong but I thought they had to post signs in sight of all entrances. If not pragmatically I'm not seeing the harm unless you're incorrect in your CHL dress (aka, reveal).

[RottenApple]

Learn something every day!

To the point, I'm probably wrong but I thought they had to post signs in sight of all entrances. If not pragmatically I'm not seeing the harm unless you're incorrect in your CHL dress (aka, reveal).

Nope.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent;
and (2) received notice that:
(A) entry on t he property by a l icense holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on t he property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner
of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f). (3) “Written communication” means:
(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 c oncealed 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 i s not a pr emises or other place on w hich the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Unfortunately there is no definition for "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

[AEA]

Learn something every day!

To the point, I'm probably wrong but I thought they had to post signs in sight of all entrances. If not pragmatically I'm not seeing the harm unless you're incorrect in your CHL dress (aka, reveal).

What many are missing is the possibility of you having to defend yourself or others in a 30.06 location. You gonna go in and shoot if necessary?

You gonna not go in and go somewhere else where your legal shooting action would not incur additional charges?

Get what I mean? Yes, concealed is concealed until you actually have to use it.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Learn something every day!

To the point, I'm probably wrong but I thought they had to post signs in sight of all entrances. If not pragmatically I'm not seeing the harm unless you're incorrect in your CHL dress (aka, reveal).

What many are missing is the possibility of you having to defend yourself or others in a 30.06 location. You gonna go in and shoot if necessary?

You gonna not go in and go somewhere else where your legal shooting action would not incur additional charges?

Get what I mean? Yes, concealed is concealed until you actually have to use it.

I'd proffer we're more discussing the ramifications of accidentally going into the location in a n on critical event situation. If it comes down to a have to use situation, I'd proffer that signs/warnings whatever are the least of your worries, no?

[2firfun50]

Lots of threads lately about 30.06 signs, effective notice, etc. one thing that keeps coming up is a kind of "but I didn't see it" defense. I.E. - A business posts a valid 30.06, but its towards the rear of the inside of the store, on the front of the building away from the entrance, at some entrances but not others, etc. Regardless of the exact location, the sign is clearly visible to the public, but it doesn't jump out and smack you when you approach/enter the building.

So I'm kinda curious about this "defense". It seems to me that the mall/police/DA only has to prove that the posted location is valid. I.E. - that the sign meet all requirements, including being in a location "conspicuous to the public" (which, sadly, has no legal definition). Assuming that they do, would it then not be up to the defendant to prove that they didn't receive notice because they didn't see the sign?

Ooh. And what about a blind CHL holder? Would ANY sign be considered effective notice???

Now, I'm not interested in the "moral" or "ethical" obligation that some feel necessary to obey in regards to invalid postings. Y'all have your opinion (which i respect) and i have mine. And I suspect we aren't gonna change each others minds about that. I'm only curious about this "I didn't see it" defense.

To the original subject, I think the "didn't see it" defense has a big hole. As with many legal notices, authorities just have to prove they sent, provided, delivered the notice. I don't know of any circumstance where one must prove you read it and and understood the notice. The post office returns a lot of registered mail every year. The purpose is to demonstrate the notice was sent. Meets the burden of proof of providing legal notification.

I'm not a lawyer, but have experience with a wayward child.

[RottenApple]

I'd proffer we're more discussing the ramifications of accidentally going into the location in a n on critical event situation. If it comes down to a have to use situation, I'd proffer that signs/warnings whatever are the least of your worries, no?

Yeah. We aren't talking about "Ooo. I heard something. Lets go play Batman!". But I'm not necessarily talking about accidental either. Some people here have said they would use the dodge "I know it's posted, but I only go in through the XXXX entrance and there's no sign there so if I get caught I'll play innocent like I didn't know". So here are some basic scenarios of what I mean:

Scenario 1:
Mall ABC has valid 30.06 signs posted at all mall entrances but not at store (Sears, Dillards, etc) entrances. CHL holder does NOT know the mall entrances are posted, goes in through Sears, and later enters the mall proper. They get caught carrying (accidental exposure) and honestly say they had no idea because of where they entered.

Scenario 2:
Mall ABC has valid 30.06 signs posted at all mall entrances but not at store (Sears, Dillards, etc) entrances. CHL holder KNOWS the mall entrances are posted, goes in through Sears, and later enters the mall proper. They get caught carrying (accidental exposure) and dishonestly say they had no idea because of where they entered.

Scenario 3:
Store XYZ has a valid 30.06 sign posted by the Customer Service desk. CHL holder doesn't know the store is posted, enters, starts shopping, is discovered carrying, and honestly says he had not seen the sign.

Scenario 4:
Store XYZ has a valid 30.06 sign posted by the Customer Service desk. CHL holder knows about it, enters anyway, starts shopping, is discovered carrying, and dishonestly says he had not seen the sign.

[TexasCajun]

For all the attention that this is getting lately, can someone point to an actual arrest and/or conviction under 30.06???

[RottenApple]

To the original subject, I think the "didn't see it" defense has a big hole. As with many legal notices, authorities just have to prove they sent, provided, delivered the notice. I don't know of any circumstance where one must prove you read it and and understood the notice. The post office returns a lot of registered mail every year. The purpose is to demonstrate the notice was sent. Meets the burden of proof of providing legal notification.

I'm not a lawyer, but have experience with a wayward child.

That's kinda my thinking too, except in regards to the visually impaired CHL holder. I don't see how someone who can't see can be given "effective notice" via a sign that can only be read. But as regards most of us, I think we'd be in a world of trouble.

[RottenApple]

For all the attention that this is getting lately, can someone point to an actual arrest and/or conviction under 30.06???

Hey! Go start your own thread!

Seriously though, according to Charles:

I have no personal knowledge of either. According to DPS reports for 2002 through 2006, no CHL has been convicted of violating TPC §30.06. The reports don't show trespass, §46.03, §46.035 and other prohibited locations individually, they are reported collectively as "Places Where Weapons Prohibited."

I have to admit I'm surprised it hasn't happened even once.

Chas.

I'm just interested in what people think of this "defense". And of course I'm interested in the opinions of our resident legal experts.

[ldj1002]

You get a ticket forgoing 70 in a 60 zone because you didn't see the sign will get you off about the same as carrying in a business because you didn't see the sign. I don't think any of you would use the didn't see the sign for speeding but you will for chl. I don't understand the difference.

[bdickens]

You get a ticket forgoing 70 in a 60 zone because you didn't see the sign will get you off about the same as carrying in a business because you didn't see the sign. I don't think any of you would use the didn't see the sign for speeding but you will for chl. I don't understand the difference.

Show us the section of the law where it says that speed limit signs must be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

To my knowledge, that requirement is not in place for speed limit signs. It is, however, a requirement for 30.06 signs.

Now maybe it is just my superior command of English, but I know that what "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" means is "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

Off in a corner half-hidden by a potted Palm tree is not "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."
Nor is on the wall behind a service desk that you may or may not visit.

Right on the door at eye level is. Right next to the door is. A sign board in the foyer that you have to walk around is.

[Wes]

And actually, if the speed limit sign is obstructed because of foliage which prevented you from seeing it, you can get out of the ticket. It's also not a very good example because a speed limit sign is always on the right hand side of a roadway, on a black and white easily readable sign. A 30.06 sign can be anywhere and in any contrasting color or font as long as its 1" tall. Saying you don't see a crazy cursive sign hidden off to the side of the building or at an entrance other than the one you entered would IMO be a pretty good defense. If it ever came to that which it probably would not, as has been noted there are no cases testing it. The most likely thing to happen if accidentally outed would be you are asked to leave and if I am outed because I had to use it, then at least I am alive to be reprimanded. Better outcome IMO.