Why does verbal warning trump compliant signage?

[Dreamer42]

After all these years as a CHL holder I don't know why this never occurred to me. I see numerous posts about old and/or non compliant signs and how we are advised to "carry away". However, in the absence of signage of any kind, if someone gives verbal notice "Hey, sir, you can't carry here" that is is good as gold. Just for discussion sake, and being devil's advocate, shouldn't the verbal notice at least be a certain phrase or collection of specific words so as to be "compliant?" Seems like a double standard in semantics to me.

[AJSully421]

The answer that you are looking for is: Democrats.

We had to compromise to get CHL passed in the 90's... we had to compromise with Democrats, and not one single thing that Democrats have a hand in makes any sense.

That is why this does not make any sense.

[Bayoutalker]

Sometimes I think in order to be able to stop anyone from carrying on private property/businesses the owner should be required to post compliant signage. By not having signs they are free to discriminate on who can and cannot carry. What's good for one should be good for all. By posting signage everyone would know who is anti-gun and can make a decision to not do business with them. By not posting they can hide their bias and possibly not lose business.

Am I thinking right or am I missing something?

[NTexCopRetired]

After all these years as a CHL holder I don't know why this never occurred to me. I see numerous posts about old and/or non compliant signs and how we are advised to "carry away". However, in the absence of signage of any kind, if someone gives verbal notice "Hey, sir, you can't carry here" that is is good as gold. Just for discussion sake, and being devil's advocate, shouldn't the verbal notice at least be a certain phrase or collection of specific words so as to be "compliant?" Seems like a double standard in semantics to me.

Very good question. As stated above, legislation is sometimes about compromise depending on the strength of the party in power or what the party in power may want in return. However, if you think about it, the question really only applies to open carry. If you are on private property that is not posted and carrying concealed, no one will (should) know. The sign gives effective notice and one of the deals was (I am guessing) we will agree to private property being able to post a sign that has force of law but the sign has to meet these regulations. It is very easy to take a picture of a sign and to determine if it meets statutory requirements.

The verbal notice is another story. If it was codified as to what had to be said, how would you prove the person controlling the property said or didn't say exactly what the law required. The Court would most likely side with the property owner in a "(s)he said (s)he said" situation. And the violation is actually a form of criminal trespass and that violation only requires the owner saying stay off my property.

It is a very slippery slope when we legislate away the ability of the owner of property to determine what they will tolerate on that property. No shoes, no shirt, no service. We have already taken away the right of a property owner to say whether smoking is allowed on property they own and pay taxes. (No, I have never smoked in my 68 years). Where will that end in the name of public welfare.

[goose]

The answer is simple from a property rights standpoint. Are we going to require a elderly person to memorize some coded phrase that they may only use once or twice or never, and then declare that if they don't say it correctly we can violate their wishes on their own property? Grandma says, "Timmy, I really wish that your friend wouldn't carry here while you are visiting me. But since I can't remember some government mandated haiku, I guess their rights trump mine." This doesn't strike me as the path of less government intrusion in our lives. Are we going to now require that every single Texan that owns property has to read up on our new fangled law, memorize our cute verbiage, otherwise they just gave up the right to control their own land? Let me know how that flies in the legislature. Let me know how that feels when someone else wants to use the same logic against one of your rights.

[G26ster]

We have already taken away the right of a property owner to say whether smoking is allowed on property they own and pay taxes.

Can you cite an example of this?

[NTexCopRetired]

We have already taken away the right of a property owner to say whether smoking is allowed on property they own and pay taxes.

Can you cite an example of this?

Yep, the town I live in. Starting June 1st, no smoking allowed in any bar or restaurant, by City Ordinance.

[NTexCopRetired]

Sorry, got the start date wrong.

"At the Tuesday city council meeting, councilors voted to approve the smoking ban ordinance with an amendment. The vote was 3 against, 4 in favor.

This ordinance will eliminate smoking in all public places including bars and restaurants. The amendment states that bars that open before October 1st are still in the two year grandfather clause.

Bars have a 2 year grace period before the ban takes effect, and restaurants and food establishments with separate ventilation systems for their smoking section also get a 2 year period.

While smokers will have to stay 20 feet away from entrances to public buildings and playgrounds, smokers at bars that only serve people 18 and up, have to stay only 5 feet away from the door.

During the two year grace period, you can smoke anywhere you want inside a bar but if you go outside the bar to smoke, you must be 5 feet away from the door.

The ordinance will take effect July 17th."

[TexasCajun]

We have already taken away the right of a property owner to say whether smoking is allowed on property they own and pay taxes.

Can you cite an example of this?

Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, most of the suburbs of each. I don't have an exact number, but I'd guess that cities with a smoking prohibition in bars, restaurants, and other businesses open to the public outnumber those without.

[G26ster]

Ooops! In my head I confused allowed with not allowed. Too early for me I guess. Sorry

[TexasCajun]

After all these years as a CHL holder I don't know why this never occurred to me. I see numerous posts about old and/or non compliant signs and how we are advised to "carry away". However, in the absence of signage of any kind, if someone gives verbal notice "Hey, sir, you can't carry here" that is is good as gold. Just for discussion sake, and being devil's advocate, shouldn't the verbal notice at least be a certain phrase or collection of specific words so as to be "compliant?" Seems like a double standard in semantics to me.

If you research the legislative history of Texas handgun carry, you'll find that TPC 30.06 (and later 30.07) was designed so that a licensed handgun carrier could see the sign without having to walk all the way up to the door then have to return to their vehicle to store their gun. A complaint sign conveys the wishes of the owner AND carries the force of law. A non-compliant sign may convey the owner's wishes and doesn't carry the force of law. Verbal/oral notice ("You can't bring that in here") conveys the owner's wishes and carries the force of law. Under your plan, if a owner/manager/employee doesn't use the specified script would you seriously consider not leaving and arguing that their wishes were not adequately conveyed?????

[Scott Farkus]

We have already taken away the right of a property owner to say whether smoking is allowed on property they own and pay taxes.

Can you cite an example of this?

Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, most of the suburbs of each. I don't have an exact number, but I'd guess that cities with a smoking prohibition in bars, restaurants, and other businesses open to the public outnumber those without.

Oh yeah, that's been the case here in Austin for many years. People seriously aren't aware of that?

If you own a retail store, you pretty much can't put your customers purchases in plastic bags either.

And pretty soon, if it's not the case already, you won't be able to designate your restrooms as "Men" and "Women".

We're a long way down that slippery slope of not telling private commercial property owners what they can do on their property. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing that argument.

[Dreamer42]

Okay, let's look at it this way...and I'm completely on board with property owners rights, btw. If verbal notice holds weight of law, then shouldn't ANY sign that communicates "no guns allowed" , even the gun buster sign, be allowed? After all, they effectively communicate they don't want guns on their property just like a verbal notice does. Splitting hairs, I know.

[goose]

Okay, let's look at it this way...and I'm completely on board with property owners rights, btw. If verbal notice holds weight of law, then shouldn't ANY sign that communicates "no guns allowed" , even the gun buster sign, be allowed? After all, they effectively communicate they don't want guns on their property just like a verbal notice does. Splitting hairs, I know.

30.06 (and 07) are designed to protect US the LTC community from tiny, half covered up signs with vague wordings or odd pictures of shapes that may or may not represent a firearm. Most LTC folks like the requirements for these signs. Verbal notification is direct and to you. There is nothing vague about a propert owner asking you to not carry. Or if they are vague you can at that time clarify with the property owner. We can't ask a sign for clarification. That is why the legislature correctly stipulated exactly what needs to be communicated in them.

[rotor]

Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?