30.06 sign questions

[basslee]

I've been looking at posts and websites regarding this signage. Obviously, there's no firearms allows where this sign is posted.

1. Most places you go should be obvious(bars, govt buildings, hospitals, etc....). However if you go into an establishment(restraunt, sports grill, retail store, big box store like target or wally world) that could be considered iffy on their 30.06 policy, how do you determine the legality of concealed carry?

2. Through research of a website found on these forums, i noticed that several businesses listed had 30.06 signs, but not at every public entrance(grapevine mills mall be the ex.) You get busted for carrying somewhere that has a 30.06 policy, but because it wasn't clearly posted at the entrance you went through, how do you argue that? How do you explain that you were not aware the business had restrictions on concealed carry and that the public entrance you went through was not signed properly?

[Charles L. Cotton]

"Sign? What sign?"

"Yeah, I saw the sign on the front door, but I came in the side door" - This doesn't work.

Chas.

[basslee]

"Sign? What sign?"

"Yeah, I saw the sign on the front door, but I came in the side door" - This doesn't work.

Chas.

Is that along the same lines of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse?"

With the grapevine mills issue; (for those of you who have never been there, it's a huge mall. The walkway distance inside is around 1 mile. There are 4-5 main entrances to the mall.)

Let's say the 30.06 sign is posted at the door across from the movie theater. You have never seen the sign having never used that entrance and have no prior knowledge on the restrictions there. You walk in an entrance on the opposite side of the mall. A LEO approaches you having somehow noticed your concealed pistol, and informs you that he must confiscate your firearm and take you into custody for violation of the law. You state that you were not informed of the concealed carry restriction having never seen a 30.06 sign posted at the entrance you used.

What happens past this? Is there a way to explain yourself so you don't end up in jail? or are you screwed no matter what happens?

[Kalrog]

Unless a place is specifically listed as prohibited in the statute, then they need a legally valid 30.06 sign at each entrance or I came in an entrance that didn't have a sign and never saw one.

FYI, hospitals are no longer automatically off limits. They must give proper 30.06 warning.

[nemesis]

Unless a place is specifically listed as prohibited in the statute, then they need a legally valid 30.06 sign at each entrance or I came in an entrance that didn't have a sign and never saw one.

What he said. I will respect a legal 30.06 if I see one, and my awareness is good, but I will not explore around every corner and obscure place to look for one.

[ExitusLSU]

Unless a place is specifically listed as prohibited in the statute, then they need a legally valid 30.06 sign at each entrance or I came in an entrance that didn't have a sign and never saw one.

What he said. I will respect a legal 30.06 if I see one, and my awareness is good, but I will not explore around every corner and obscure place to look for one.

From what the instructor told us at my CHL class, the sign needs to be easily and clearly visible and I believe it needs to be a certain size. One of the hospitals in Austin has a 30.06 sign etched into the glass of the correct size on every door entrance.

[Charles L. Cotton]

"Sign? What sign?"

"Yeah, I saw the sign on the front door, but I came in the side door" - This doesn't work.

Chas.

Is that along the same lines of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse?"

Ouch, I can't believe I missed this question for almost 6 weeks! Sorry.

No, this is factually and legally different from the old adage about "ignorance of the law." You are charged with knowledge of every law, federal, state and local. Now, that's a pretty tough assignment, since not even lawyers know all of it! However, the law requires a CHL be put on notice that entry is barred and if you are going to use a 30.06 sign, then it's the property owner's responsibility to make sure the sign is on each entrance so CHL's will see it.

As for the second question about being arrested, yes the officer can make the arrest, but you are going to win, under the circumstances you describe. However, it's far more likely that he would say something about CHL's not being allowed to bring in guns and reference the 30.06 sign. You could then point to the door you came in and note it doesn't have a sign. Most, if not all, officers at that point are just going to ask you to leave and that would be the end of it.

Chas.

[Right2Carry]

The problem as I see it is this, 30.06 says nothing about signs being posted at every single entry point. It also uses the term "SIGN". Criminal tresspass 30.05 gives definitions on Entry, but again is vague in saying that every entrance must have a sign.

On property no tresspassing signs or paint marks according to 30.05 can be posted no more than 1000 feet apart. I could technically enter the land between 1000 foot signage and never see one, but I don't think it would hold up in court.

Although I think that every entrance should be posted with a 30.06 sign, I see nothing in the law that says it needs to be only that a "SIGN" needs to be conspiciously posted on the property.

I am not trying to start an argument only pointing out that a prosecutor could make the argument that a legal "SIGN" was posted on the property in a conspicious manner for the public to see.

IANAL but I find that I just wish these laws could be written in simple English for all to understand clearly. I would think the intent of the law was to have every entrance marked, but I can also see where it can be twisted around to say that every entrance doesn't have to be posted.

I know that Grapevine mills is posted at some locations so I will not carry there. I for one don't feel like spending my hard earned money or time arguing the fact that I came in a entrance that wasn't marked. I don't know who the burden of proof would be on in a case like this, but I would think if they didn't have video survalence of the entrance that you came in, it would be hard to prove your point.

I think I will just err on the side of caution and let someone else be the test case.