Combined 30.06 and 30.07 sign

[thetexan]

Today I noticed the following sign at my doctor's office:

20160121_115102-1.jpg

For those unable to view the picture, the English text reads: "Pursuant to Sections 30.06 and 30.07 Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with a Handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun or a handgun that is carried openly." (The equivalent Spanish follows.)

As you can see, the 30.06 and 30.07 language has been combined, attempting to ban both concealed and open carry in one sign instead of two separate signs. Is this a valid notification?

At the risk of...should I...no I shouldn't...should I really...(I having a battle with the little imp sitting on my shoulder)...ok...

At the risk of injecting a dozen previous threads into this which IS NOT MY INTENT let me say this about that...

Imagine a business that is rumored to not want anyone carrying guns but puts up no signs. In fact, we know the owner hates guns In his private life but has not taken the step of putting up signage. How many of us would carry there, certainly concealed and possibly even openly. Our willingness to carry openly in this situation (assuming we know of his hatred of guns) will be proportional to our willingness to risk being verbally notified which will serve as a permanent notice to us. The less we want to risk being verbally notified the less we will be willing to openly carry and openly test the resilience of the owner's resolve. That is why, under these circumstances LTCs would probably carry concealed.

Now imagine one day he puts up a sign that says "NO GUNS". Still non compliant but now the owner's discontent is visually expressed for all to see. We might still conceal carry but will probably or open carry for the reasons stated above.

One day he puts up a gun buster sign with some official looking but still non compliant wording with the same results.

Finally he puts up a sign that is a 30.06 and 30.07 combined sign. With the same results with a person possibly being unwilling, now, to conceal carry.

Why is this? In all cases we know of the owner's contempt for guns. In all cases this contempt is either known by reputation or by the posting of signs. Has the mere knowledge of an owner's disapproval of guns in his business become enough to keep us from entering past a non compliant sign in spite of the statutory requirement on his part to properly notify. Or is it the fear of being asked to leave with all of the ramifications of that, including embarrassment, permanence of verbal notification, desire to blend in and not draw attention to one's self (along with all of the advantages of that)?

Personally I believe that the need to stay armed and discretion being the better part of valor dictates that in situations like this one might choose to respect the non compliant "warning" to avoid the enevitable result of a permanent ban rising from a open carry.

I don't believe the non compliant 30.06 part would ward off many concealed carriers.

I think it would help that the AG clarify that oral notification is not permanent but on a ad hoc basis. He would then have to either tell me each and every time I open carry past his non compliant sign or put up proper signage to avoid the inconvenience.

tex

[Unocat]

There is no such thing as an "illegal" 30.06 or 30.07 sign. There are enforceable signs and unenforceable signs. Enforceable signs have the force of law behind them. Unenforceable signs do not.

There is no legal penalty for posting an unenforceable 30.06, 30.07, gun-buster, ghost buster or other sign unless you are a governmental agency posting a 30.06 sign on a premises that is not off limits by statue.

There is a difference between "not Legal" and "illegal." The members here I have seen have only said the sign is not legal, hence not in compliance, with code 30.06 or 30.07.

[dhoobler]

Is there any case law where there was no prosecution or a conviction was overturned due to an invalid sign?

There was a Plano nurse that carried in a non-posted hospital and the DA didn't prosecute. If you do a decent job CC'ing it's highly unlikely it's ever going to court.

There is a difference between a non-posted location and a location that is posted with an invalid sign.

Legally there is not. Sign for "notice" are clearly defined in the law. Maybe this is why in the DPS statistics there have been no convictions on PC 30.06 in 18+ years, at least last time I looked. I'm not waiting for a judge to tell me I can do something that's already legal.

You have way more confidence in the courts to follow the letter and the intent of the law than I do. When the courts start following the text below, I might change my attitude.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[ScottDLS]

I see what you are saying, but I refuse to compromise my rights because some court might make the wrong decision. It also helps that it's a class C. I'm not quite as willing to risk a felony.

[Soccerdad1995]

There is no such thing as an "illegal" 30.06 or 30.07 sign. There are enforceable signs and unenforceable signs. Enforceable signs have the force of law behind them. Unenforceable signs do not.

There is no legal penalty for posting an unenforceable 30.06, 30.07, gun-buster, ghost buster or other sign unless you are a governmental agency posting a 30.06 sign on a premises that is not off limits by statue.

I agree. But it becomes illegal if the owner calls the police to report someone who carried past a non-compliant sign. That would be a false police report, which is a crime (assuming no verbal notice was given).

[dhoobler]

I see what you are saying, but I refuse to compromise my rights because some court might make the wrong decision. It also helps that it's a class C. I'm not quite as willing to risk a felony.

It is only a class C misdemeanor, but it is still a conviction for a non-traffic offense. It still carries consequences beyond a $200 fine, including having to disclose it to a potential employer who may not share you opinion about gun ownership.

Here is something to think about. The 1968 GCA originally prohibited felons from buying guns. In 1996, the Lautenberg amendment extended that prohibition to any misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, including those where there was no physical confrontation. The Lautenberg amendment was applied retroactively. A lot of people, including some police officers, found themselves loosing their 2nd amendment rights, and in the case of police, their jobs. Many of these convictions were due to an ugly divorce that included filing bogus claims of DV to be used as leverage.

Who is to say that a future federal law won't extend the prohibition of gun purchasing/ownership to any "gun related offense". I am not willing to take that risk.

[thetexan]

It's only a class c misdemeanor is a dangerous way to think. That's a big deal really in LTC land.

tex

[Unocat]

It's only a class c misdemeanor is a dangerous way to think. That's a big deal really in LTC land.

tex

Agreed. Just look at the thread on this forum about the guy who was arrested (yes arrested) for vehicle window tint being to dark and is now trying to apply for a LTC.

If it comes to non-compliant signage vs my life, however, I'll choose the latter.

[ScottDLS]

I see what you are saying, but I refuse to compromise my rights because some court might make the wrong decision. It also helps that it's a class C. I'm not quite as willing to risk a felony.

It is only a class C misdemeanor, but it is still a conviction for a non-traffic offense. It still carries consequences beyond a $200 fine, including having to disclose it to a potential employer who may not share you opinion about gun ownership.

Here is something to think about. The 1968 GCA originally prohibited felons from buying guns. In 1996, the Lautenberg amendment extended that prohibition to any misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, including those where there was no physical confrontation. The Lautenberg amendment was applied retroactively. A lot of people, including some police officers, found themselves loosing their 2nd amendment rights, and in the case of police, their jobs. Many of these convictions were due to an ugly divorce that included filing bogus claims of DV to be used as leverage.

Who is to say that a future federal law won't extend the prohibition of gun purchasing/ownership to any "gun related offense". I am not willing to take that risk.

What is the legal difference in Texas between the crime (class C) of speeding and a class C 30.06 violation? Nothing.

There are some specific cases in 46.02 and 9.31 & 9.32, that treat them differently in applying legal justification, but in terms of a criminal "record" they are all the same. I'm not even sure if Texas maintains records of class C "convictions". I've spent some time searching the DPS criminal record database and not found any, other than when someone was arrested...which you can be for speeding.

In Texas speeding, seat belt violations, and stop sign "rolling" are CRIMES. And you have the right to a jury trial, if you want to force the State to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If some future employer cares about them, or any other class C's then they are going to severely limit their employee pool. Their loss.

I don't drive 5 miles under the speed limit because I'm afraid of being busted by a badly calibrated radar and convicted by a crooked JP. Now if there was capital punishment for speeding, I probably would...

Carrying WITH a LTC is technically a DEFENSE to 46.02, a class A misdemeanor? Are you willing to risk CC with our current judiciary...I am.

[ScottDLS]

It's only a class c misdemeanor is a dangerous way to think. That's a big deal really in LTC land.

tex

Why is it dangerous to think that being charged for a class C for something that isn't illegal (walk past non-compliant sign) is not a big deal? I've gotten busted for "running" a yellow light. Rather than fight, I paid my Town to make it go away (aka deferred adjudication).

[dhoobler]

I see what you are saying, but I refuse to compromise my rights because some court might make the wrong decision. It also helps that it's a class C. I'm not quite as willing to risk a felony.

It is only a class C misdemeanor, but it is still a conviction for a non-traffic offense. It still carries consequences beyond a $200 fine, including having to disclose it to a potential employer who may not share you opinion about gun ownership.

Here is something to think about. The 1968 GCA originally prohibited felons from buying guns. In 1996, the Lautenberg amendment extended that prohibition to any misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, including those where there was no physical confrontation. The Lautenberg amendment was applied retroactively. A lot of people, including some police officers, found themselves loosing their 2nd amendment rights, and in the case of police, their jobs. Many of these convictions were due to an ugly divorce that included filing bogus claims of DV to be used as leverage.

Who is to say that a future federal law won't extend the prohibition of gun purchasing/ownership to any "gun related offense". I am not willing to take that risk.

What is the legal difference in Texas between the crime (class C) of speeding and a class C 30.06 violation? Nothing.

There are some specific cases in 46.02 and 9.31 & 9.32, that treat them differently in applying legal justification, but in terms of a criminal "record" they are all the same. I'm not even sure if Texas maintains records of class C "convictions". I've spent some time searching the DPS criminal record database and not found any, other than when someone was arrested...which you can be for speeding.

In Texas speeding, seat belt violations, and stop sign "rolling" are CRIMES. And you have the right to a jury trial, if you want to force the State to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If some future employer cares about them, or any other class C's then they are going to severely limit their employee pool. Their loss.

I don't drive 5 miles under the speed limit because I'm afraid of being busted by a badly calibrated radar and convicted by a crooked JP. Now if there was capital punishment for speeding, I probably would...

Carrying WITH a LTC is technically a DEFENSE to 46.02, a class A misdemeanor? Are you willing to risk CC with our current judiciary...I am.

In 1995, there was no difference between a misdemeanor DV conviction and a misdemeanor traffic conviction, at least as it relates to gun ownership.

Your bringing up the traffic offenses like seat belt violations is a red herring since I already noted (or at least implied) that they don't matter.

[ScottDLS]

Why don't they matter? There is no legal difference between them and a 30.06? AFAIK there are no class C level assault offenses in Texas that would qualify as DV under federal law...they are all class B or higher. If the Lautenberg amendment can make DV a federal bar to gun ownership, there's nothing stopping a future congress from doing the same for speeding or seat belt.

[chamberc]

Remember, defending yourself against a wrongful arrest is going to cost you $$$$$$. No matter what you do, it will cost you. Think of the old adage, "You may beat the wrap, but not the ride". If I see a 30.06 sign (correct wording) in English & Spanish, regardless of size, I'm not going to carry. Their intent is clear and I'm not willing to take the ride.

[ScottDLS]

You can represent yourself in Municipal or JP court if you want to "beat the rap". I don't want to pay $200 for a doing something legal...walking past a non-compliant 30.06, but I'm going to measure that against the likelihood of getting charged (low), getting arrested for a class C (rare), and the maximum fine for being unjustly prosecuted ($200). And you better believe I am going to waste the State's time asking for a jury trial if they waste my time by arresting me for a class C.

[thetexan]

It's only a class c misdemeanor is a dangerous way to think. That's a big deal really in LTC land.

tex

Why is it dangerous to think that being charged for a class C for something that isn't illegal (walk past non-compliant sign) is not a big deal? I've gotten busted for "running" a yellow light. Rather than fight, I paid my Town to make it go away (aka deferred adjudication).

Walking past a non-compliant sign has not yet been interpreted in the appellate system so it is still a subjective roll of the dice where YOU are the one betting all of the chips

Here is the reason and it's a biggie.

After you have shot and killed someone in, what you hope the jury will believe is self defense, you and your defense attorney, in a desperate effort to keep you from spending 10 or 20 years taking knitting classes with a room mate named Francis, will have to prove to that jury that your belief that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death was, as per 9.31, REASONABLE. YOU will have to demonstrate this or, better stated, defend against a prosecutor's charge that it was not reasonable because reasonableness is one of the elements of the offense. All of this because you were committing a non-traffic Class C misdemeanor crime at the time of the shooting by trespassing against a 30.06 or 30.07 sign.

Had you not been committing that CRIME you could have been enjoying an attributed presumption of reasonableness required in the statute. In fact the court would instruct, not suggest, the jury to manditorily find your assessment of immediate necessity AS REASONABLE.

This presumes you were not engaged in a crime other than a traffic related Class C and did not provoke the person and he was using deadly force to commit one of the big six,which includes murder, or forcibly entering or trying to forcibly remove you from your habitation, place of business or work or vehicle.

That's a major part of your defense handed to you on a silver platter. Unless, of course, you toss it away by failing to recognize the stupidity of walking past a legitimate notification.

Whether or not the state sees a difference between a traffic and non-traffic Class C misdemeanor for other purposes is not the dangerous issue at stake here. In a criminal trial where your freedom would be at stake the compliant-NESS of the notification would most definately be a major factor in determining trespass which, in turn, goes to the entitlement to a presumption of reasonableness.

tex.