Parking Lots and 30.06 (again)......

[seamusTX]

The quoting here is difficult to sort out, so I won't try.

I agree that a "no guns" sign is ambiguous, but in everyday life every normal adult knows that a "no X" sign means that X is prohibited in that location (smoking, skateboarding, pets, etc.).

Now, in order to have the possibiity of criminal trespass, the "actor" (as they like to say in the law these days) must do something that causes the manager of the premises to know that he has a weapon. Then, the manager has to call the police, who have to get there before the actor leaves.

The responding police officer then has to decide whether the actor committed an offense. He may call his superior for advice. He probably is not going to go to the assistant DA for a misdemeanor.

So someone who puts himself in this situation is hoping that (1) he won't be detected, and (3) that if he is, the police will understand the law in same way as he does.

That's all I have to say at this point.

- Jim

[DallasCHL]

It was interesting 12+ years ago when it was relevant. 80% is not relevant now, as it has been supplanted with new law. The answers from that AGO are what prompted 30.06 2 years later. Did you even read it yourself? Apparently not. it supports almost everything I have said.

The addition of 30.06 didn't change the meaning or application of 30.05. In fact, it was widely believed that even after 30.06 was added, 30.05 (and this opinion) still applied to CHL holders until the legislature clarified it several years later.

For instance:

The AGO also writes:

Clearly, under Texas law as it existed prior to the passage of Senate Bill 60, a business owner or operator could file a criminal complaint against a person who came on to the business premises contrary to the terms of a posted notice.

Thus acknowledging the signs are NOT pre-emptive as I said they were not.

I'm really not sure what you're saying. The SB 60 refered to is the original Texas CHL law, pre 30.06. The AG clear states in that letter that a someone (at the time including CHL holders) who knowingly violates a "No Firearms on Premises" sign could be prosecuted under 30.05. Since the relevant portions of 30.05 haven't changed, I don't know why the interpretation would. If by pre-emptive you mean that someone carrying a gun will burst into flames ala uninvited vampires, then no, it isn't. But if you mean pre-emptive as in you are trespassing as soon as you break the threashold, then it is.

It the part I quoted, The AG clearly says that under 30.05 specific language isn't needed, and that a posted sign is effective. The part you quoted refers to violations of 46.035, and it still doesn't require specific language, just notice that nadguns are prohibited. If you want to go in front of a jury and argue that the gun with a line through it is ambiguous, then good luck.

In another section, the AG says:

as discussed below we believe that Senate Bill 60 does not affect the rights of a private property owner to prohibit the carrying of handguns on their private property. This could include privately owned driveways, streets, sidewalks or walkways, parking lots, parking garages, and other parking areas. For this reason, conduct which is not an offense under section 46.035 of the Penal Code because it occurs at a place excluded from the definition of the term "premises" may be an offense under section 30.05 of the Penal Code.

I don't think this is a real issue for a CHL holder, because I think the argument that you have a CHL, but a 30.06 sign on a parking lot doesn't apply because you are "traveling" is going to fly like a nuclear submarine. My point is only that even if you win that argument, you still lose the game.

[boomerang]

I agree that a "no guns" sign is ambiguous, but in everyday life every normal adult knows that a "no X" sign means that X is prohibited in that location (smoking, skateboarding, pets, etc.).

Right. A no skateboarding sign prohibits skateboarding, but doesn't prevent a teen from putting his skateboard in his backpack and walking into the mall. A ghostbuster sign with a cigarette similarly means no smoking, but it doesn't prohibit a woman from having a pack of cigarettes concealed in her purse. That's how I'd have to vote as a juror.

In any case, under the current law, I figure those ghostbuster gun signs apply to peace officers and security guards and feds and others not covered by 30.06.

[Renegade]

I repeat. What does this sign mean:



Does this sign mean what it says - there are 'no guns on premises'?

Is it a request they do not want you to bring guns on premises? Is it a request under 30.05 or just a polite informal request with no intended legal consequences (there is no mention of 'under penalty of PC30.05', as most no trespassing signs are typically worded.)? Or does it mean no autoloaders on premises, or do they not have autoloaders on premises? Is the gun store out of guns? What are premises? Does it apply to LEOs? CHLS? What about LEOUSA? Is it meant for criminals?

The signs are ambiguous. We went through this in 1997, I am not going to do it again. Besides, it has not not mattered since 1997 since the signs do not apply to CHLs, and just about everyone else would be violating 46.02, which is a more serious charge. Thus they are pretty much irrelevant, except for rare cases.

[kw5kw]

I repeat. What does this sign mean:



Does this sign mean what it says - there are 'no guns on premises'?

<snip>.

If you DO NOT have LEO status or you DO NOT have a CHL, then this sign is binding just as the ghostbuster sign is binding.

Thank The Good Lord above that we live in Texas where we have been given 30.06. Remember in other states these signs are binding on their CHL holders (and us when we visit there).

Russ

[Renegade]

If you DO NOT have LEO status or you DO NOT have a CHL, then this sign is binding just as the ghostbuster sign is binding.

Please cite case law to back that claim up. Gonna be pretty hard though since I already cited AGO that says they are not. It has been a settled issue for 10 years now.

Thank The Good Lord above that we live in Texas where we have been given 30.06.

We were not given 30.06. We created it on our own 10 years ago we could not agree on what those signs meant.

Looks like history is about to repeat itself since we were unable to learn from it.....

[seamusTX]

Besides, it has not not mattered since 1997 since the signs do not apply to CHLs, and just about everyone else would be violating 46.02, which is a more serious charge.

It has always been legal to carry long guns, either in your vehicle or in a public place. It has always been legal to carry a handgun while traveling. It is now legal to carry a concealed handgun in your vehicle.

IMHO, these signs apply to people who do not have a CHL; and as I wrote earlier, whether to prosecute for 30.05 criminal trespass is a judgment call of the responding officer.

We're never going to know until a case goes to appeal.

- Jim

[AggieMM]

We're never going to know until a case goes to appeal.

And that, I believe, is the answer to my question. There is too much gray area, and I don't want to be the person that has the case to define it.

Ryan

[Renegade]

Wow, it really is like 1995+ again. Deja Vu. Everything said, was debated in 1995+ and the result was 30.06.

I am not here to argue, I am here to discuss issues relevant to Texas CHLs. Any further responses on my part on this borders on an argument. One thought to think about though:

If a GhostBuster or No-Guns sign was pre-emptive and non-ambiguous as some here claim, and could be used to legally prevent a gun-toter from entering property, than why did the Texas Legislature see fit to create 30.06 to create a pre-emptive and non-ambiguous sign to legally prevent a gun-toter from entering property? Think about it. Don't believe me, research it. Ask Charles, ask Alice Tripp, ask Jerry Patterson. I did (except Charles). Eveything in law is precedent, and these precedents were set in the 1995+ timeframe.

[cbr600]

Does this sign mean what it says - there are 'no guns on premises'?

I assume they're like those "Driver Carries Less Than $20" signs.

[srothstein]

So if I forget my wallet at home but am carrying and get stopped on the way to work - I cannot produce my CHL as required by law. I am now in violation of the law.

If I was not a CHL holder and got stopped in the same situation, I would not have that issue.

(Both instances have the same problem with my driver's license being at home)

My CHL just became a liability while I am in my car! I am sure that was not the intent of the legislators, but that's the fact.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Technically, it is a violation of the law to be operating a motor vehicle without your driver's license in your possession. The judge can dismiss the case if you show it to him, but you can be charged for failure to display it.

Of course, that is a minor side point. In the example you mention, you have one potential violation that the non-chl does not. The failure to display your CHL. Yes, your having a CHL became a liability in this specific case. The good news is that the penalty is only a CHL suspension the first time. I think most cops would never write it up but the same ones who would write the failure to display DL would write this.