Will the General Public use 46.03 signs

[billypat]

Will stores and other public locations use 46.03 signs rather than utilize the 30.06 and 30.07, 30.05 signs? Isn't the intent of the 46.03 to post one sign for locations that are Prohibited by state law under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03? Does this make it a legal "location" or a "legal" sign in that respect?

[Tex1961]

Maybe a 36.05 or generic gun buster sign most likely. All all now valid under constitutional carry. .06 and .07 as well. I think your trying to attach signs that would normally be in a federal controlled location or no go location such as a court house, post office or school. Not for private property.

[crazy2medic]

 [no go location such as a court house.] My understanding is you cannot enter a Court or an Office of the Court but the Courthouse itself is not off limits

[Papa_Tiger]

 [no go location such as a court house.] My understanding is you cannot enter a Court or an Office of the Court but the Courthouse itself is not off limits

Most DAs/LEOs/judges are going to interpret the off-limits location as broadly as possible. If the building houses a court, they will interpret that the whole building is off limits. See: many municipal buildings that house tax offices and "offices utilized by the court".

[crazy2medic]

 [no go location such as a court house.] My understanding is you cannot enter a Court or an Office of the Court but the Courthouse itself is not off limits

Most DAs/LEOs/judges are going to interpret the off-limits location as broadly as possible. If the building houses a court, they will interpret that the whole building is off limits. See: many municipal buildings that house tax offices and "offices utilized by the court".

Ruling letter fron AG Paxton say the court house itself is not off limits!

[Papa_Tiger]

 [no go location such as a court house.] My understanding is you cannot enter a Court or an Office of the Court but the Courthouse itself is not off limits

Most DAs/LEOs/judges are going to interpret the off-limits location as broadly as possible. If the building houses a court, they will interpret that the whole building is off limits. See: many municipal buildings that house tax offices and "offices utilized by the court".

Ruling letter fron AG Paxton say the court house itself is not off limits!

It isn't settled, unfortunately, until the judges get through with it. See 83(R) SB273 and Waller County, or the city of Austin, which are still ongoing.

[ScottDLS]

Will stores and other public locations use 46.03 signs rather than utilize the 30.06 and 30.07, 30.05 signs? Isn't the intent of the 46.03 to post one sign for locations that are Prohibited by state law under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03? Does this make it a legal "location" or a "legal" sign in that respect?

If a business that was not off limits under 46.03 (in the new law), used that sign instead of the one prescribed in 30.05, then it's hard to see how someone would be able to be successfully prosecuted under 30.05.

[Soccerdad1995]

Will stores and other public locations use 46.03 signs rather than utilize the 30.06 and 30.07, 30.05 signs? Isn't the intent of the 46.03 to post one sign for locations that are Prohibited by state law under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03? Does this make it a legal "location" or a "legal" sign in that respect?

If a business that was not off limits under 46.03 (in the new law), used that sign instead of the one prescribed in 30.05, then it's hard to see how someone would be able to be successfully prosecuted under 30.05.

If they use anything other than a 30.05 sign, then a non-LTC holder is good to go. The only possible question that is not completely black and white is whether an LTC holder will be fine walking past a lone 30.06 sign, like a non-LTC holder will be able to do.

Personally, I think the law is clear that an LTC holder is not restricted unless the business posts both a 30.05 and a 30.06 sign (ignoring OC for a minute*), but I could see an aggressive anti-2A DA trying to thread the needle and saying that an LTC holder cannot walk past a lone 30.06 sign, and hoping they can get a $200 fine out of the LTC holder after the DA wastes tens of thousands of dollars of tax payer money.

*I ignored OC, because if a property owner doesn't want anyone with a gun there they can just tell the OC'er that they need to leave, and that trumps any signage considerations.

[Soccerdad1995]

Will stores and other public locations use 46.03 signs rather than utilize the 30.06 and 30.07, 30.05 signs? Isn't the intent of the 46.03 to post one sign for locations that are Prohibited by state law under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03? Does this make it a legal "location" or a "legal" sign in that respect?

If a business that was not off limits under 46.03 (in the new law), used that sign instead of the one prescribed in 30.05, then it's hard to see how someone would be able to be successfully prosecuted under 30.05.

At the threat of derailing this thread, here's an interesting question - Is it legal to intentionally post a sign that contains incorrect legal advice? Let's assume the person posting the sign is not a lawyer.

If someone posts a 46.03 sign at a location that is not off limits per 46.03 they are incorrectly advising the public of the law, either intentionally or unintentionally. By analogy, if I posted a sign on my door saying that solicitation at my house is a felony in Texas, punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison, would that be OK? I'm thinking this might be a decent way to deter the solicitors who always seem to rile my dog up right when I'm in the middle of a meeting, lol.

[jmorris]

Will stores and other public locations use 46.03 signs rather than utilize the 30.06 and 30.07, 30.05 signs? Isn't the intent of the 46.03 to post one sign for locations that are Prohibited by state law under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03? Does this make it a legal "location" or a "legal" sign in that respect?

If a business that was not off limits under 46.03 (in the new law), used that sign instead of the one prescribed in 30.05, then it's hard to see how someone would be able to be successfully prosecuted under 30.05.

At the threat of derailing this thread, here's an interesting question - Is it legal to intentionally post a sign that contains incorrect legal advice? Let's assume the person posting the sign is not a lawyer.

If someone posts a 46.03 sign at a location that is not off limits per 46.03 they are incorrectly advising the public of the law, either intentionally or unintentionally. By analogy, if I posted a sign on my door saying that solicitation at my house is a felony in Texas, punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison, would that be OK? I'm thinking this might be a decent way to deter the solicitors who always seem to rile my dog up right when I'm in the middle of a meeting, lol.

Don't believe it's illegal to post any sign saying whatever you want. The sign just has no validity.

[ScottDLS]

Will stores and other public locations use 46.03 signs rather than utilize the 30.06 and 30.07, 30.05 signs? Isn't the intent of the 46.03 to post one sign for locations that are Prohibited by state law under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03? Does this make it a legal "location" or a "legal" sign in that respect?

If a business that was not off limits under 46.03 (in the new law), used that sign instead of the one prescribed in 30.05, then it's hard to see how someone would be able to be successfully prosecuted under 30.05.

At the threat of derailing this thread, here's an interesting question - Is it legal to intentionally post a sign that contains incorrect legal advice? Let's assume the person posting the sign is not a lawyer.

If someone posts a 46.03 sign at a location that is not off limits per 46.03 they are incorrectly advising the public of the law, either intentionally or unintentionally. By analogy, if I posted a sign on my door saying that solicitation at my house is a felony in Texas, punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison, would that be OK? I'm thinking this might be a decent way to deter the solicitors who always seem to rile my dog up right when I'm in the middle of a meeting, lol.

Only if you don't post INAL at the bottom of the sign, otherwise you are practicing law without a license. That's what I heard on the Internet and from a pre-paid legal advertisement. BTW, have you been injured in an accident?

[Flightmare]

Will stores and other public locations use 46.03 signs rather than utilize the 30.06 and 30.07, 30.05 signs? Isn't the intent of the 46.03 to post one sign for locations that are Prohibited by state law under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03? Does this make it a legal "location" or a "legal" sign in that respect?

If a business that was not off limits under 46.03 (in the new law), used that sign instead of the one prescribed in 30.05, then it's hard to see how someone would be able to be successfully prosecuted under 30.05.

At the threat of derailing this thread, here's an interesting question - Is it legal to intentionally post a sign that contains incorrect legal advice? Let's assume the person posting the sign is not a lawyer.

If someone posts a 46.03 sign at a location that is not off limits per 46.03 they are incorrectly advising the public of the law, either intentionally or unintentionally. By analogy, if I posted a sign on my door saying that solicitation at my house is a felony in Texas, punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison, would that be OK? I'm thinking this might be a decent way to deter the solicitors who always seem to rile my dog up right when I'm in the middle of a meeting, lol.

I would argue that posting the exact text of a statute is not advising on the law. Making an argument that a particular law is applicable or not applicable to a specific situation might be perceived as giving legal advice.

[ScottDLS]

Will stores and other public locations use 46.03 signs rather than utilize the 30.06 and 30.07, 30.05 signs? Isn't the intent of the 46.03 to post one sign for locations that are Prohibited by state law under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03? Does this make it a legal "location" or a "legal" sign in that respect?

If a business that was not off limits under 46.03 (in the new law), used that sign instead of the one prescribed in 30.05, then it's hard to see how someone would be able to be successfully prosecuted under 30.05.

At the threat of derailing this thread, here's an interesting question - Is it legal to intentionally post a sign that contains incorrect legal advice? Let's assume the person posting the sign is not a lawyer.

If someone posts a 46.03 sign at a location that is not off limits per 46.03 they are incorrectly advising the public of the law, either intentionally or unintentionally. By analogy, if I posted a sign on my door saying that solicitation at my house is a felony in Texas, punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison, would that be OK? I'm thinking this might be a decent way to deter the solicitors who always seem to rile my dog up right when I'm in the middle of a meeting, lol.

I would argue that posting the exact text of a statute is not advising on the law. Making an argument that a particular law is applicable or not applicable to a specific situation might be perceived as giving legal advice.

I would argue that "making an argument" (including by posting a sign) is Constitutionally protected speech, even if the argument is intended to persuade someone of your point of view on a legal issue. The "unauthorized practice of law" involves engaging in certain acts, not merely presenting ones thoughts or opinions on a particular topic.

(Did I say I was a lawyer? Did I say I was not a lawyer?)

[Liberty]

I would argue that "making an argument" (including by posting a sign) is Constitutionally protected speech, even if the argument is intended to persuade someone of your point of view on a legal issue. The "unauthorized practice of law" involves engaging in certain acts, not merely presenting ones thoughts or opinions on a particular topic.

(Did I say I was a lawyer? Did I say I was not a lawyer?)

To be resolved it would be done in a court, by a judge who is a lawyer, prosecuted by a lawyer, and you would be defended by lawyer who might feel that a vigorous defense in his own interest.

[ScottDLS]

I would argue that "making an argument" (including by posting a sign) is Constitutionally protected speech, even if the argument is intended to persuade someone of your point of view on a legal issue. The "unauthorized practice of law" involves engaging in certain acts, not merely presenting ones thoughts or opinions on a particular topic.

(Did I say I was a lawyer? Did I say I was not a lawyer?)

To be resolved it would be done in a court, by a judge who is a lawyer, prosecuted by a lawyer, and you would be defended by lawyer who might feel that a vigorous defense in his own interest.

We hear this a lot on internet forums. Perhaps someone can link an example of where someone has been charged with a crime for posting a legal argument, a sign, or offering an opinion. I looked up the statute in Texas. Here are some of the relevant sections:

Section 83.001(a) of the Texas Government Code prohibits a "person, other than a person described in Subsection (b), may not charge or receive, either directly or indirectly, any compensation for all or any part of the preparation of a legal instrument affecting title to real property, including a deed, deed of trust, mortgage, and transfer or release of lien. Subsection (b) exempts licensed attorneys, real estate brokers or salesmen and mineral property lease transactions.

Section 38.122 of the Texas Penal Code prohibits a person from holding himself out to be a lawyer unless licensed to practice law if it is done with an intent to obtain an economic benefit.

Section 38.123 of the Texas Penal Code prohibits a person from taking certain actions with respect to personal injury claims if done with an intent to obtain an economic benefit.

Did I say I was a lawyer? Did I say I was not a lawyer? Why do you ask?