Yep. Thank you . . . Finally. LolThanks, I knew I was missing something. I can see Sean's point about needing to change 30.05.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk
That's a good point... If you walk past a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign without a shirt on, you aren't trespassing until they tell you to leave.My thoughts are that a store owner, you have the right to ask people to leave. Shoes, shirt, guns.
You don't get to post a magic sign that makes it a criminal offense to walk across your threshold.
That's a good point... If you walk past a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign without a shirt on, you aren't trespassing until they tell you to leave.
That's a good point... If you walk past a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign without a shirt on, you aren't trespassing until they tell you to leave.
Is being illiterate a defense to prosecution?Actually, I think you are...
I think 30.05 says you can't trespass leo's because off their side arms more or less.
I guess you can still trespass them for other reason though, like if you don't like their face?
Well then change that part of 30.05. LEO's are welcome to come in and leave their firearms in the car like the rest of us at a posted location. Maybe make an exception if they're pursuing a suspect, or they've got a warrant or court order or something specific to that particular business but otherwise, why should they get special treatment?
***just to be clear, I'm not criticizing LEO's, I'm just making a counter argument to why they should be allowed to violate 30.06/30.07 signs.