No OC in San antonio

[35Remington]

it says pursuant to 30.06 and in 30.06 the size language ect is clearly defined. So if they offer an incorrect sign it does not fit 30.06 so is invalid as a warning

I do not understand. Can you explain?

 

[rp-]

Sounds like 30.06 reads that the sign has to meet x, y, and z for height, color, and language. If it does not meet those then it is not a legal warning. I'll have to go back and look at 30.07 and 30.06 myself again to brush up myself.

 

[35Remington]

Here is the actual language of the statute.

"(3) "Written communication" means:(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun";
or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

To me, that word "or" completely negates the requirements of subsection B. In other words, someone can post "a card or other document" with the language from subsection A, orrrrrrr they can post a sign that follows subsection B.

 

[locke_n_load]

Here is the actual language of the statute.

"(3) "Written communication" means:(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun";
or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

To me, that word "or" completely negates the requirements of subsection B. In other words, someone can post "a card or other document" with the language from subsection A, orrrrrrr they can post a sign that follows subsection B.

Card or other document - business card/pamphlet/etc. that they hand to you - that you should read. It could be a program/brochure that has this language on it. But if it is a sign, for it to be legal, it must meet the height, spanish, colors, and conspicuous display requirements.

 

[BRD@66]

Incorrecly posted 30.06 signs are our friends - please don't mention those to folks or they will correct them.
......

True, but until they ask you would be leagally carrying, no?

Yes.

^ I get it. I wish everybody did.

 

[Shady]

I dont have a problem. If they post any kind of info saying they do not want me to be able to defend myself I do not go in and give them my money. I could care less if its just a gunbuster sign. Its there property its there bushiness model who am I to tell someone how they should run the thing that pays there bills.

Now we're getting I to the splitting hairs part.

What about your experiences?

 

[txinvestigator]

I dont have a problem. If they post any kind of info saying they do not want me to be able to defend myself I do not go in and give them my money. I could care less if its just a gunbuster sign. Its there property its there bushiness model who am I to tell someone how they should run the thing that pays there bills.

I have NEVER seen a business post a sign saying they do not want anyone to be able to defend him or herself.

 

[nero14]

I don't believe they can ban carry in city parks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct, according to state law. San Antonio has a city ordinance that contradicts state law, which I was cited under.

Sent from my Huawei Honor 5X using Tapatalk

 

[rp-]

You are correct, according to state law. San Antonio has a city ordinance that contradicts state law, which I was cited under.

Sent from my Huawei Honor 5X using Tapatalk

So wouldn't state law override? Kinda like the rifle open carry stuff? Or am I wrong about the rifle open carry law?

 

[nero14]

So wouldn't state law override? Kinda like the rifle open carry stuff? Or am I wrong about the rifle open carry law?

You are correct, state law supercedes local ordinances. This was my basis for my pretrial motions for dismissal, which were ignored by the judge. He instead dismissed on lack of witness recommendation by the prosecution.

While I can't know exactly what was going through the judges head, I assume that granting my pretrial motion would be basically admitting that the city has an unenforceable ordinance on the books.

My city councilman, Cris Medina chose not to take the issue up with the council when I reached out to him. Leticia never even returned my phone calls. McManus never reached out to me after multiple letters to his office.

I gave up. All it cost me was a semester out of school, lost scholarship money, and my dignity (being spread out on a car, disarmed, and searched is not a good feeling).

Sent from my Huawei Honor 5X using Tapatalk

 

[NeckBeard]

^ yup. Happened to me too on the side of a busy road. Cops made a spectacle of me and all i did was give him my ccw and tell him i was armed. After an hour of treating me like a felon gang banger they probably got the call to go back to collecting revenue.

 

[Younggun]

I believe during Abbots time as AG he warned them that prosecuting anyone under their ordinances would land them in hot water.

Don't know why they aren't being required to remove them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bones_708]

Card or other document - business card/pamphlet/etc. that they hand to you - that you should read. It could be a program/brochure that has this language on it. But if it is a sign, for it to be legal, it must meet the height, spanish, colors, and conspicuous display requirements.

I would say, and I know it's a bit pedantic, that it's not if the sign is legal or not. It's if it meets the requirements to serve as a valid trespassing notice to people who are licensed carriers. It's legal regardless of the validity of the sign.

 

[nero14]

I believe during Abbots time as AG he warned them that prosecuting anyone under their ordinances would land them in hot water.

Don't know why they aren't being required to remove them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that they should have to remove them, but keeping them on the books gives the cops an excuse to violate the law. All they have to say is that they didn't know the city ordinance was not enforceable. Cops are not legal experts, so no one really expects them to know the laws outside of money making violations.

Sent from my Huawei Honor 5X using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

I expect every cop to know the law. How can you enforce it if you don't know what it is? Most of cops I know in this area have a book size copy of the Penal Code in their car most of the time. If not, at the PD there is one available for writing reports. Although sometimes, they want to pretend they don't know.

sent from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[London]

I go where there ain't no friggin signs. They ain't getting my business.

Same. I can't think of a single posted local business that provides something an unposted one doesn't, especially now that Tandy Leather yanked their signs. If I find one that does I'll just buy online. Not giving my money to the enablers of phobias and tragedies.

 

[London]

I expect every cop to know the law. How can you enforce it if you don't know what it is? Most of cops I know in this area have a book size copy of the Penal Code in their car most of the time. If not, at the PD there is one available for writing reports. Although sometimes, they want to pretend they don't know.

sent from an idgit coffeeholic

I agree cops should know the law, but SCOTUS doesn't.

 

[satx78247]

London & All,

London, you are 100% CORRECT. = IF the SCOTUS actually understood The Constitution, they would issue a court order to end attacks on the 2nd Amendment everywhere once & for all.
(Such a court order wouldn't take a SC clerk over an hour to draft.)

And to All: San Antonio seems to be trying to become "Austin South".

That said, I know a lot of LEO in Bexar County & none of them seem to care or be concerned about CC or OC. = It's the !@#$!@# politicians here that are the problem.
(The more that I learn about politicians, the better that I like roaches, scorpions, worms, venomous spiders & pit vipers.)

yours, satx

 

[bones_708]

London & All,

London, you are 100% CORRECT. = IF the SCOTUS actually understood The Constitution, they would issue a court order to end attacks on the 2nd Amendment everywhere once & for all.
(Such a court order wouldn't take a SC clerk over an hour to draft.)

And to All: San Antonio seems to be trying to become "Austin South".

That said, I know a lot of LEO in Bexar County & none of them seem to care or be concerned about CC or OC. = It's the !@#$!@# politicians here that are the problem.
(The more that I learn about politicians, the better that I like roaches, scorpions, worms, venomous spiders & pit vipers.)

yours, satx

Yeah let's just ignore the fact that in the whole history of the country the second has never been constitutionaly recognized or popularly believed to mean what you seem to be claiming.

 

[stdreb27]

No joke. "I went to talk to manager."