DK Firearms

WTH is this sign?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,737
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.
    The sign is pointless and useless.
    A person carrying a firearm without LTC is breaking the law with or without the sign.
    A person licensed to carry a handgun just laughs and ignores this idiotic sign because it has no effect on LTC.
    So whether you have LTC or not, this sign is useless anyway. QED

    Not after September 1st....
    Gun Zone Deals
     

    rotor

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 1, 2015
    4,239
    96
    Texas
    The sign is pointless and useless.
    A person carrying a firearm without LTC is breaking the law with or without the sign.
    A person licensed to carry a handgun just laughs and ignores this idiotic sign because it has no effect on LTC.
    So whether you have LTC or not, this sign is useless anyway. QED
    I was referring to the validity of the sign after CC is effective.
     

    ScottDLS

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 7, 2020
    539
    76
    Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
    That sign right now is legal to give trespass notice to anyone carrying a long gun, including LTC holder, and anyone carrying a handgun except LTC holder.
    If constitutional carry is in effect that sign will be trespass notice to all long gun and constitutional carry holders but not LTC holders.
    I am not sure where law enforcement fits in but I assume they can carry.

    I disagree that this sign provides effective notice under 30.05 that your entry onto the property is prohibited. It simply states a mall policy and advertises that they have gunpowder sniffing dogs, which is ludicrous because a clean firearm and ammunition exudes no detectable explosive chemical traces.

    PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS.
    (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
    (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden;


    Nowhere on that sign is there an indication that your entry is forbidden. Particularly since it looks like it is placed where you could only see it if you had already entered.
     

    rotor

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 1, 2015
    4,239
    96
    Texas
    I disagree that this sign provides effective notice under 30.05 that your entry onto the property is prohibited. It simply states a mall policy and advertises that they have gunpowder sniffing dogs, which is ludicrous because a clean firearm and ammunition exudes no detectable explosive chemical traces.



    Nowhere on that sign is there an indication that your entry is forbidden. Particularly since it looks like it is placed where you could only see it if you had already entered.
    Texas Law Shield says that under CC a gunbuster sign would bar entry. One can argue this with them.
     

    ScottDLS

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 7, 2020
    539
    76
    Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
    Texas Law Shield says that under CC a gunbuster sign would bar entry. One can argue this with them.

    Presumably they are depending on a 25 year old AG opinion that was likely incorrect given the 1996 wording of the law and is definitely incorrect with the 2021 wording of the new law which prescribes a particular sign. They have no precedent and no support in the statutory language, but #MuhImALawyer.
     

    rotor

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 1, 2015
    4,239
    96
    Texas
    Presumably they are depending on a 25 year old AG opinion that was likely incorrect given the 1996 wording of the law and is definitely incorrect with the 2021 wording of the new law which prescribes a particular sign. They have no precedent and no support in the statutory language, but #MuhImALawyer.
    If you look at the new law, and I have mentioned this before, 46.03, sect 17 (c), a person may provide notice... Not a person shall provide notice...
    According to Texas Law Shield the word "may" means that all of the signs in their handout are valid. I called and spoke to them about this. I don't like it either.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,749
    96
    Texas
    If you look at the new law, and I have mentioned this before, 46.03, sect 17 (c), a person may provide notice... Not a person shall provide notice...
    According to Texas Law Shield the word "may" means that all of the signs in their handout are valid. I called and spoke to them about this. I don't like it either.

    30.05 is what you mean
     

    rotor

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 1, 2015
    4,239
    96
    Texas
    Pretty bold move of them to take this stand so publicly. If it turns out to be false, they are the laughing stock of the industry and a lawyer that wrong on the law, well ….
    Surprised the hell out of me too. I was sure we had concise 1" letters, English and Spanish, etc. That's why I talked to them about it.
    Page 13 of the bill (page # at bottom of page). Can't post the entire bill because of size but posting page 13. Notice the may provide notice...
     

    Attachments

    • hb1927 (2).pdf
      385.6 KB · Views: 137

    ScottDLS

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 7, 2020
    539
    76
    Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
    If you look at the new law, and I have mentioned this before, 46.03, sect 17 (c), a person may provide notice... Not a person shall provide notice...
    According to Texas Law Shield the word "may" means that all of the signs in their handout are valid. I called and spoke to them about this. I don't like it either.

    It's 30.05(c), not 46.03. Anyway, the TLS argument makes no sense. The statute is clear. In order to be convicted, you must have had notice that your entrance to the property was forbidden, and then remained on the property. One way they "may" notify you that you are forbidden from entering the property (while carrying) under the new section is by posting the prescribed sign, at each entrance. The other way they "may" notify you is by a person acting with authority of the owner telling you orally that you are forbidden from entering with a gun. A pictogram of a Beretta and some language bragging about their sniffer dogs located at some random location in the mall, is unlikely to cut it. They have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that YOU received notice, and failed to depart.

    ETA: This is all hypothetical. The only reason I personally care about the TLS interpretation of the law is that I want to obey the law. I disagree with the TLS interpretation and believe were I to see such a sign that I could carry a firearm on that property legally. I would conceal and do so if I wished. I would then have to be discovered, doing so, have the police called before I could leave, have the cop agree that the cartoon gun with a frowny face was sufficient notice under 30.05, have cop issue me a $200 citation which I would fight in JP or municipal court (pro se) and if I was pissed enough I would waste the court's time with a jury trial. If (wrongfully) convicted I probably wouldn't appeal though because then I would have to pay a real lawyer, and I actually have a day job. I also had a thought that since TLS is a pre-paid legal service and they might be the ones providing a lawyer in some of these cases, they have an interest in interpreting things very conservatively. I don't blame them, I just think they are wrong.
     
    Last edited:

    rotor

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 1, 2015
    4,239
    96
    Texas
    It's 30.05(c), not 46.03. Anyway, the TLS argument makes no sense. The statute is clear. In order to be convicted, you must have had notice that your entrance to the property was forbidden, and then remained on the property. One way they "may" notify you that you are forbidden from entering the property (while carrying) under the new section is by posting the prescribed sign, at each entrance. The other way they "may" notify you is by a person acting with authority of the owner telling you orally that you are forbidden from entering with a gun. A pictogram of a Beretta and some language bragging about their sniffer dogs located at some random location in the mall, is unlikely to cut it. They have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that YOU received notice, and failed to depart.

    ETA: This is all hypothetical. The only reason I personally care about the TLS interpretation of the law is that I want to obey the law. I disagree with the TLS interpretation and believe were I to see such a sign that I could carry a firearm on that property legally. I would conceal and do so if I wished. I would then have to be discovered, doing so, have the police called before I could leave, have the cop agree that the cartoon gun with a frowny face was sufficient notice under 30.05, have cop issue me a $200 citation which I would fight in JP or municipal court (pro se) and if I was pissed enough I would waste the court's time with a jury trial. If (wrongfully) convicted I probably wouldn't appeal though because then I would have to pay a real lawyer, and I actually have a day job. I also had a thought that since TLS is a pre-paid legal service and they might be the ones providing a lawyer in some of these cases, they have an interest in interpreting things very conservatively. I don't blame them, I just think they are wrong.
    I hope your interpretation is right.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    …46.03. …
    If you haven’t caught it yet, HB1927 also adds a sign for 46.03 prohibited places since 46.035 becomes struck and moved to 46.03. Anyway, if that 46.03 sign is posted, the LTC ‘honest mistake’ leave after notice no longer applies, and I believe they penalty becomes enhanced.
     

    Frank59

    Wheel Gunner
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2018
    1,897
    96
    San Angelo
    It's 30.05(c), not 46.03. Anyway, the TLS argument makes no sense. The statute is clear. In order to be convicted, you must have had notice that your entrance to the property was forbidden, and then remained on the property. One way they "may" notify you that you are forbidden from entering the property (while carrying) under the new section is by posting the prescribed sign, at each entrance. The other way they "may" notify you is by a person acting with authority of the owner telling you orally that you are forbidden from entering with a gun. A pictogram of a Beretta and some language bragging about their sniffer dogs located at some random location in the mall, is unlikely to cut it. They have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that YOU received notice, and failed to depart.

    ETA: This is all hypothetical. The only reason I personally care about the TLS interpretation of the law is that I want to obey the law. I disagree with the TLS interpretation and believe were I to see such a sign that I could carry a firearm on that property legally. I would conceal and do so if I wished. I would then have to be discovered, doing so, have the police called before I could leave, have the cop agree that the cartoon gun with a frowny face was sufficient notice under 30.05, have cop issue me a $200 citation which I would fight in JP or municipal court (pro se) and if I was pissed enough I would waste the court's time with a jury trial. If (wrongfully) convicted I probably wouldn't appeal though because then I would have to pay a real lawyer, and I actually have a day job. I also had a thought that since TLS is a pre-paid legal service and they might be the ones providing a lawyer in some of these cases, they have an interest in interpreting things very conservatively. I don't blame them, I just think they are wrong.
    Awesome post.....FWIW....You are so much smarter than butthead
     

    jamesmrj

    Active Member
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 28, 2011
    404
    26
    Cypress, TX
    What I see of TX Law Shield's opinion is them taking absolute most conservative approach as they are lawyers. They are providing guidance to their clients and the general public. By taking the most conservative approach, they are trying to limit their legal exposure from their advice. They can't be sued if the advice they provide keeps everyone well behind the legal grey area. Also, they can deny (or at least try - don't know the legal details of their program) service under the law shield program if their client strays out of their recommendations.
     
    Top Bottom