Texas Law Shield on Permitless Carry

[toddnjoyce]

Just in from TSRA PAC, Texas Law Shield has put together a great resource for permitless carry.

https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/3grj768k34x5pqmmvhpc85c/TXCC-Guide-Single-Pg-Digital.pdf

I’ve only glanced over it, but will give it a deeper read and comment on it later.

 

[Axxe55]

Subbed.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Dang.
Any type of sign appears to be legal notification.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Dang.
Any type of sign appears to be legal notification.

I disagree with their assessment of that particular change re: 30.05 and will dig back into the language of the bill.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I disagree with their assessment of that particular change re: 30.05 and will dig back into the language of the bill.

I remember making a comment on one of the threads that the 30.05 verbiage wasn't written in stone.

I hope that you can come back with something

 

[toddnjoyce]

I remember making a comment on one of the threads that the 30.05 verbiage wasn't written in stone.

I hope that you can come back with something

Here’s the language:

SECTION 17. Section 30.05, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsections (c) and (d-3) and amending Subsections (d) and (f) to read as follows:
(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1)in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

That, to me, does not include any old gun buster sign, which while may provide notice, doesn’t seem to me to provide effective notice per the law.

 

[rotor]

I agree completely. Gunbuster sign not enough. Who will be the test case?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Here’s the language:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";

That, to me, does not include any old gun buster sign, which while may provide notice, doesn’t seem to me to provide effective notice per the law.

This is what I was referring to in my previous post.


Yes, I concur...

 

[Darkpriest667]

My only concern here is that they say any no firearms sign applies to constitutional carry. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation where they say "a person reasonably would notice the sign upon entry of the property"

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Actually, a sign which says "no guns" would be similar to the language, no?

If only needs to be "similar".

 

[jonevill]

Thanks for posting that. I have downloaded it. There is some good info there. BTW, I agree that any old gunbuster sign is not enough.

 

[rotor]

Actually, a sign which says "no guns" would be similar to the language, no?

If only needs to be "similar".

No! "identical to or substantially similar" is required, "in both English and Spanish", "appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height".
How does "no guns" fit that criteria?

 

[1911'S 4 Me]

This thread will be up to 150 pages before tomorrow.

 

[Frank59]

@toddnjoyce....For clarification....the sign must be posted with 30.05 clearly visible and a prescribed lettering format and size. That in itself would separate the notice from any old sign would it not?

 

[toddnjoyce]

@toddnjoyce....For clarification....the sign must be posted with 30.05 clearly visible and a prescribed lettering format and size. That in itself would separate the notice from any old sign would it not?

I don’t think I’m qualified to answer what the legislature intended when they used the words “substantially similar to”.

I do believe they intend for a general alignment with .06/.07 in letter height, English/Spanish.

There’s a big ol’ gray area between No Firearms Allowed / no se permiten armas and what the code will say that could meet legislative intent.

Those four words, “or substantially similar to” really fûck you at the drive thru.

 

[deemus]

following

 

[rotor]

I don’t think I’m qualified to answer what the legislature intended when they used the words “substantially similar to”.

I do believe they intend for a general alignment with .06/.07 in letter height, English/Spanish.

There’s a big ol’ gray area between No Firearms Allowed / no se permiten armas and what the code will say that could meet legislative intent.

Those four words, “or substantially similar to” really fûck you at the drive thru.

They said it must be in English and Spanish, 1 inch block letters, substantially similar, etc. and "No Firearms" doesn't meet that criteria.

 

[Renegade]

Actually, a sign which says "no guns" would be similar to the language, no?

If only needs to be "similar".

"identical to or substantially similar" I think is an attempt to get around the loophole for many places that were off by a word or two or used the old 4493 statute, and were thus non-compliant. So I am going to swag 90% of the same words in English or Spanish....

 

[toddnjoyce]

They said it must be in English and Spanish, 1 inch block letters, substantially similar, etc. and "No Firearms" doesn't meet that criteria.

"identical to or substantially similar" I think is an attempt to get around the loophole for many places that were off by a word or two or used the old 4493 statute, and were thus non-compliant. So I am going to swag 90% of the same words in English or Spanish....

The shit of it is that what is normally a Class C misdemeanor may, I think, be enhanced to a Class A, punishable by up to a year in jail and/or fine up to $4,000 in certain circumstances. That enhancement is an amendment to 30.05 (d), but I’ll have to go back to my merged document to verify.

The likelihood of those enhancements coming into play is low, I think, but increases when the lege gives the courts a say in what the intent of the law is.

 

[Frank59]

Sounds like CC is not the Freedom act everyone thought it would be. Looks to me like it creates all kinds of leeway to infringe than it does to adhere.