.@eddiefortexas Hope u support TAB endorsed HB2405 2 streamline biz signage 2 prohibit guns. http://t.co/3komVInsf7 pic.twitter.com/BbEcjz4lTA
— jane (@moderatemama) March 29, 2015.@eddiefortexas Hope u support TAB endorsed HB2405 2 streamline biz signage 2 prohibit guns. http://t.co/3komVInsf7 pic.twitter.com/BbEcjz4lTA
— jane (@moderatemama) March 29, 2015
Oh No! They have to make the sign big enough that people will be sure to see it! How despicable to make sure people know guns aren't allowed in a place before you're able to charge them for bringing in a gun!
ReplyDeleteAnd how, exactly, does this hurt small businesses? Are there that many people who will refuse to go there if they know that guns are banned?
Some small businesses wouldn't want a sign so big that it blocks that much window space. A small but prominently displayed handgun sign with the bar through it should suffice.
DeleteThat small sign can be missed. If that's all they want, fine. They can tell anyone carrying to please leave, and then get them charged with trespassing if they refuse. However, if you're going to up the punishment the way these laws do, you need to have a standardized and unmissable sign. Does it have to be this big? No, but it does need to be standardized and big enough.
DeleteAnd besides, wouldn't the anti-carry store owner want to ensure that the sign isn't missed? How horrible if the sign is too small, someone didn't see it, and carried a gun in.
Perhaps someone more knowledgable of Texas law can throw in, but my understanding is that a permit holder can be immediately charged if they enter a posted business. So the size of the sign removes any possible defense that it wasn't seen.
ReplyDeleteMinnesota has similar posting requirements mandating even larger size text than Texas, though the verbiage is shorter and there is no requirement to be bilingual. And of course, if they don't post, they are still free to ask the person to leave.
They want to reduce the size of the sign to no larger than 8.5" by 11". That is too small to be guaranteed to be seen well. They could likely easily keep the size requirements and shorten up the wording a bit and still get the message across. Sort of like this,
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/blog/paul-schmelzer/minneapolis-gun-ban-signs
I don't know the Texas law on the matter, not being anywhere near there, but that follows the logic of similar state statutes I've seen in other jurisdictions. Usually, people can ban guns and ask you to leave without the signs prescribed by law, and if you refuse to leave they can get you charged with trespassing, but by posting the signs prescribed by law in the manner prescribed the property owner can render the property a gun free zone subject to greater penalties. E.g. in Tennessee, carrying in a properly posted property falls under the same statute that prohibits carrying in a courthouse and other prohibited locations. From the statute's title it looks like Texas makes carrying in a posted place a separate crime, perhaps with equivalent penalties.
DeleteThank SJ. I Was asking because up my way, posted businesses must still ask you to leave, or they can call the police and they ask you. If you refuse to leave, you can be ticketed for trespassing with a maximum fine of $25 for the first offense. And they can't take your firearm.
DeleteI was figuring that with such visible signs, texas was likely less forgiving of people not respecting the sign. Along with the size and wording requirements, Minnesota also mandates where in the entrance it should be to insure they are easy to see.
There has actually been one time where I missed the sign, even though it was posted in accordance with law. It involved a set of two doors in an entryway, a common occur acne in the great white north. As you entered the first door, your eyes were drawn to the right, to the next door. That sign was to the left, on the inside of the entryway. Legal location, but easy to miss. I didn't see it till I was leaving.
Afterwards I made sure it was noted in the anti-gun businesses app that I have on my tablet and phone so that others wouldn't have the same experience I did.
I think a rather small sign right at the entrance would be easily seen. Often they post little stickers of the credit cards they accept. That would do the trick, unless of course, you want to make it more difficult than it needs to be.
DeleteI'm cool with that as long as some safeguards are put in to prevent someone being immediately charged if they don't see the sign. Something like the law in Minnesota where you have to refuse to leave after being asked to in order to be ticketed for trespassing.
DeleteMikeB: "Often they post little stickers of the credit cards they accept."
DeleteYeah... except you don't go to jail for trying to use American Express.
Who's going to jail, TS? Your alarmist extreme fantasies of how laws you don't like might be enforced is getting to be a drag.
DeleteMike, trespass by a carry permit holder in Texas is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a $4,000 fine. While l
DeleteIkely not going to happen for a first offense, it's certainly more than, for example Minnesota's penalty for the same violation.
For example, say in exchange for allowing the reduction in signage requirements, violations were bumped down to say, a class C misdemeanor which only results in a fine and no jail time. And possibly throw in something like Minnesota has by requiring the person being verbally informed he has to leave to preclude someone unintentionally violating the law. Would that be a fair compromise?
I need to stop doing this so late, here is the cite for my comment a minute ago,
Deletehttp://www.tcjs.state.tx.us/docs/Offense%20Severity%20Scale.pdf
Why should a business have to put up any sign? If someone walks in with a gun they are asked to leave, or they call the cops. I see no reason for the government to force a business to put up signs stating their rights. It's the responsibility of gun carriers to know the gun laws.
DeleteThanks, Sarge.
DeleteLook Mike, if even you don't think it should be a crime, then don't chastise me for my complaints. What's getting to be a drag is your bizarre defense of criminal law that you don't think should be enforced at all.
Jack,
DeleteThey can do that without any signs and the person will be charged with trespassing. Putting up the sign gives advanced notice that guns are illegal, making the act of asking "please leave" unnecessary, and puts a stiffer criminal sanction on the act.
They only "Have" to post the sign if they Want to be able to call the cops at the sight of a gun rather than ask the person to leave first and if they want such people to suffer greater consequences.
"What's getting to be a drag is your bizarre defense of criminal law that you don't think should be enforced at all."
DeleteSeconded! And if your idea is that first offenders shouldn't be jailed, but later offenses should result in jail, then don't leave that up to prosecutorial discretion: Write it into the Statute. Not doing so leaves the door open for super lax enforcement that doesn't jail anyone and super tough enforcement that jails everyone they can--all depending on what mood the prosecutor is in.
ss, as I said to TS, no one is going to jail. For one reason, the friggin' sign is four feet tall. But, more to the point I made, we were talking about a hypothetical situation in which a smaller sign would be acceptable, yet TS has people already locked up for the offense.
Delete"ss, as I said to TS, no one is going to jail. For one reason, the friggin' sign is four feet tall."
DeleteWell, that would possibly speak to the effectiveness of the sign. Couldn't it be reasonably inferred that reducing the size to just a symbol, possibly the same size as the credit card logos you mention might result in it being more easily overlooked?
My impression of the Texas law is that if a business owner sees you carrying in his establishment and its legally posted, he can call police and they can just walk up and ticket/arrest you. So the signs were made large enough to preclude someone using the "I didn't see it" defense.
The business can also, if they wish post a smaller noncompliant sign which would result in the majority of people carrying staying away. If someone disregards the sign, they still have the option of asking the person to leave. Refusal to leave when asked is trespassing. The only thing surrendered by using the noncompliant sign is the police being able to ticket for just ignoring a compliant sign. Something you assert doesn't seem to be happening. Or are you limiting your claim to people actually sitting in jail?
"But, more to the point I made, we were talking about a hypothetical situation in which a smaller sign would be acceptable"
DeleteI proposed what I consider to be a middle ground in an earlier comment. How would you feel about something along the lines of my proposal? It works pretty well up my way.
ss, as I said to TS, no one is going to jail
DeleteYeah--the law provides for incarceration because . . . well, for no reason at all, apparently.
SJ,
DeleteDo I need a million signs (covering my limited window space) to forewarn people they can't break the law in my business? No shoplifters, no shirt, no shoes, no service, no smoking, no guns etc., etc......I will let people who walk in the door of my business know what is acceptable behavior, or not based on the law. If they don't respect my decision, then it is they who are looking for a confrontation and I won't be shy about calling the police. I'd rather use my limited window space for business related signs like advertising products, service, and prices.
Do I need a million signs (covering my limited window space) to forewarn people they can't break the law in my business?
DeleteWithout a sign (of the approved specifications), a concealed carry licensee isn't breaking the law by coming in with a concealed defensive firearm.
And the law states that as long as it isn't a specific type of facility like a jail or a K-12 that is specifically mentioned in th.e law, then it's allowed. The you have to post, unless you're cool with informing every potential customer that carries that he has to leave. Not posting changes the legality to begin when you ask the person carrying to leave and his refusal to comply.
DeleteNot too long ago, in an attempt to appease the MOMs, Starbucks and Target said they would ban carry in their stores, but weren't going to post signs in accordance with state law. Which from a legal standpoint is the same as allowing Cary in their venues.
"Do I need a million signs (covering my limited window space) to forewarn people they can't break the law in my business"
DeleteAs the others already covered, putting up the sign changes the legality and makes it illegal for the gun to be carried onto your property. Without the sign, it can be legally carried there, but you can tell the person to leave (as you suggested later in your comment) and if they do not, THEN they are breaking the law by trespassing.
What guys???
DeleteI just said I disagree with that, but you only respond with restating the law. Thanks, but I knew that. Now when are we going to stop that kind of government crap?
"I just said I disagree with that, but you only respond with restating the law. Thanks, but I knew that. Now when are we going to stop that kind of government crap?"
DeleteJack, if I misunderstood you I apologize. If you're ok with everyone being required to be individually told to leave, then nothing really needs to be done. If the business doesn't post the correct sign, then it defaults to just what you propose.
I believe that the proposed bill wants to make the sign requirements less of a burden to the business, yet keep the potential consequences for the person carrying a gun the same.
The challenge is that gun control advocates often claim that requiring an employee to ask someone who is carrying to leave somehow puts them at risk, because after all, a gun. The solution for that of course is that they can call the police to make the request. However, the police might tire of this and ask why you don't post a sign and might eventually make your requests a low enough priority that the customer does his business and leaves on their own.
Does this speak to what you disagree with?
So I guess you are saying those who carry guns are so unreasonable that a simple, legal request that they not bring guns in to my store will result in their refusal. It's a simple request and if they want to make a confrontation out of it, fine, I will call the cops. If the cops stop responding to my calls, I'm prepared to physically throw them out.
DeleteIf the cops stop responding to my calls, I'm prepared to physically throw them out.
DeleteGo get 'em, Tiger! ;-)
Jack, you originally said that you were ok with telling each person you see carrying individually to leave. And if you're ok with that, then you don't need a sign. Even having a no compliant sign will result in most people who carry staying away, as evidenced by pro-gun groups using this as a refusal to support the business with their money.
ReplyDeleteThere have been several companies who have made statements asking permit holders to not carry, but refusing to post as required by law using the excuse that they didn't want employees to confront an armed person, the implication that permit holders are potentially dangerous, when the opposite is true.
In Texas, violating the compliant sign can result in an immediate ticket and/or arrest, so that is why the sign is the required size. People who lawfully carry are quite reasonable. In my case, if a business owner doesn't want me in their store, restraint, etc, then I certainly don't want to support him by spending my money there. I would actually prefer to see even a no compliant sign so I can more efficiently wield my economic power. And of course, it saves the business owner time in not having to tell each person individually. Something I'm sure you could appreciate if it's your business. However, that would be entirely your decision.
Anyone carrying a gun is potentially dangerous. No need to tell every person individually. They aren't reasonable if they refuse to honor my request and if they do, then I have no problem. Seems you think I should be responsible for gun owners responsibility, know the law about carrying guns if you are going to carry one.
Delete"They aren't reasonable if they refuse to honor my request and if they do, then I have no problem. Seems you think I should be responsible for gun owners responsibility, know the law about carrying guns if you are going to carry one."
DeleteThat is the whole point of the law regarding posting Jack. It actually helps the business owner by formalizing informing people who carry firearms that you don't want their business. That way, you don't have to individually inform the great majority of them since they will not come in in the first place.
As I said above, I'm really good with removing the size requirement in the law as long as they also remove the portion of the law that allows an immediate charge for violating it. Something like the law in Minnesota would work pretty well. Where there are no charges until the person carrying refuses a personal request to leave.
I don't need governments help letting my customers know they can not bring guns in to my business. The idea that if I don't put up a sign the charge would be different, is ridiculous. Your size requirement argument is not valid for me since I've said I shouldn't have to put up any sign at all. and I wonder why you think government should be able force anyone to put up any sign at all.
Delete"Your size requirement argument is not valid for me since I've said I shouldn't have to put up any sign at all. and I wonder why you think government should be able force anyone to put up any sign at all."
DeleteWell, it's sort of like the government being able to force anyone to obey gun control laws. Though in the case of the size requirements, if you don't follow the requirements, the person carrying the gun can't be charged immediately with an offense. If you don't put up any sign at all, there is no way a person can reasonably know you don't want them carrying in your business. You go right ahead and give that a try and get back with how that works for you.
. . . I wonder why you think government should be able force anyone to put up any sign at all.
DeleteNo one is being "force[d]" to put up a sign, but the government will not enforce your store policy for you, unless you notify customers of that policy by the specified method.
It seems to me that you want the police to arrest anyone who comes into your store armed, because you have a top secret rule against doing so. How the hell are customers supposed to know you have such a policy, if you don't tell them? For that matter, how the hell are the police supposed to know?