TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote:

srothstein wrote: The law requires me to take action to suppress crime in my presence if I am in my jurisdiction.

How does this jive with the surpreme court rulings that state that the police have no responsibility to protect people?

Courts have ruled that police have no legal obligation to protect any given individual at any time when they might need it. This is simply in recognition of the fact that the police cannot be everywhere they would need to be at every time they would need to be there when any given person needs protection.

That is a far different matter than when a citizen happens to need protection and a cop happens to be present at the time. By department policy if nothing else, it is the sworn officer's duty to protect the citizen if he can, by any means necessary.

cbr600 wrote:Is a generic no guns sign enforceable against someone with an out of state license?

IMO no. IANAL, but my understanding is when you're carrying on an out of state license recognized under reciprocity, you must obey all of the laws and restrictions on carrying that the state that you are carrying in requires.

In TX, generic signs are not enforceable upon people with TX CHL's, so they shouldn't be enforceable against people with out of state CHL's recognized by Texas' reciprocity.

rb4browns wrote:[ I personally don't see that there is a moral equivalent - I see no constitutional right to carry on someone else's property regardless of public access when they have expressed their wishes. I too would most likely not do business with them but that's a personal choice rather than an issue of rights.

Molon_labe wrote: Why should a CHL carrier be so scrutinized yet people slap up the GhostBusters no gun signs and immediately its DA LAW?

Ghostbuster and "No Guns" signs are not the law.

If you're on someone else's private property, you can expect to be scrutinized, and to have your behavior scrutinized, whether you're carrying a gun or not.

Snake Doctor wrote: If I have to jump through hoops and pay an arm/leg just to exercise my right to carry, you had better believe I expect the anti-CHL establishments to have to do the same with regard to 30.06 compliance. I expect the law to judge them in the same manner they would judge me.

The thing is, the law won't be judging them, whether you expect it to or not. They can post whatever kind of sign they want. (Whether it's enforceable or not might remain to be seen.)

But you can count on the fact that if you push the issue, the law will be judging you.

My own position happens to be that if I think a property owner is making a good faith effort to post a compliant sign, in my own opinion, I will honor it. Generic Ghostbuster or "No Guns Allowed" signs I will ignore.