TexasCHLforum.com

nightmare69,

Yes, of course, and that's what concerns me.

I've no doubt the good intentions of the various unschooled LEO's regarding valid and invalid signs.

Invalid signs thought to be adequate for an arrest is my concern...

Given some LEO's aren't up to date on some of the fine particulars regarding 30.06 signage, I'm concerned about the "the attempt at a 30.06 sign is good enough" for me LEO's.

Plus, I don't completely rely on the "concealed is concealed" because there are instances of accidental gun exposure, i.e., the recent CHLer tackled in Walmart when another customer saw the man's gun and decided to go vigilante...thus if someone unexpectedly exposes his gun to another customer, who then calls in a MWAG and the police show up, arrest the CHLer, believing the invalid sign was good enough.

nightmare69,

Thank you for taking the time to respond and answer my question.

Guys, I appreciate your input, but I'm looking for LEO input...

If you as an LEO recognize that a business posted an invalid 30.06 sign, would you still honor it if a CHLer is discovered to be carrying inside said business?

Some examples of invalid 30.06 signs: The sign is typed on legal sized lined note paper, or is not in both English and Spanish or the size of the letters are well under the required 1" and the list of what can make a 30.06 sign invalid goes on and on.

Since the business made an attempt at posting a 30.06 sign, though technically invalid as illustrated above, the attempt alone is good enough for you to bust a discovered carrying CHLer?

Or, you recognizing the 30.06 sign is invalid, the CHLer found to be carrying in the business, is not busted.

What say you?

Thanks!