TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:One simple sentence added to 46.035 would go a long way toward fixing something that an adequate number of us think is broke, and two sentences would make it better.

I just thought of an even BETTER way to regulate 30.06 signs and maybe, just maybe do away with them altogether: let's get the Legislature to require businesses who want to post 30.06 go through a 10 hour class about concealed carry, pay $140 to the State for each and every sign, and then make them wait 90-180 days for their official signs which only the State may issue! Mwahahaha!!!! [/evil laugh]

jimlongley wrote:I see no reason for us to let them get away with posting non-compliant signs, either they should toe the line, or take them down, and I think if enough of us would tell them that it would have an effect, and if the effect is for them to decide that the expense and effort to put up a compliant sign is not worth it, then so much the better.

Hmm, this really made me think. Up until now, I've agreed with the common wisdom of "Don't inform them of non-compliant signs." But then you have to think through where that logic is leading. It means that we're trying to maintain a loophole and so still be able to carry into that establishment. Which I think is a dangerous route to go down. I imagine a scenario like this: a CHLer still gets convicted for carrying past a non-compliant sign, and the business is simply ordered (maybe even fined) to put up a compliant sign. Or, somewhere in between the arrest and the trial, the business puts up a compliant sign and claims that this is all they ever had. Now it's your word against theirs, and how are you going to prove otherwise?

I think that this Children's Museum, or other businesses (AMC Theaters being a big, glaring example), who put up the too-small, 8.5x11" stickers are cheating, trying to have it both ways. They don't want guns on their property, but they also don't want a big ugly sign every few feet. I think we should make them choose.