TexasCHLforum.com

Can someone point to where those terms are used?

CleverNickname wrote:

JKTex wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

SSwt00SS wrote:Ran across this signage at a Softball Complex in Plano. I took this so that myself and others can continue to be well informed. My question is: what section are we looking for to see if CHL'ers can carry at this complex? I have not come across it yet, or perhaps I've missed it.

Comment is the (4th) line item from the bottom, in the left hand column.

Doesn't apply to a person with a CHL. This sign applies to OCT and OCTC that don't have a CHL.

I'm not sure how you get that it applies to 2 specific groups, it's clear in it's simple message that it's intent (legal or not) is to keep "weapons" off the property except as noted.

We're beating a dead horse though.....

It applies to them (and anyone else who carries long guns in public), because local governments are not restricted under state law from banning long gun carry on their property.

What I meant was how you arrived at those 2 very specific groups and that specific item, long guns.

The intent of the sign is to apply to a very wide, nearly unlimited range of people, and nearly as long of a list of items considered weapons in general, very general.

MeMelYup wrote:

SSwt00SS wrote:Ran across this signage at a Softball Complex in Plano. I took this so that myself and others can continue to be well informed. My question is: what section are we looking for to see if CHL'ers can carry at this complex? I have not come across it yet, or perhaps I've missed it.

Comment is the (4th) line item from the bottom, in the left hand column.

Doesn't apply to a person with a CHL. This sign applies to OCT and OCTC that don't have a CHL.

I'm not sure how you get that it applies to 2 specific groups, it's clear in it's simple message that it's intent (legal or not) is to keep "weapons" off the property except as noted.

We're beating a dead horse though.....

SSwt00SS wrote:It was in regards to it being a city/government owned property. These signs are located within the complex itself, well after point of entry and no 30.06 seen. Thanks for the replies.

The property ownership doesn't make any difference but the sign is irrelevant and also states it's not intended to include CHL.

CleverNickname wrote:

SSwt00SS wrote:Ran across this signage at a Softball Complex in Plano. I took this so that myself and others can continue to be well informed. My question is: what section are we looking for to see if CHL'ers can carry at this complex? I have not come across it yet, or perhaps I've missed it.

Comment is the (4th) line item from the bottom, in the left hand column.

1) That's not a 30.06 sign, so it doesn't apply to CHL licensees.
2) The sign itself says it doesn't apply to licensees.
3) A city park is government-owned property, so if a 30.06 sign was posted, it would be invalid anyways.

This isn't complicated.

Ditto. At best it may be overly simplified and redundant. Why are you looking for a section to read and what is it supposed to do?

The line you reference simply (over simply) states they want no weapons of any kind, excluding anyone covered under the authority of law.

chuck-texas wrote:Can you please refresh the images? They are dead. :)

Thanks.

The ones you're talking about are from 4 years ago and that members last post was about a year and a half ago.

C-dub wrote:This is the third one. This is the sign I most often see. It is at all places that sell alcohol for on site consumption and off. With a CHL, this one can be ignored.
[ Image ]

Just to clarify, that sign is required to be posted at any location that sells alcohol for off site consumption, like grocery, convenience and liquor stores.

And all it does is provide notice that unlicensed carrying of a "weapon" of any kind (meaning anything described in the statute as a "weapon") is escalated to a felony rather than a misdemeanor. So it's saying, if you're committing a misdemeanor illegal carry of a weapon now, when you step through the door you will then be committing a felony. So it doesn't have any affect on a CHL holder carrying a concealed sidearm.

Xikar wrote:I may catch flack for this opinion... but to me, 30.06 = "helpless sheep inside ripe to be sheered". All signs for that matter that halt law abiding citizens from the opportunity to defend themselves from those who could care less what that cute little sign says.

Look at all the schools that are "gun free zones". Guess those nuts that walked in and began slaughtering innocent people weren't aware it was illegal to have a gun there.

Type-A personalities, fire away.

This is a pretty odd post. It's like walking into a Ford Truck dealership and standing on the showroom floor, rolling your sleeves up and challenging everyone by saying that you don't care what anyone has to say, you think Ford trucks are better than Chevy trucks and you'll take on anyone that wants to challenge you on it. They all sit there, looking at each other like WTH?

On a serious note, 30.06 is good! Anyone that has a CHL should not have to ask about signage or effective notice or anything about 30.06. 30.06 gives CHL holders and businesses a clear way to communicate and we should appreciate that. Otherwise a book of matched taped to the front door saying "no guns" would keep CHL holders out when carrying. So please don't look at 30.06 as a bad thing, it's just that you don't agree with the feelings of that business. That's cool, you won't agree with everyone you ever meet.

Signage is required to be specific, and CHL holders should know that. You should also understand effective notice, of which the sign is 1 method. I've never seen anyone standing at the front door of a business etc. advising every person walking in that CHL's with sidearms aren't allowed, whether vocally or with a card or piece of paper with the language used for the signs. They don't need to say it any specific way, but in print it does have to comply.

I know this thread got dug up from the dust, then dug up again, but it's concerning to see s many who I assume are CHL holders, asking questions about 30.06, effective notice in general and what is proper signage. It really makes me think the state has some serious issues with some CHL instructors, or people who don't take it serious enough.

katmandu wrote:I was going by question 10 on this page at TABC:

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/faq/general.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

10. I have seen two types of signs posted in retail establishments regarding concealed weapons. What is the difference between the two?

All alcoholic beverage retailers must post one of two firearms signs.

The 51% sign is required to be posted on the premises of establishments where the possession of any concealed weapon is illegal. These are establishments that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales constitutes more than half of their gross receipts. These signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.

Establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption or establishments licensed to sell for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales are 50% or less of total gross receipts are required to post a sign that warns that the unlicensed possession of a concealed weapon is a felony. The holder of a concealed handgun license may lawfully possess a concealed handgun on these premises.

That sign doesn't state anything about "unlicensed possession" or "concealed weapon", so didn't seem compliant to me.

Also seems they are in violation for not having anything posted at all as required by TABC. (though a different issue of course)

I didn't look close at the sign to see that it was the old one, but I didn't because it doesn't matter as it has nothing to do with Texas CHL holders. It's just TABC sign regulations that pertain to illegal carry of weapons.

katmandu wrote:Here's a photo I took Dec. 12, 2011 of the front of a convenience store near where I live. (Texoma area)

They sell beer & wine there. They've since removed this sign, and now have no sign at all, but they do continue to sell beer & wine

Not sure how old that sign was, but it doesn't seem to be compliant with anything now!

There's nothing odd about that, it's the normal sign they're required by TABC to post if they sell booze not for on premise consumption. It's just telling folks that are carrying illegally, that they go from misdemeanor to felony when they step in the door.

Whether they still have it posted doesn't mean much, it's still a felony for those illegally carrying.

XnTx wrote:46.03 sign posted at Carrollton Municipal Courthouse front door that I noticed when I paid the wife's ticket. The courtroom and ticket collections windows are on the same floor and only about 50 feet apart. There was a scanner for the courtroom side, but not the collections side. There may be some hairsplitting about applicable or not, but I'm ok with the intent. I locked mine in the car before seeing the sign anyway. This was my first CHL sign I ran across that I believed should be obeyed. I'm still looking for my first 30.06.

No sign is not needed other than being a friendly reminder (poorly worded), and there's no hair splitting. The court being in the same building keeps CHL holders out, period, as the sign finally says. They can not restrict you from a Carrollton City building, unless as in this case, there is a court in the same building. I think it's rare to see anything like that posted too.

apostate wrote:

Lubttu wrote:I have been to 2 sporting events lately. One pro and one college. Both had posted the blue TABC sign. It is interesting because we are not allowed to carry at either place because of the sporting event and the college game is in a college building. Of course walking to myntruckmafter the games is when I feel I need it more.

The blue sign is irrelevant to CHL. Therefore, whether or not CHL can carry in a location (school, etc.) is irrelevant to the requirement to post the blue sign at a TABC licensed business at that location.

True that. It's one of those silly things that I believe tells someone who's carrying illegally that the crime that is a misdemeanor, becomes a felony once they step inside.

You realize she was an employee, in an environment where it is standard for nothing that can be used as a weapon is permitted, even LEO's can't carry weapons in the lock down areas. She was bound by the companies employee policies of no weapons. Apparently what was given to employees was not worded properly but non the less, she knowingly put a hand gun in a locked down area.

With what Bedford had at the time, and supported by the DA, it was a good arrest. That doesn't mean charges will, can or are worth pursuing and apparently the inaccurate wording is what was on her side. I'm sure she lost her job that day as well. Just a guess though, but deserving. She needed to find a new career or go back, or finish school because she missed quite a bit.

I think we've taken this further than it needs to have gone at this point. We'll agree that you think she was wrongly arrested and I don't. Cheers.

C-dub wrote:

JKTex wrote:

C-dub wrote:

JKTex wrote:

speedsix wrote:... posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=609577" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; your answer's on page 2... click the thread title to see the whole thread...

What answer are you referring to? That link goes to a quoted reply.

Ya gotta click on the title after you get to the reply.

I got that, but what question does page 2 answer? I gleaned it and didn't notice anything related here.

It was the nurse. The nurse was arrested, but not prosecuted. It didn't say how long the nurse was in jail, but they were there.

We're getting a fresh start.

Here is the thread started by txinvestigator that includes a response from the Chief of Police from Bedford in the OP explaining why the Nurses Aid was arrested. The arrest was justified based on her being given prior written notice yet putting a handgun in her purse and leaving it in a locked-down area in a mental health facility anyway, a place where even PD does not carry. But she ended up not being prosecuted based on the fact that the notice was not worded properly and as an aside, apparently all signs posted at the entrances also had wording problems but were not the initial reason for her arrest. But regardless of the technicality, she was about 10 ways wrong and negligent so the arrest good. If that's the only one, it's good on CHL holders. The follow up is in another thread about 2 years later after the DA kicked it. The collateral effect seems to be that this clinic and Baylor both have corrected the signs and are valid now.

If you notice, many hospitals have 30.06 signs posted, but only on buildings that house mental health facilities, which you may or may not be aware are there. After experiencing them first hand (not as a patient ) it's about the only place I can think of that not carrying is fully justified by common sense. It's the kind of place where even carrying a pen is prohibited, and for good reason.

I thought it was important to understand that specific issue in full.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12768&p=147715" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

C-dub wrote:

JKTex wrote:

speedsix wrote:... posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=609577" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; your answer's on page 2... click the thread title to see the whole thread...

What answer are you referring to? That link goes to a quoted reply.

Ya gotta click on the title after you get to the reply.

I got that, but what question does page 2 answer? I gleaned it and didn't notice anything related here.