TexasCHLforum.com

bdickens wrote:

SenileDavid wrote:

bdickens wrote:So in other words, your assertion is merely baseless conjecture.

I don't know if you want to call what I've learned in CHL class from my instructor that has been teaching since 1995 http://www.texashandgunacademy.com/ and the same response of another CHL instructor "baseless conjecture". But hey, it's a free country.. GO FOR IT, be defiant; hopefully you're a smooth talker if you get busted.

That's exactly what I'd call it. It is baseless conjecture on your CHL instructor's and his buddie's part and you parroted it here.

Whe question I asked earlier is what case law your assertion is based on. Here's a hint: none. There is no case law on the matter; that issue has never come to a trial. No one has ever yet even been brought to trial for UCW in Texas for passing a non-compliant 30.06 sign, let alone convicted.

Therefore, your earlier statement:

Truth is IF you want to nit-pick and defiantly carry anyway when the sign is clearly at the entrance in plain view and you get busted let’s say for example you're weapon was printing or what not, it IS considered UNLAWFUL CARRY and you will (or could) have your license revoked. Because to the Criminal District Attorney the lettering size won't amount to crap... the sign was there plain and simple

is either baseless conjecture and most assuredly not the "truth," or you are psychic.

Well this "psychic" is not dumb enough to split hairs over something so stupid out of spite on a technicality, especially when I'm smart enough to go elsewhere that is CC friendly. I have better things to do with my time instead of spitting in the wind trying to find a safe trajectory that it won't come back and hit me in my face.

End of story.

RPB wrote:
I do agree, shopping elsewhere, because of the store owner's attitude, but not to avoid being arrested for something which isn't a criminal offense in the first place.

How many barefooted people get arrested at restaurants with signs "NO SHOES NO SHIRT NO SERVICE" ? ... It isn't an offense if all the elements of a crime aren't met. And, I doubt any DA would accept charges where it is OBVIOUS no offense is committed, unless he really wants to get laughed at and get his City/County sued for violation of Civil Rights..

I base my layman's opinion upon over 25 years working in a Law Office as a non-attorney after deciding 3 times not to attend the law school which accepted me, and a statement by an Attorney (Charles Cotton) that "a "good faith arrest" cannot be made for something that is not illegal and that he, his officers and the city will be prime targets for a §1983 civil rights lawsuit."

Still, I agree that some District Attorneys don;t care what the law is ... based on that nurse arrested for carrying at her hospital which didn't have a valid sign, but she received "notice" but not "effective notice:". viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12768&start=15#p147976" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree all the way with you and am very much aware of the actual law (I've read it as well of having a copy that was included in my CHL class booklet) However, I find it pretty stupid being defiant over a small technicality like letter size to totally ignore the sign out of spite. Hey, I'm a CHLer too... I don't like them as much as the next guy/gal and I could understand the situation better if the sign was not visible or in fine print... but to go out with a ruler to measure the letters... come on!

You brought up exactly the type of crap DA's and LEO's do with the story of the nurse, like many other stories of athority abuse.. like this CHLerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6etkHuydfQ the point I've been trying to make is: Is it really worth nit-picking, being possibly exposed, given an oral/verbal warning? Why would any CHLer want to give his hard earned money to any place that has a 30.06 sign? (unless one doesn't have a choice). Common sense tells me to go elsewhere and to avoid a possible confrontation.

trig wrote:I may be wrong, but doesn't being charged and/or having your license revoked for carrying where a 30.06 sign is posted, require written, and verbal notice once you've been made?

If so, then why the big deal?

Why take the risk if there is an alternative? Can't carry at store A, go to store B!

To each their own.... you are responsible for YOUR actions, If you want to carry in places that are prohibited and you strongly believe lettering size makes the sign "illegal" or ignorable... GO FOR IT!!

Bottom line, a GOOD attorney MIGHT get you off on the technicality but the prosecution could nail you pretty easily.

pbwalker wrote:

SenileDavid wrote:

bdickens wrote:So in other words, your assertion is merely baseless conjecture.

I don't know if you want to call what I've learned in CHL class from my instructor that has been teaching since 1995 http://www.texashandgunacademy.com/ and the same response of another CHL instructor "baseless conjecture". But hey, it's a free country.. GO FOR IT, be defiant; hopefully you're a smooth talker if you get busted.

So your CHL instructor said letter height didn't matter?

No, I did not say that. However I did say that one could get into a hair splitting issue IF by chance one's concealed weapon is seen in a place where they had a sign in plain view at the entrance due to lettering size and it can be considered unlawful carry.

I don't know about you people... Personally the best way to WIN a fight is NOT TO BE IN IT. (that's called Common Sense)

bdickens wrote:So in other words, your assertion is merely baseless conjecture.

I don't know if you want to call what I've learned in CHL class from my instructor that has been teaching since 1995 http://www.texashandgunacademy.com/ and the same response of another CHL instructor "baseless conjecture". But hey, it's a free country.. GO FOR IT, be defiant; hopefully you're a smooth talker if you get busted.

SenileDavid wrote:

bdickens wrote:And you base that assertion on what case law, exactly?

I based it upon:

Reponses from two CHL Instructors and upon common sense.

Of course, like I said: "It's all up to the individual and if he/she wants to take the gamble." If one wants to play Macho-Man.... go for it.

Personally, the last thing I want to do is split hairs with a judge or Criminal District Attorney over petty lettering size. It's much easier to take the sign for face value and take my business elsewhere.

bdickens wrote:And you base that assertion on what case law, exactly?

I based it upon:

Reponses from two CHL Instructors and upon common sense.

People may argue about non legal 30.06 signs all they want due to the lettering was not correct size or what-have-you. Truth is IF you want to nit-pick and defiantly carry anyway when the sign is clearly at the entrance in plain view and you get busted let’s say for example you're weapon was printing or what not, it IS considered UNLAWFUL CARRY and you will (or could) have your license revoked. Because to the Criminal District Attorney the lettering size won't amount to crap... the sign was there plain and simple.
Of course it will be concealed... so what’s the worry? It's all up to the individual and if he/she wants to take the gamble.

My recommendation would be find a store that sells same product or whatever that doesn't have 30.06 signs and shop there and write a letter to the owner or corporate office expressing your discontent.