San Antonio Children's Museum

[will381796]

San Antonio Children's Museum is posted with a non-compliant 30.06 sign. Wording is compliant, but the lettering is about a quarter-inch high and the sign is located well below eye-level. I've posted the information to texas3006.com, but also wanted to let you all know that I have written an email to the Director, assistant director, and the individual in charge of Guest Experiences. If you live in the San Antonio area and would like to see if we can get them to open their eyes to their poor policy, feel free to send some emails. :-D

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to express my surprise and concern about a sign posted outside of your facility. My family and I drove to downtown San Antonio today to take my 2 year old daughter to visit the San Antonio Children's Museum. I am a lawful holder of a Texas Concealed Handgun License. I choose to carry because I feel responsible for ensuring the safety of my family and myself. Today, upon arriving at the museum I noticed a small sign located outside of your front door that prevents individuals carrying a concealed handgun under Texas's concealed handgun law from entering. This sign gave me two options:

1. I could return my handgun to my vehicle in order to enter the museum and create a situation where I could not defend my family and myself on the walk to and from the museum (as well as leaving a handgun in a vehicle that might be broken into resulting in the theft of the gun).
2. I could keep my gun and choose not to patronize your museum.

I chose the latter. I am quite confused as to why any individual or organization would post a sign limiting the exercise of a right by a lawful citizen while having no impact on those that carry weapons into their facility illegally. The type of sign that you have posted outside the museum (usually referred to as a "30.06 sign") has absolutely no effect on individuals already breaking the law as it only applies to the individuals that are legally able to carry a concealed handgun in the state of Texas. The sign you post only affects individuals that hold a Texas Concealed Handgun License. Statistics show that holders of a concealed handgun license (CHL) have a much lower incidence of crime than individuals that do not have a CHL. In addition, any individual with a Texas CHL undergoes a rigorous training and background check process that prevents individuals with shaded pasts from obtaining a CHL. Individuals with a Texas CHL must meet the following requirements:

- Be at least 21 years of age (18 for members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces).
- Not have any felony convictions.
- Not have any pending felony charges.
- Not have any Class A or B misdemeanor convictions within the past 5 years.
- Not have any pending Class A or B misdemeanor charges.
- Not have any domestic violence convictions.
- Not have any pending domestic violence charges.
- Not be chemically dependent (have a history of drug/alcohol treatment or be a known drug user or alcoholic).
- Not be delinquent in child support payments.
- Not be subject to a court protective order or restraining order.
- Not have been diagnosed by a physician as suffering from a major psychiatric disorder.
- Not have been involuntarily hospitalized for psychiatric problems.
- Be a legal citizen of the United States.
- Be legally allowed to purchase a handgun, under state and federal law.
- Attend a 10- to 15-hour training course, including instruction on state laws pertaining to weapons and the use
or threatened use of deadly force; nonviolent dispute resolution; handgun use, proficiency, and safety; and
proper storage practices for handguns.
- Pass a written test over the material covered in the training course.
- Pass a 50-round shooting test very similar to the annual requalification test required of Texas law
enforcement officers.
- Submit three notarized affidavits; two passport photos; and two official sets of fingerprints (one for the Texas
Department of Public Safety and one for the Federal Bureau of Investigation). The fingerprints must be
taken by an authorized agent of the state who must also verify and sign the passport photos.
- Pay a nonrefundable $140 application fee, not including the cost of the course, ammunition, fingerprinting,
or notary fees. The total cost is usually about $275. Some individuals, such as active/retired law
enforcement and military personnel qualify for discounted application fees.
- Wait 65-150 days for the completion of extensive state and federal fingerprint/background checks.

As you can see from this list, individuals holding a Texas CHL are in general some of the most upstanding citizens in the state. It is an outrage that any facility should choose to punish those that decide to protect themselves and their families within the limits of the law.

I have posted the fact that your organization limits the rights of Texas CHL holders on several forums and concealed handgun websites in order to advertise your organization's policy so that others may make informed decisions before deciding to visit your museum. I am sure that many of them would choose to spend their money elsewhere rather than give up their right to protect themselves. I urge your management and legal staff to re-evaluate your position on the posting of the 30.06 sign outside of your facility. I know that as soon as your policy changes and that sign is removed, I would be enthusiastic about visiting your museum with my daughter.

I look forward to hearing your response to this situation. If you would like to discuss this, please feel free to email me at this email address or I can be reached at (210)xxx-xxxx.

Sincerely,

Executive Director
Vanessa Lacoss Hurd
(210) 212-4453 x 1300
vlacosshurd@sakids.org

Assistant Director
Lupita Castrejon
(210) 212-4453 x 1301
lupita@sakids.org

Guest Experience Coordinator
Stephanie A. Acevedo
210-212-4453, ext. 1321
gec@sakids.org

[Keith B]

I would never send an email or letter on a non-compliant sign. This will just alert them that they need to correct it and make it legal. If they were already willing to put up a small one, they will probably go the distance and put in a compliant one.

[will381796]

I would never send an email or letter on a non-compliant sign. This will just alert them that they need to correct it and make it legal. If they were already willing to put up a small one, they will probably go the distance and put in a compliant one.

You might want to be a test case, but if I see a sign that has the correct wording, and if I choose to enter that location, then I am 99% sure that if outed I would be arrested. I might beat the rap but I will definitely be taking the ride. Notice that in my email to them, I never mentioned to them that their sign was non-compliant. I am simply asking them to remove the sign that they have posted.

[Keith B]

I would never send an email or letter on a non-compliant sign. This will just alert them that they need to correct it and make it legal. If they were already willing to put up a small one, they will probably go the distance and put in a compliant one.

You might want to be a test case, but if I see a sign that has the correct wording, and if I choose to enter that location, then I am 99% sure that if outed I would be arrested. I might beat the rap but I will definitely be taking the ride. Notice that in my email to them, I never mentioned to them that their sign was non-compliant. I am simply asking them to remove the sign that they have posted.

You have a point there on your email. Hope that it does the trick in getting it removed. Keep us apprised of their responses.

[Liberty]

I would never send an email or letter on a non-compliant sign. This will just alert them that they need to correct it and make it legal. If they were already willing to put up a small one, they will probably go the distance and put in a compliant one.

You might want to be a test case, but if I see a sign that has the correct wording, and if I choose to enter that location, then I am 99% sure that if outed I would be arrested. I might beat the rap but I will definitely be taking the ride. Notice that in my email to them, I never mentioned to them that their sign was non-compliant. I am simply asking them to remove the sign that they have posted.

I never understood this test case business. First of all the gun is concealed. That means that no one should be able to see it or know that you have it on you.
The law is very clear with not much room for interpretation the size of the font is supposed to be 1 inch or bigger. Most of us are not real familiar with the legal code but all of us can remember 30.06 if not it is supposed to be a part of the sign. Now I would tend to give signs the benefit of the doubt when they are painted on glass or if they they are in a corner somewhere because contrast and conspicuous is subject to interpretation but 1/2 inch size letter can not be interpreted as being 1 inch or bigger.

[will381796]

Now I would tend to give signs the benefit of the doubt when they are painted on glass or if they they are in a corner somewhere because contrast and conspicuous is subject to interpretation but 1/2 inch size letter can not be interpreted as being 1 inch or bigger.

No, but juries might take into account the intention of the sign poster rather than the exact specification for the sign as defined by the law. Juries have been known to do some stupid things in the past.

You know the intent of the signs, and any jury that hears a case in front of them where the CHL holder states "those letters were only 1/4 of an inch tall and they're required to be at least one inch tall" is likely think to themselves: "if you paid enough attention to the sign to measure the height, then you paid enough attention to it to understand what it was telling you. Guilty!" It only takes one case to set precedent.

Yeah, your gun is concealed. But, it's not like breezes don't blow, people don't bump up against other people, and that awkward reaches or movements aren't made that could possibly result in unintentional revealing of the weapon. As has been said several times, many LOEs that respond aren't going to care about the size of the letters. They think "a sign is a sign". Let's take him in and let the courts figure it out.I don't know about you, but I don't have the $15,000 lying around to throw towards legal fees because I ignored a sign that was slightly non-compliant.

I simply think that rather than ignore these signs and go among your business, it might be better to try and discuss with these businesses and organizations why their policy is wrong and get them to our side rather than try and sneak by on technicalities. Sneaking around on technicalities does nothing but hurt the reputation of CHL holders and won't decrease the number of places that post.

Just my point of view on sending such emails. Hey, if it worked for Taco Cabana then it can work for other organizations and businesses.

[Liberty]

You know the intent of the signs, and any jury that hears a case in front of them where the CHL holder states "those letters were only 1/4 of an inch tall and they're required to be at least one inch tall" is likely think to themselves: "if you paid enough attention to the sign to measure the height, then you paid enough attention to it to understand what it was telling you. Guilty!" It only takes one case to set precedent.

Yeah, your gun is concealed. But, it's not like breezes don't blow, people don't bump up against other people, and that awkward reaches or movements aren't made that could possibly result in unintentional revealing of the weapon. As has been said several times, many LOEs that respond aren't going to care about the size of the letters. They think "a sign is a sign". Let's take him in and let the courts figure it out.I don't know about you, but I don't have the $15,000 lying around to throw towards legal fees because I ignored a sign that was slightly non-compliant.

I simply think that rather than ignore these signs and go among your business, it might be better to try and discuss with these businesses and organizations why their policy is wrong and get them to our side rather than try and sneak by on technicalities. Sneaking around on technicalities does nothing but hurt the reputation of CHL holders and won't decrease the number of places that post.

Just my point of view on sending such emails. Hey, if it worked for Taco Cabana then it can work for other organizations and businesses.

I never heard any of the LEOs that post hee say any such thing. Most LEOs I have met can read. I have served on several juries and no jurror I met was dumb enouph not to understand that a law means what its says. It doesn't matter what the property owner intended but size matters and the legislature made it clear it real clear that it needs to be 1 inch or bigger.

Where did the $15,000 figure come from? we are talking about trespass not a capital murder case. sheesh. In fact I would imagine any arrest made in a case like this should be able to be resolved without a lawyer. just by pointing to the smart DA that 30.06 says the signhas to be 1 inch font.

I don't disagree with you about the email, as long as you don't point out to them that the sign is invalid. I think though that what happened to Taco Cabana was more about the internet chatter than the emails. Almost every company searches the net for thier name. They don't like it much when they find themselves getting badmouthed and trashed ovr the net. Trashing them over internet (while avoiding libel lor slander) can be pretty effective. If they are a consumer company they are pretty likely to see the error of their ways

[skankpile]

I went to the Houston Medical Museum this weekend and it had some other legal-ease on the door referencing that licensed concealed weapons were not allowed. I knew it was not leagal, but it only takes one school buss to pull up and drop off a load of kids to make it off limits.

I walked back to the car and disarmed...

[Keith B]

I went to the Houston Medical Museum this weekend and it had some other legal-ease on the door referencing that licensed concealed weapons were not allowed. I knew it was not leagal, but it only takes one school buss to pull up and drop off a load of kids to make it off limits.

I walked back to the car and disarmed...

I actually disagree that a school bus attending a museum makes it the whole facility a school sponsored function. That IMO was not the intent of the law when written, and others here on the forum agree. And intent is a major factor.

Now, if YOU are meeting the school field trip there to chaperon, or just be with your kid's class as they visit the museum, THEN it becomes a school sponsored function as you are a participant. Until that time, I don't think it counts. If it did, then you could be on one side of the zoo, and a school bus pull up and unload and you would be immediately in violation and trapped trying to get back to you car to disarm.

[boomerang]

Just my point of view on sending such emails. Hey, if it worked for Taco Cabana then it can work for other organizations and businesses.

Nothing wrong with sending an email to see if they will reconsider their prejudices.

Until they do, there are plenty of CHL friendly places to spend my money, especially in this economy!

[dmac]

Concealed---Hidden; kept from sight; secreted

[will381796]

Concealed---Hidden; kept from sight; secreted

If that's your thinking process, then why pay heed to valid postings? Afterall, you're "concealed?" :-D

[dmac]

Concealed---Hidden; kept from sight; secreted

If that's your thinking process, then why pay heed to valid postings? Afterall, you're "concealed?" :-D

no comment

[jimlongley]

I, and others, have called DPS about "invalid" signs in the past, and I, and I believe the others but they will have to speak up for themselves, have been told that they consider ANY posting to have been an indication of validity because they went to the effort and got close, and would I like to be a test case. When I suggested to the young lady I was talking to the one time (I did call more than once) that this should mean that if I got stopped for doing 29 in a school zone posted for 20, I should get off because I was making the effort and was at least in the 20s, she hung up on me.

Calls to the Attorney General's office have gotten a couple of different responses, from telling me that as an individual who was not "really" affected by the sign I did not have standing to ask, to a suggestion that I might want to volunteer to be a test case.

I have stated my thinking on notification of non-compliant signs before, I believe the poster of such a sign SHOULD be notified that the sign is non-compliant, and that some people seeing the non-compliant sign will carry there anyway, ignoring the non-compliant sign. If they truly want to post, then it should force them to put up a compliant sign, which is an ugly monstrosity of a sign.

I find the argument that such signs are put up by people who know better but do it to mollify the anti-gun nuts unconvincing at best, you have no way of knowing the motives of the posters of such signs, and without an affidavit signed by the legal department of such a company, that they do not intend to enforce the sign and that it was placed they only for some other purpose, I would not trust them to non prosecute should your carry gun get accidentally outed.

Yes, concealed means concealed, but even the law recognizes that inadvertent exposure may take place, and it is just such an inadvertent exposure that could earn you a ride due to you self determination that a particular sign is invalid. To me it's not worth the risk, even if the court eventually drops the charge or the DA declines to prosecute, just the ruined evening or shopping trip is enough "expense" not to mention attorney charges and stuff. I see any sign as a threat of prosecution, compliant or not, and just maybe the manager that is on duty right now is a rabid anti-gun nut and either doesn't know or doesn't care that corporate put up those non-compliant signs just to make people like him or her comfortable without intending to enforce them.

I think the law needs to be amended to put some teeth behind it, at a very minimum (do you know how hard that word is to type?) the law should specifically state that a sign not meeting the minimum standard will be considered not to be adequate notification under the law and will not apply, just the way hospitals, etc., have been required to properly post. And the amendment should include specific wording that makes it clear that white on clear is NOT contrasting, that a separate and independent sign, not lettering on glass, is necessary, and that the sign must, MUST, be visible within certain sight lines, and if it is not or there is no convenient location to post a single compliant sign, then more than one must be posted, and that EVERY entrance, not just the main one, MUST be posted.

I, personally, see this issue as a repair of existing law and just about on a par in importance with parking lot possession.

I card, and send letters, to EVERYPLACE I see a non-compliant sign, as well as compliant ones, notifying them of my intention to boycott them and lead anyone else I can influence to do the same. If they are non-compliant I also point out that they are so, but I don't tell them how to fix it.

I have seen a car dealership take down its (non-compliant) signs, without responding to me. I got a very nice response from Bass Pro when I pointed out their (non-compliant) signs and a promise that they would take them down, which they did. I have never received a reply from my local hospital, but they did change their signs, and they are still non-compliant, so I wrote to them again, and still no reply. I could go on, I have several other examples, but the gist of it is that 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.

[dmac]

but the gist of it is that 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.

really good points in the entire post. Given my general infallibility on all matters of any weight I rarely rethink my position on an issue, but I may have to here.