San Antonio Children's Museum

[ClarkLZeuss]

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.

[Sangiovese]

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.

While I agree with the majority of your post, I disagree that the 30.06 statute needs to be rewritten to "specifically state that a sign not meeting the minimum standard will be considered to not be adequate notification."

BIG DISCLAIMER -- Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

The statute already clearly states that in order to be considered effective notice the sign must meet the specific criteria outlined. By definition, that means that if the sign does not meet those criteria, it is not effective notice. It's like saying that, "The minimum passing score for this exam is a 70 out of 100." That's all that is required. You don't need to follow it up by stating... "Any score lower than 70 out of 100 will not be considered a passing score."

I would like to see the ambiguous areas of the sign requirements (contrast, posted at all entrances, definition of conspicuous, etc...) more clearly spelled out. But there is no need to restate that a sign that does not meet the requirements is not valid.

If the lettering is too small, the sign is not valid. If it is not posted in both English and Spanish, it is not valid. In my opinion, if someone will walk past a gun-busters sign, then I don't understand why they would not walk past a non-compliant attempt at a 30.06 sign. In both cases, the intent is clear (they don't want you to carry in their establishment). In both cases, they failed to meet the legal requirements that would remove your right to carry. (Why have requirements if they don't need to be met.... those are called guidelines.)

A lot of people here say things like "I will not consent to a search of my vehicle if a LEO asks if he can search it." Why? Because they don't want to give up their right to be free from unreasonable searches just because someone (the LEO) asked them to. Why then would we give up our right to carry our weapon just because someone (the sign poster) asked us to? The LEO can get a warrant (or come up with probable cause, etc...). The building owner can post a compliant sign. Until that happens... they are just asking.

Again... my opinions only - not legal advice - you know the drill.

[jimlongley]

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.

While I agree with the majority of your post, I disagree that the 30.06 statute needs to be rewritten to "specifically state that a sign not meeting the minimum standard will be considered to not be adequate notification."

BIG DISCLAIMER -- Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

The statute already clearly states that in order to be considered effective notice the sign must meet the specific criteria outlined. By definition, that means that if the sign does not meet those criteria, it is not effective notice. It's like saying that, "The minimum passing score for this exam is a 70 out of 100." That's all that is required. You don't need to follow it up by stating... "Any score lower than 70 out of 100 will not be considered a passing score."

I would like to see the ambiguous areas of the sign requirements (contrast, posted at all entrances, definition of conspicuous, etc...) more clearly spelled out. But there is no need to restate that a sign that does not meet the requirements is not valid.

If the lettering is too small, the sign is not valid. If it is not posted in both English and Spanish, it is not valid. In my opinion, if someone will walk past a gun-busters sign, then I don't understand why they would not walk past a non-compliant attempt at a 30.06 sign. In both cases, the intent is clear (they don't want you to carry in their establishment). In both cases, they failed to meet the legal requirements that would remove your right to carry. (Why have requirements if they don't need to be met.... those are called guidelines.)

A lot of people here say things like "I will not consent to a search of my vehicle if a LEO asks if he can search it." Why? Because they don't want to give up their right to be free from unreasonable searches just because someone (the LEO) asked them to. Why then would we give up our right to carry our weapon just because someone (the sign poster) asked us to? The LEO can get a warrant (or come up with probable cause, etc...). The building owner can post a compliant sign. Until that happens... they are just asking.

Again... my opinions only - not legal advice - you know the drill.

While I agree with your interpretation of 30.06 for the better part, as I stated in my previous post, DPS and someone at the Attorney General's offcie does not. If they consider something close to the proper wording which is not the right size a "reasonable effort" then I am not going to take the chance, and I will continue to press for modification of 46.035 in order to avoid DPS or the Attorney General's office, or some overenthusiastic DA putting an otherwise innocent CHL holder through unreasonable problems due to their interpretation. The 30.06 statute does not state "effective notice" it merely says "notice" and subsection A says that "a card or other document" is adequate notice, but it doesn't say that the card can't be posted on the wall, or the document not an 8.5x11 paper taped to the insideof the movie theater box office.

I am not giving up my right to carry, according to the state of Texas I don't have one, I have a privilege granted by the state and which the state can take away for a variety of reasons, including being prosecuted for "Unlawful Carrying of a Handgun by a License Holder" even if the sign was not, in our eyes, valid. 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. (k) This entire Section does not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under section 30.06. For the purpose of this section, effective notice will be considered proper signage, and improper signage, as defined in Section 30.06 will not be considered "effective notice." And in 30.06, as you agreed, make the definitions of signage absolutely and perfectly clear.

If we had a true right to carry, we would be like Vermont.

[ClarkLZeuss]

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]

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]

Hmmm, might just have a thought there.

[will381796]

Received a reply email from the Executive Director of the museum:

Thank you for your email dated March 8, 2009 and I apologize for the delay in responding to you. I regret that you chose not to enter the museum and hope that this email will help to better explain our policy.



Under the Texas Handgun laws, any organization has the legal authority to restrict a person with a hand gun permit from entering the premises with a weapon. In fact, most, if not all, museums in San Antonio have a policy that prevents a person from carrying a weapon onto their premises. The policy at the Museum is not designed to punish you or anyone else. Rather, our intent is to protect children and families from inadvertent accidents involving handguns. The Museum is an extremely safe venue for children to learn through play; we have a duty and an obligation to the community to have policies in place that further our mission. As an organization, like many others, the presence of firearms is simply not permitted.



We respect your right to carry a concealed weapon and are assured that you are an upstanding citizen. At the same time, the right to carry a concealed weapon is not absolute. The law states that you cannot bring a weapon in a church, courthouse, airport terminal, school, education institution, polling location and many other places. Therefore, we likewise request that you respect our right to restrict access to those with firearms granted to us under the law. Again, the primary concern at the Museum is the safety and well being of the children and families that visit.



We appreciate your feedback and hope that you will reconsider your position and bring your children back to the Museum. We know that it will be a great experience for them and your entire family.



Sincerely,



Vanessa Lacoss Hurd

Executive Director

Where to start...where to start... lol Any suggestions on how to proceed, aside from pointing out some of the inaccuracies in her reply?

[Keith B]

To be honest, you probably will not be able to convince someone like this. She has respectfully replied to your email and stated their view in a logical manner (at least in her mind logical.) I think even pointing out her inaccuracies will not be effective.

The only way you might be able to convince them would be to offer to meet with them at one of their board meetings to explain the point of view of a CHL. Offer to bring along a CHL instructor and if possible, a LEO or other public figure that would support your stance. That lets them see the kind of people that CHL's really are in person and not just an email without a face.

[jimlongley]

Received a reply email from the Executive Director of the museum:

Thank you for your email dated March 8, 2009 and I apologize for the delay in responding to you. I regret that you chose not to enter the museum and hope that this email will help to better explain our policy.



Under the Texas Handgun laws, any organization has the legal authority to restrict a person with a hand gun permit from entering the premises with a weapon. In fact, most, if not all, museums in San Antonio have a policy that prevents a person from carrying a weapon onto their premises. The policy at the Museum is not designed to punish you or anyone else. Rather, our intent is to protect children and families from inadvertent accidents involving handguns. The Museum is an extremely safe venue for children to learn through play; we have a duty and an obligation to the community to have policies in place that further our mission. As an organization, like many others, the presence of firearms is simply not permitted.



We respect your right to carry a concealed weapon and are assured that you are an upstanding citizen. At the same time, the right to carry a concealed weapon is not absolute. The law states that you cannot bring a weapon in a church, courthouse, airport terminal, school, education institution, polling location and many other places. Therefore, we likewise request that you respect our right to restrict access to those with firearms granted to us under the law. Again, the primary concern at the Museum is the safety and well being of the children and families that visit.



We appreciate your feedback and hope that you will reconsider your position and bring your children back to the Museum. We know that it will be a great experience for them and your entire family.



Sincerely,



Vanessa Lacoss Hurd

Executive Director

Where to start...where to start... lol Any suggestions on how to proceed, aside from pointing out some of the inaccuracies in her reply?

Clearly and concisely point out that as a Texas CHL you are required to know the law, so her lecture was less than welcome, particularly in view of her errors in understanding the law. Then, starting with the most erronous (hospitals and churches) assign one sentence to each error.

[srothstein]

I think the only way you can respond is to politely thank her for answering and explaining her position. Then agree to disagree and you, with your weapon, will stay away. The organization has the right to ban people with firearms, you have the right to not do business with the organization.

I honestly think nothing you can do will change her mind, including pointing out the errors in her logic or beliefs.

[Liberty]

Is this a privately owned museum, on privately owned land?

[will381796]

Is this a privately owned museum, on privately owned land?

I believe it is a privately run museum. A quick search of property tax records on the location shows the owner listed as SA Children's Museum. So I also believe the building is privately owned and not rented out by the city.

[SlowDave]

I would thank her for her reply, courteously and briefly point out her errors, and then ask the following (modify as applicable to you):
"I am concerned, as are you, for childrens' safety, and especially my childrens' safety. That is one of the reasons I obtained a CHL: to be able to protect my children from people who would do them harm. I would ask what you have done to protect the children in your facility from harm. While I understand your concern over an accident occuring with a CHL-holder's weapon, the same can be said for law enforcement officers' handguns, which you do not prohibit. At the same time, there is a chance that there will be a situation at your facility that would require armed response to protect the children. You have taken away that protection from the children in this facility (by their parents or other CHL-holding adults). If you are going to follow this direction, I would strongly recommend that you utilize metal detectors at the doors (as signs have been shown to have absolutely no effect on deterring murderer's intentions) and armed guards to provide the necessary response for when the criminal enters around or through the metal detector. (Note that metal detectors do not prohibit the carrying of a weapon into the facility, they just give you an earlier warning.) Otherwise, you have created an unsafe condition for the very children you are trying to protect. I would hate to be responsible for creating a situation that resulted in the death of innocent children. I'm sure you would too.

Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this matter."

I'd save the issue of the walk to/from the facility for another day. Just thought that this might have an infintesimal chance of getting the wheels turning in her head. Talk to the issue from her standpoint. What do y'all think?

[CHLSteve]

I think the only way you can respond is to politely thank her for answering and explaining her position. Then agree to disagree and you, with your weapon, will stay away. The organization has the right to ban people with firearms, you have the right to not do business with the organization.

I honestly think nothing you can do will change her mind, including pointing out the errors in her logic or beliefs.

Yep... She was courteous, and laid out their reasoning for the sign, there's not a whole lot you can do beyond making a pest of yourself.

[will381796]

I think the only way you can respond is to politely thank her for answering and explaining her position. Then agree to disagree and you, with your weapon, will stay away. The organization has the right to ban people with firearms, you have the right to not do business with the organization.

I honestly think nothing you can do will change her mind, including pointing out the errors in her logic or beliefs.

Yep... She was courteous, and laid out their reasoning for the sign, there's not a whole lot you can do beyond making a pest of yourself.

Yup, that's basically what I did. Thanked her for taking the time and provided a little bit more thinking on my reasoning. Also pointed out some of the mistakes in her email regarding the law. She then responded to that email, again courteously, and said that while she does not think the policy will change, they will at least look into it. At least she responded to the email. Thus far, United SA Federal Credit Union has simply ignored it.

[CHLSteve]

So what do you guys do in these situations? Personally, if I felt my safety might be at risk, I would carry anyway--just be sure to use deep cover. I carry an LCP that can go just about anywhere with me, and no one will ever know it unless I need to use it!

I might not take the risk of accidental exposure if I was carrying a larger full-size pistol, but the LCP is great for situations like this.