TexasCHLforum.com

Has anyone taken notice of this court case? Rather stupid reasoning in my opinion.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/arti ... gun-signs/

Michael Cavanaugh, a criminal justice professor at the University of Houston-Downtown, said arguing the case as constitutional rights violations is a tough sell.

I'm no lawyer, but that was precisely my first thought, as well. My second thought was summed up nicely by Jerry Patterson: "Former Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who authored the state's concealed handgun law when he was a state senator in the 1990s, called the lawsuit's premise 'bogus'."

Hmm, this article was last updated two years ago.
It would seem that nothing much came of it.

der Teufel wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:10 am Hmm, this article was last updated two years ago.
It would seem that nothing much came of it.

Dagnabit. You're right. My bad: I should have looked at the date before reading it.

There is no signage requirement for a property owner to ban guns from their property. And there never has been.

The only signage requirement is for property owners who want to use law enforcement resources to enforce their personal preferences about the exercise of individual rights by their customers / visitors. Considering that these law enforcement resources are funded by all taxpayers, including the people they are targeting, this seems to be a completely reasonable requirement.

As much as I would not like a visitor to my home to espouse the ideals of Karl Marx, I am adult enough to accept my responsibility to actually ask them to leave before I just call the police. I'm not sure why the exercise of the RKBA arms should be any different.

der Teufel wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:10 am Hmm, this article was last updated two years ago.
It would seem that nothing much came of it.

Actually, it is proceeding slowly. There are discovery disputes. I have access to the docket. The state (ken Paxton) has been dismissed from the suit and the remaining defendants are the cities of Webster and Houston, certain police chiefs and the DA. Given that the state has been dismissed, this won't change state law. This case is like pissing into the wind.

OneGun wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:17 pm

der Teufel wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:10 am Hmm, this article was last updated two years ago.
It would seem that nothing much came of it.

Actually, it is proceeding slowly. There are discovery disputes. I have access to the docket. The state (ken Paxton) has been dismissed from the suit and the remaining defendants are the cities of Webster and Houston, certain police chiefs and the DA. Given that the state has been dismissed, this won't change state law. This case is like pissing into the wind.

If the state has been dismissed, the law is no longer being challenged. The cities and county have an almost ironclad defense of obeying the law. The only theory I could think of possibly keeping the suit alive is for them to have called the police to try to file charges on someone and not have it accepted.

"Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Church and Antidote Coffee allege the signs private properties need to display are meant to make it harder for them to keep out guns and to mark them as anti-gun establishments"

IANAL, but a couple of points on this quote:
(1) How does it make it harder to keep guns out? Take signs down and anyone can carry in there
(2) If they want to keep guns out, aren't they actually an "anti-gun establishment"?

Sounds like a senseless, baseless, frivolous lawsuit to me and should be thrown out.

RPBrown wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:01 am "Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Church and Antidote Coffee allege the signs private properties need to display are meant to make it harder for them to keep out guns and to mark them as anti-gun establishments"

IANAL, but a couple of points on this quote:
(1) How does it make it harder to keep guns out? Take signs down and anyone can carry in there
(2) If they want to keep guns out, aren't they actually an "anti-gun establishment"?

Sounds like a senseless, baseless, frivolous lawsuit to me and should be thrown out.

Like all Liberal/Progressive policies, they want to BE antigun without being LABELED as anntigun. The reverse it true, too. Martha's Vineyard wanted to be LABELED as a sanctuary place without BEING a sanctuary place. Virtue signaling is the important part.

Here is another case in point. Sprouts Farmsers Market has 3006 and 3007 signs. They are as close to transparent (not contrasting) as they can make them - the next step would be invisible ink - and they put them on their sliding outer doors - which are almost never closed during their business hours. So you have to really, really want to see the signs or you won't. Everything else the do is "loud and proud".

The counter argument, and I think it is a solid one, is that the LTC community is THE most law abiding group in the State of Texas with a proven track record of that for more than 20 years. If businesses follow the law and display the signs as they were intended, there is zero problem with keeping LEGAL guns out of the stores with the signs. It is when the businesses try to bend the law that mistakes can happen. The mish-mash sign that Whole Foods puts up, for example, isn't even close to what the Texas Penal Code requires and anyone who is trained to look for the 3006 and 3007 language will have to work hard at finding those words in the Whole Foods sign. I'm expected to interpret the INTENT of the sign but to follow the LETTER of the law regarding it.

Their complaint (link to filing is in Houston article) states that the dedication of such a huge space for the signs detracts visually, and is expensive ($100.00 per sign?!), and should be replaced with a simple gun shape outline with a red bar (similar to what several states currently use to bar concealed (and open?) carry). Second part of the argument is, if they remove the onerous signs and rely on verbal warning, the business employees or church greeters/members are put at risk of confrontation with gun carrying members of the public.

As mentioned previous, this is such a stinking pile. It is nothing more than the everytown lawyers showing an effort to remove guns from the streets, collecting billable hours, and keep donations keep coming in.

I can't speak for everybody, but I have never carried anywhere where the signs are posted, and I most certainly have never confronted anyone about their desired position. I just avoid that business. I think that is the problem with the original plaintiffs - they can't see beyond their nose that someone with a license to carry is not the threat...

they can't see beyond their nose that someone with a license to carry is not the threat...

Absolutely. Remember we're dealing, in many cases, with people who don't know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of. Like the convenience store owner who put up a 30-06 sign because he "didn't want to get robbed."