30.05 ... and so it begins

[jmorris]

I'm prompted by another post (AF-Odin about the person in Academy) to relate this. I advertised a class three weeks ago using this graphic. (Can't get it to show here, png problem?)

http://www.guardianfirearmtraining.com/ ... 05Sign.png

I got this response on Sept 24th.

If it's worded like that then you can't carry it at all there

I explained that there was an exception (defense to prosecution) for license holders.

I plan on calling my attorney at [agency not to be named] and asking them I'll let you know what they say

I pointed out that it is what DPS states and posted the relevant sections of 30.05 for him. Save him a call maybe.

and if you were a firearms trainer like you're claiming you would know that a sign that says no firearms means no firearms whether you have an LTC or your constitutional carrying so like I said I'm going to call my attorney and ask them directly

for example all it takes is a sign handwritten that says no firearms allowed and no one can carry on premises in that location and the sign in your post says no firearms doesn't say anything about an exception


So I sent him a link to the GOA flyer that states it doesn't apply to license holders.

sounds like somebody should teach you how to do your job I'm available let me know

So, it's been over a week and he still hasn't let me know what his lawyer said. I wonder why.

[Logan'sGlock]

Saw one at my local HEB, My concern is these doofuses ignoring 30.05 and carrying anyway. I personally strongly encourage people to still take the LTC course and getting it anyway. I just renewed my LTC. To much ambiguity in this constitutional carry not against at all, but at the very least people should educate themselves on carry laws, safe firearm storage, etc

[ralewis]

Saw one at my local HEB, My concern is these doofuses ignoring 30.05 and carrying anyway. I personally strongly encourage people to still take the LTC course and getting it anyway. I just renewed my LTC. To much ambiguity in this constitutional carry not against at all, but at the very least people should educate themselves on carry laws, safe firearm storage, etc

I totally agree. the HEBs in the Austin area have the 30.05 sign, and I'll definitely keep my LTC. The odd thing about the permit less carry law is it may have the effect of increasing locations where a LTC holder can carry. At some point, businesses may just look at this situation and say they don't want too many signs and settle with the 30.05 sign only.

[Logan'sGlock]

Yes definatly a win win for us license holders

[Soccerdad1995]

I'm prompted by another post (AF-Odin about the person in Academy) to relate this. I advertised a class three weeks ago using this graphic. (Can't get it to show here, png problem?)

http://www.guardianfirearmtraining.com/ ... 05Sign.png

I got this response on Sept 24th.

If it's worded like that then you can't carry it at all there

I explained that there was an exception (defense to prosecution) for license holders.

I plan on calling my attorney at [agency not to be named] and asking them I'll let you know what they say

I pointed out that it is what DPS states and posted the relevant sections of 30.05 for him. Save him a call maybe.

and if you were a firearms trainer like you're claiming you would know that a sign that says no firearms means no firearms whether you have an LTC or your constitutional carrying so like I said I'm going to call my attorney and ask them directly

for example all it takes is a sign handwritten that says no firearms allowed and no one can carry on premises in that location and the sign in your post says no firearms doesn't say anything about an exception


So I sent him a link to the GOA flyer that states it doesn't apply to license holders.

sounds like somebody should teach you how to do your job I'm available let me know

So, it's been over a week and he still hasn't let me know what his lawyer said. I wonder why.

I'm not tracking. Who did you have this conversation with?

They are pretty clearly mistaken, but I'm just not clear who they are and most importantly are they in a position of authority in some way?

[jmorris]

.......
I'm not tracking. Who did you have this conversation with?

They are pretty clearly mistaken, but I'm just not clear who they are and most importantly are they in a position of authority in some way?

It was a person commenting on an on-line ad I posted, pointing out that I was wrong about the sign not applying to license holders. He was going to call his prepaid legal service lawyer the verify (that he was correct of course) and get back to me.

Still waiting.