Do you always follow the rules?

The "What Works, What Doesn't," "Recommendations & Experiences"

Moderators: carlson1, Crossfire


Topic author
KaleS
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:57 pm
Location: McKinney, TX

Do you always follow the rules?

#1

Post by KaleS »

If the 30.06 is not posted but some silly none binding sign state "No Carry" in some for or fashion do you carry?

Honstly, have you ever carried where the 30.06 sign is posted?

What about work? My office has a no carry policy written into the employee handbook it even includes the parking lot. I can even keep it in my car. Do any of you have to deal with this - do you carry anyway? I am in fear of losing my job and therfore dont carry. The way i see it eveyone who works her knows noone has a gun legally, I just hope no one goes postal at work. Nowhere good to hide and no way to defend myself.

Kalrog
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1886
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Leander, TX
Contact:

#2

Post by Kalrog »

I have carried past unenforceable no guns signs. I will continue to do so. I would/have (in fact) carried past legal 30.06 signs when disarming was more dangerous than illegally carrying (Maybe hypothetical: such as I would have had to put the gun in the car unsecured where others had keys to my car and my son had access to it - he was 2 at the time - so I illegally carried into a hospital while my wife was in labor.) I have carried at a job that had a no guns policy and they could have fired me if they wanted to, but I was perfectly legal carrying.

hkshooter
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:11 pm
Contact:

#3

Post by hkshooter »

Deleted
Last edited by hkshooter on Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The defence of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law."
--- James Wilson, Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).

Topic author
KaleS
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:57 pm
Location: McKinney, TX

#4

Post by KaleS »

hkshooter wrote: means to defend my family was more important than the statistically insignificant chance of me getting caught by LEO's. I'd much raahter be alive to fight a court battle than follow arbitrary 30.06 and gun-free school zones. There are quite a few folks on here that follow "judged by 12 than carried by 6".

Just what I do, and I am certainly not advising anyone to go outside the law. (unless you want to) :txflag:
I agree with you, and dont see why people dont understand that we, the licensed people, are the good guys, and the bad guys are going to follow the lawor the singage anyway. Needless to say I follow then 30.06, but not any other signage or my offices policy.
Last edited by KaleS on Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#5

Post by seamusTX »

You can make this choice. Just be aware that carrying in the places defined in 46.02 is a felony. If you're caught, and they want to throw the book at you, you will not be able to possess firearms legally; and possessing one in that case is another state and federal felony.

- Jim

hkshooter
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:11 pm
Contact:

#6

Post by hkshooter »

Deleted
Last edited by hkshooter on Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The defence of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law."
--- James Wilson, Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).
User avatar

Skiprr
Moderator
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 6458
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:50 pm
Location: Outskirts of Houston

#7

Post by Skiprr »

I think Jim meant §46.03, so we're not talking about businesses posted 30.06. If convicted under that section, it's a third-degree felony. Texas Penal Code §12.34 states, "An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years." Plus a possible fine not to exceed $10,000.

Not to poke at ya, hkshooter Image, but I'm curious. If you were convicted, would you, after you do the time, attempt to possess firearms or ammunition?
Join the NRA or upgrade your membership today. Support the Texas Firearms Coalition and subscribe to the Podcast.
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep?
NRA Benefactor Life Member

hkshooter
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:11 pm
Contact:

#8

Post by hkshooter »

Deleted
Last edited by hkshooter on Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The defence of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law."
--- James Wilson, Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).
User avatar

nitrogen
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2322
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:15 pm
Location: Sachse, TX
Contact:

#9

Post by nitrogen »

I tend to not go where a business doesn't want me to carry, a legal sign or not.

If I feel like patronizing that business anyway, its a rarity. (The only one I can think of offhand is AMC)

I don't feel like spending my hard earned money where i'm not wanted.
.השואה... לעולם לא עוד
Holocaust... Never Again.
Some people create their own storms and get upset when it rains.
--anonymous

mr surveyor
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1917
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: NE TX

#10

Post by mr surveyor »

hkshooter wrote:I'm fully aware it's a felony, that's why I don't advocate anyone doing it. It's a very personal matter of right and wrong beyond what my wife and I feel the "law" addresses.

I'd hate to be caught and given a felony record, but there are some beliefs I hold that I am willing to stand-up for. And the right/ability to protect my children is one of them. If I'm willing to die protecting them, I'm also willing to go to jail for it.

-Patrick

now, how are yopu going to protect the wife and children from the "big house". You may want to re-think your strategy al little maybe?
It's not gun control that we need, it's soul control!

hkshooter
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:11 pm
Contact:

#11

Post by hkshooter »

Deleted.
Last edited by hkshooter on Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The defence of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law."
--- James Wilson, Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).

txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

#12

Post by txinvestigator »

The title of this thread is about rules. Well, no one here is talking about rules, we are talking about laws.

Who are we to decide what laws to obey and what laws not to? I'll tell you; violate criminal laws and you are a criminal.

CHLers are full of themselves and how "statistically we are the most law abiding group of citizens". This thread would seem to prove that is a load of foul smelling excrement.

I am ashamed.
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.

hkshooter
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:11 pm
Contact:

#13

Post by hkshooter »

It interesting that you'd be ashamed. A lot of what is in this thread is hypothetical, and possibly not true, but said for the sake of argument. I have asked nor condoned anyone to break the law. It shouldn't matter to you what other people do in their lives.

I just wanted to emphasize a point that IMO no law comes above making the choice to defend myself. That choice is anyone's to make.

I agree, violate criminal laws and you are a criminal (if you are convicted, innocent until proven guilty). Just ask the signers of the Declaration of Independence. It's easy to look down on people and their beliefs and opinions. That is, until there is a law enacted that pulls at your own moral fiber and core. But I suppose that's another debate.

Ashamed or not, I truly hope everyone here has an incredible Thanksgiving day. We all have MUCH to be thankful for.
"The defence of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law."
--- James Wilson, Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).
User avatar

Lodge2004
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:30 am
Location: Humble

#14

Post by Lodge2004 »

hkshooter wrote:I just wanted to emphasize a point that IMO no law comes above making the choice to defend myself. That choice is anyone's to make.
Defending yourself does not = carrying a firearm. Just because I choose to follow the law and respect the wishes of my employer does not mean that I am unable to defend myself.

A firearm is not a talisman that wards off evil. It is merely one of many tools a person can carry and use. Not having one only means that I have one less option at that particular moment. Depending on the situation, that option may not even be relevant. Life is full of compromises. Were it not so, I'd leave the house every day with a rifle or shotgun on my person.

hkshooter
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:11 pm
Contact:

#15

Post by hkshooter »

Lodge2004 wrote: Defending yourself does not = carrying a firearm.
Oh I totally agree! But in my situation, I feel it is the best tool and I'm willing to accept any consequences of my actions.

People would change their tunes if the government took away rights to gun ownership, everyone talks about "they'll never get my gun." Why does everyone bend over for restrictions on when/how/where you can carry? It's a very fine line between looking down on what someone believes and then you being the one looked down upon. Especially when it comes to government interfering with things they were never intended. Ron Paul speaks to it better than I do.


I think this thread has gone way off topic and it's now a thread about my personal beliefs and how they are apparently not welcome here. My apologies to the OP. I won't be posting again.
"The defence of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law."
--- James Wilson, Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).
Post Reply

Return to “New to CHL?”