Valid Signs

[Hoi Polloi]

And the valid sign picture should have block letters (all caps) pointed out because that's a requirement as well which doesn't get much air play.

A requirement that the sign be in all caps is not included in the statute. "Block letters" is not the same as "all caps". Block letters generally just means no cursive or script style of type font.

Of course the "legal definition" of block letters is up to courts/judges and interpretation, but here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_letters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As long as the sign is not hand-written and not written in some difficult-to-decipher type font (like "Old English" or similar), I don't believe it matters if it's written with both upper case and lower case letters.

Interesting. The DPS website's official wording of how a sign must look includes all caps and then points out that what is shown may not be used as a sign because it does not meet the other requirements of size, color, etc.

[GrayGuy]

I’m a new grandpa on the CHL block, and maybe I’m missing the point. Hopefully you guys can explain it to me.

Why would you want to go into an establishment with a posted sign restricting guns even if it does not meet the specifications in the law?

Isn’t that forcing an issue you could loose not to mention the possible legal expenses that could be incurred if you are spotted and sued.

[WildBill]

I’m a new grandpa on the CHL block, and maybe I’m missing the point. Hopefully you guys can explain it to me.

Why would you want to go into an establishment with a posted sign restricting guns even if it does not meet the specifications in the law?

Isn’t that forcing an issue you could loose not to mention the possible legal expenses that could be incurred if you are spotted and sued.

Welcome to the Forum GrayGuy.

1. I would want to go in because, I legally can go in. Some people wouldn't go in because of "the principle", but invalid signs do not offend me.

2. I wouldn't be "forcing any issue". That is why there are specific requirements for valid postings. Even if you were spotted, you would not be breaking any law and there would be no basis for being sued. If they asked me to leave, I would immediately leave.

[GrayGuy]

I’m a new grandpa on the CHL block, and maybe I’m missing the point. Hopefully you guys can explain it to me.

Why would you want to go into an establishment with a posted sign restricting guns even if it does not meet the specifications in the law?

Isn’t that forcing an issue you could loose not to mention the possible legal expenses that could be incurred if you are spotted and sued.

Welcome to the Forum GrayGuy.

1. I would want to go in because, I legally can go in. Some people wouldn't go in because of "the principle", but invalid signs do not offend me.

2. I wouldn't be "forcing any issue". That is why there are specific requirements for valid postings. Even if you were spotted, you would not be breaking any law and there would be no basis for being sued. If they asked me to leave, I would immediately leave.

WildBill, I respect your views, but, what I see happening in that situation is:
You are asked to leave the establishment.
If I leave I would feel a little foolish because I knew they didn’t want me and my gun there.
If I don’t leave then the cops are called and they will ask me to leave and at that point I would leave, again feeling a little foolish.
If I didn’t leave then I assume I would be removed forcefully and booked for on one of the trespass laws.

To me that makes for a bad day and I’m not sure I would want to go through all that.

[Keith B]

I’m a new grandpa on the CHL block, and maybe I’m missing the point. Hopefully you guys can explain it to me.

Why would you want to go into an establishment with a posted sign restricting guns even if it does not meet the specifications in the law?

Isn’t that forcing an issue you could loose not to mention the possible legal expenses that could be incurred if you are spotted and sued.

Welcome to the Forum GrayGuy.

1. I would want to go in because, I legally can go in. Some people wouldn't go in because of "the principle", but invalid signs do not offend me.

2. I wouldn't be "forcing any issue". That is why there are specific requirements for valid postings. Even if you were spotted, you would not be breaking any law and there would be no basis for being sued. If they asked me to leave, I would immediately leave.

WildBill, I respect your views, but, what I see happening in that situation is:
You are asked to leave the establishment.
If I leave I would feel a little foolish because I knew they didn’t want me and my gun there.
If I don’t leave then the cops are called and they will ask me to leave and at that point I would leave, again feeling a little foolish.
If I didn’t leave then I assume I would be removed forcefully and booked for on one of the trespass laws.

To me that makes for a bad day and I’m not sure I would want to go through all that.

Actually, the minute you are asked to leave by someone of authority at the business, you must comply as that is oral notice, and it carries the same weight as 30.06. If you refuse, you can be immediately arrested for Criminal Trespass when the cops show up.

So, as WildBill said, invalid signs are not a problem and I will carry past them.

[WildBill]

I’m a new grandpa on the CHL block, and maybe I’m missing the point. Hopefully you guys can explain it to me.

Why would you want to go into an establishment with a posted sign restricting guns even if it does not meet the specifications in the law?

Isn’t that forcing an issue you could loose not to mention the possible legal expenses that could be incurred if you are spotted and sued.

Welcome to the Forum GrayGuy.

1. I would want to go in because, I legally can go in. Some people wouldn't go in because of "the principle", but invalid signs do not offend me.

2. I wouldn't be "forcing any issue". That is why there are specific requirements for valid postings. Even if you were spotted, you would not be breaking any law and there would be no basis for being sued. If they asked me to leave, I would immediately leave.

WildBill, I respect your views, but, what I see happening in that situation is:
You are asked to leave the establishment.
If I leave I would feel a little foolish because I knew they didn’t want me and my gun there.
If I don’t leave then the cops are called and they will ask me to leave and at that point I would leave, again feeling a little foolish.
If I didn’t leave then I assume I would be removed forcefully and booked for on one of the trespass laws.

To me that makes for a bad day and I’m not sure I would want to go through all that.

GrayGuy - I am not sure that I completely understand your posts, but here goes:

First of all, I don't like feeling foolish. If I went into a store without a valid 30.06 and was asked to leave, I would leave. I would not feel foolish at all. The business owner is the foolish one. If he really didn't want handguns in his store, he should have posted a valid sign.

If I didn't leave and the store owner called the police, I would feel very foolish leaving the store in handcuffs, with my handgun stuck in the LEO's waistband as evidence. I would feel very foolish because I didn't follow the law by leaving after receiving verbal notice.

[Oldgringo]

I’m a new grandpa on the CHL block, and maybe I’m missing the point. Hopefully you guys can explain it to me.

Why would you want to go into an establishment with a posted sign restricting guns even if it does not meet the specifications in the law?

Isn’t that forcing an issue you could loose not to mention the possible legal expenses that could be incurred if you are spotted and sued.

Welcome to the Forum GrayGuy.

1. I would want to go in because, I legally can go in. Some people wouldn't go in because of "the principle", but invalid signs do not offend me.

2. I wouldn't be "forcing any issue". That is why there are specific requirements for valid postings. Even if you were spotted, you would not be breaking any law and there would be no basis for being sued. If they asked me to leave, I would immediately leave.

WildBill, I respect your views, but, what I see happening in that situation is:
You are asked to leave the establishment.
If I leave I would feel a little foolish because I knew they didn’t want me and my gun there.
If I don’t leave then the cops are called and they will ask me to leave and at that point I would leave, again feeling a little foolish.
If I didn’t leave then I assume I would be removed forcefully and booked for on one of the trespass laws.

To me that makes for a bad day and I’m not sure I would want to go through all that.

GrayGuy - I am not sure that I completely understand your posts, but here goes:

First of all, I don't like feeling foolish. If I went into a store without a valid 30.06 and was asked to leave, I would leave. I would not feel foolish at all. The business owner is the foolish one. If he really didn't want handguns in his store, he should have posted a valid sign.

If I didn't leave and the store owner called the police, I would feel very foolish leaving the store in handcuffs, with my handgun stuck in the LEO's waistband as evidence. I would feel very foolish because I didn't follow the law by leaving after receiving verbal notice.

Good job, Bill. That just about sums it up.

If I may: the signs beside the entrances at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club are valid signs and they are legal signs. They do not apply to a legal Texas CH licensee because they do not meet the criteria set forth by 30.06. The management of these facilities know that and do not need to have it pointed out to them. That said, if a Wal-Mart or Sam's Club store manager asks you to leave, it is definitely di di mau time.

[Tamie]

That said, if a Wal-Mart or Sam's Club store manager asks you to leave, it is definitely di di mau time.

Looking at the pictures on http://www.peopleofwalmart.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; they are pretty tolerant so if they ask you to leave, you done goofed and it's time to go now.

[GrayGuy]

Hi Guys,
Since my initial post I’ve received many responses. Most I don’t think understand what I was saying. This is probably because I’m not very good at expressing my thoughts in writing.

I’ll give it another try, so bear with me.

In reading the posts in this thread it seemed to me the thought was because a sign was not 30.06 compliant you legally had the right to enter the establishment, this may be true, so, I asked the question, “Why would you want to enter.” BuffaloBill answered and respect his reasons.

In my opinion, if an establishment posts a sign which is not 30.06 compliant that states “No guns allowed.” To me it says if you have a gun don’t bother entering.

If I am carrying and enter the establishment I stand the chance of being made. And, if I’m made there are several scenarios that could happen—I gave a few of them in my first post and they are based on the reason you entered the establishment.

I’m the type of guy that would feel foolish in that situation because I knew they didn’t want me in there carrying, but, I went ahead and did it any way. If they ask me to leave of course I would leave and probably very red-faced.

But, suppose I went in to prove a point about the illegal signs. How would you do that? The only way in this situation would be to say no when asked to leave. This of course would be stupid because it’s off the jail and then you could tell the judge about the illegal sign. Then it’s up to the judge what happens. This is a chance I would not want to take.

So, then, what’s to be gained by going into an establishment with an illegal 30.06 sign. As I said in my first post, “This makes for a very bad day.”

Now if you don’t understand what I’m saying, well I’m sorry, this is the best I can do.

[Hoi Polloi]

I understand what you're saying: They're making it clear to you that they don't want guns there and even though you might be able to legally carry there, you don't think it is prudent to do so when you understand their intent. Your thought process is that any way that could end would not be positive, so why risk it? Right?

I think there's a completely different way of thinking about it, which is what someone above described. Most people aren't thinking the same thing as you regarding, "My gun isn't wanted here and this could only end poorly." and then deciding, "Let them try me!" or "Maybe they won't see."

I think it is more akin to, "I carry in order to protect myself. I don't know when I'll need it, and hope to never need it, but I carry as often as I can because I don't want to need it and not have it. Can I legally carry here? Their sign is non-compliant so I can. OK, another place I don't have to disarm and take that chance." If you then asked these people, "But what about them not wanting you to carry there?" you'd probably get a blank stare. What the store wants wasn't a factor for them. "What would you do if they made you and told you to leave?" "I'd leave. Duh." "Why not just avoid going in in the first place?" "Why would I do that? I wanted to go in. I'm able to go in. I went in to get the doo-dad my wife needed from that store. I'm living my life and doing what I would have done, but now I'm able to protect myself doing it. Why not just keep it better concealed so being made isn't an issue?"

It's a completely different thought process from the start.

[A-R]

IANAL

Gray, I think I get what you're saying. Two important points in response:

1. Regardless of why you entered a private premises (just "because" or to "make a point"), if you are asked to leave and refuse to do so it no longer matters what signs were or were not posted. You have violated the law (of course, subject to judge/jury ruling).

2. I think I can speak for a number of members here and a number of CHLees when I say that we will enter a premises that has a generic "gunbusters" sign or a "no guns allowed" sign or similar because it is legal to do so, not because we're trying to make some symbolic gesture. Unlike property owners that post these types of signs (I assume), we CHLees have studied the law as written and understand the requirements of the law. If the property owner doesn't follow the law by posting the correct sign, why should we be expected to interpret the owners' intended meaning of the legally invalid sign? I have no idea the exact legal intent behind a non-30.06 compliant sign specifically because it is non-compliant. In order to be enforceable under the law, the sign must be compliant - says so right there in the statute.

There are others who like you will not enter a premises that has any manner of "no guns" sign posted. For some, the mere fact that any anti-gun sign is posted is an affront to them and they prefer to take their business elsewhere. More power to ya. I don't disagree with that sentiment at all; I just don't follow it religiously. Because again - I don't know the intent of the person who posted a non-compliant sign. Perhaps they just want to appease the unthinking sheeple customers but don't want to actually exlude CHL customers? If their true intent is to prohibit a CHLee from carrying a gun into their establishment, then they need to "speak our language" as codified in law and post the compliant sign.

Then of course there are others who purposely look for loopholes and technical deficiencies in the law to push whatever position they prefer - be it pro-carry or anti-carry. Me personally, I WILL NOT walk past a non-compliant 30.06 sign for a technicality like letters not exactly one inch tall or or wording in English but not Spanish (I can't read Spanish anyway, but I can certainly read English - if I could only read Spanish, perhaps my reaction would be the opposite). Could I walk past a technically non-compliant sign and get away with it? Possibly. But this scenario puts me closer to your train of thought of - why bother/why risk it?

As Hoi Polloi indicates above, I think the reason to carry past a non-compliant sign has more to do with just living your day-to-day life than making some "statement" to the owners of the property. There really is no symbolic statement to be made - the sign is invalid, I don't know nor care what is the "intent" of the person who posted the sign so what "statement" could I possibly be making by carrying?

Anyway, everyone has to follow their own heart and mind.

IANAL

[A-R]

And the valid sign picture should have block letters (all caps) pointed out because that's a requirement as well which doesn't get much air play.

A requirement that the sign be in all caps is not included in the statute. "Block letters" is not the same as "all caps". Block letters generally just means no cursive or script style of type font.

Of course the "legal definition" of block letters is up to courts/judges and interpretation, but here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_letters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As long as the sign is not hand-written and not written in some difficult-to-decipher type font (like "Old English" or similar), I don't believe it matters if it's written with both upper case and lower case letters.

Interesting. The DPS website's official wording of how a sign must look includes all caps and then points out that what is shown may not be used as a sign because it does not meet the other requirements of size, color, etc.

I'm still not finding where it says "all caps" .... http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... osting.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Oldgringo]

GrayGuy,

I think I understand your concerns and your reservations.

With all due respect, given your professed discomfort with Concealed Carry, perhaps you should not carry a Concealed Weapon in public. The MPA covers you in your vehicle and the "Castle Doctrine" covers you in your 'castle'. When seconds count on the street, the police are only minutes away.

Good luck and God Bless,

Greg

[Bart]

All things being equal, I would rather spend my money at a place without any anti gun signs, valid or not.

However, if a government monopoly has an invalid sign, it doesn't bother me to ignore it. Same with businesses with invalid signs, if circumstances take me there.

[WildBill]

So, then, what’s to be gained by going into an establishment with an illegal 30.06 sign. As I said in my first post, “This makes for a very bad day.”

What's to be gained is being legally armed and able to defend yourself if the need arises. Since you are legal, there is really no downside. In the context of this thread, I thought of some more ways that you might "feel foolish", but would "make for a very bad day."

Let's say that you are carrying, concealed of course, and you want to go to the local store to pick up some milk. You drive to the store, park the car next to a police car, get out and walk up to the front door. You see a gunbuster [not valid 30.06] sign. What do you do so you don't feel foolish?

1. Since you don't want to go past an invalid sign you go back to the car. While you are taking your gun out of the holster to put it in your glove box, you expose it to the cop parked next to you.

Do you feel foolish when the LEO arrests you for failure to conceal?

2. You walk back from your car and enter the store unarmed. While you are shopping a BG comes in to rob the place. He shoots the owner, empties the cash register, and then shoots you.

Assuming you aren't dead, do you feel foolish for leaving your gun in the car and seeing the shop owner killed and you with a bullet wound?

3. After shopping, you walk back to your car and see a window smashed and your gun has been taken out of your car.

Do you feel foolish for leaving your gun in the car when you didn't have to?

4. You walk back to your car and see a the window smashed. Then you notice that a BG has your gun and is pointing it at you demanding your car keys.

Do you feel foolish now?