"gunbuster" signs, trespassing, etc.

[MasterOfNone]

or even a purple stripe painted on trees in certain ways

Is it a Texas thing?

Nope, pretty well universal. Seen it on farms/woods in many states... has idea of "keep out: Posted" Trespassers will be shot: No hunting on this here property."

OK -- must just be my city upbringing!

It's not just you. Most people in my CHL classes never heard of this before the class.

[wgoforth]

or even a purple stripe painted on trees in certain ways

Is it a Texas thing?

Nope, pretty well universal. Seen it on farms/woods in many states... has idea of "keep out: Posted" Trespassers will be shot: No hunting on this here property."

OK -- must just be my city upbringing!

It's not just you. Most people in my CHL classes never heard of this before the class.

Wow...they must have not been hunters, ranchers or farmers! They had that in TN growing up.

[clarionite]

or even a purple stripe painted on trees in certain ways

Is it a Texas thing?

Nope, pretty well universal. Seen it on farms/woods in many states... has idea of "keep out: Posted" Trespassers will be shot: No hunting on this here property."

OK -- must just be my city upbringing!

It's not just you. Most people in my CHL classes never heard of this before the class.

Wow...they must have not been hunters, ranchers or farmers! They had that in TN growing up.

I can remember when they first started using the paint in Arkansas when I was growing up. They had to tweak the laws a little because the law at first was that if you posted it,
it was posted. Even for yourself. You could not post your land as no hunting if you were going to hunt on it. Once it was easier ( a splash of paint on a tree of fence post every so many feet instead
of having to put up a posted sign) and the kinks were worked out about being able to hunt your own posted land, you saw purple posted land everywhere.

[baldeagle]

It's entirely possible that a business that posts a gunbuster sign does it intentionally to make its customers feel comfortable without ever intending to prevent legal carry. After all, any business of any size has lawyers to inform it of the legal requirements to prevent lawful carry.

And it's just as possible, maybe even moreso, that those lawyers are in some other state and haven't bothered to acquaint themselves with the specifics of TX law.

However, that ain't my problem.

You can't tell me that a company the size of Babies(Toys)-R-Us isn't aware of the laws that govern the conduct of their business in Texas.

Sure I can, just did, two major national/international companies that I worked for in the past had absolutely no clue, and when I tried to educate them denied that they had it wrong. Dallas Love Field still has 30.05 signs posted, despite letters and meetings, and DPD says they will consider anyone caught carrying to be trespassing. TSA, where I worked for three plus years also, despite "allowing" guns to be transported in checked bags, says CHL on airport property is illegal.

So I see those signs as a wink-wink-nod-nod to gun owners while making people who are unaware of the law feel good about being in a gun free zone.

And good luck with that if you ever chance to be in the situation where you expect them to be winking and ndding and they are cuffing and dragging.

And they are going to handcuff me and drag me away for what? I can't be charged with trespassing unless they either have a valid 30.06 sign or they have given me verbal notice. I then must be given the opportunity to comply with their reqeust. They can't simply charge me with trespassing because I'm there.

It's not my job as a CHL holder to divine the store's intentions.

Which is why I will continue to err on the side of they have absolutely no idea what the law says but will still cause me problems if they catch me.

And that's your privilege to think that way. But if they "catch" you, they must ask you to leave. They can't cause you problems simply because they "caught" you. (I don't like the term "catch", because it implies you have done something wrong, which you have not done.)

It's my job to follow the law. Should management become aware of my concealed weapon and ask me to leave, I will do so politely and immediately. In the meantime, I will assume that the company and I are "in on the joke".

And it is their job to follow the law too, but if their understanding happens to run counter to yours . . .

Their understanding is irrelevant. Only the law is relevant. The law says they have to post a 30.06 sign if they don't want me armed in their store or upon discovering that I'm armed, they must ask me to leave. If that were to happen, I would apologize and tell the manager that since they did not have valid notification posted I was unaware that I wasn't allowed to carry in their store. If he then pointed me to the sign, my reply would be that the sign is not valid notification.

My position is at least as plausible as the alternative - that the company really doesn't want to allow legal carry but has no clue what the law really says.

Only if you first accept that ". . .a company the size of Babies(Toys)-R-Us isn't aware of the laws that govern the conduct of their business in Texas . . ." which I do not. The lawyers that tell them how to conduct their business in the state of Texas may very well spend absolutely no time reviewing the penal law, which has little or nothing to do with how they conduct their business.

Yet it is their responsibility to do so, just as it is mine to be knowledgeable of the laws that govern my conduct as a CHL holder.

You also need to remember that many gunbuster signs are legacies of when the CHL law first passed and everyone freaked out about shootouts in the streets.

Which would mean that a simple letter informing them that their sign has no meaning should encourage them to remove it.

I'm disinclined to do that. I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. I'm not trying to "get away with something". I'm complying with the law. I expect retailers to do the same. When they don't, it is not my responsibility to educate them, unless they want to pay me as a consultant to advise them where to find the appropriate law.

[djjoshuad]

I think part of the confusion in this thread is because LEOs do not need to know the law to arrest you, impound your car, book you for a few hours and otherwise affect your personal freedom, your ability to earn a living, and your reputation. They can't *charge* you with trespassing because the police don't charge you with anything. The court system handles that part, and they would have to file the charges under a specific law, which they would not be able to find. Of course mistakes are still made at that level... but my point is that while I do support our men in blue, ignorance of the relatively new and constantly changing laws that govern CHL carry are common - even with law enforcement.

The fact is that you *can* be arrested for no good reason. You generally won't be, as that creates problems for the arresting officer... but if he believes he's right, you're going to jail. You have to deal with getting yourself out of trouble and whatever other fallout there is from spending time in jail. Lost wages, etc... Sure, you can sue. But can you afford to? Most people cannot.

I think someone should produce a booklet that fits in ones pocket or vehicle, containing all pertinent Texas (and federal?) laws surrounding CHL. I'd carry one. Or maybe give me an ipad app :)

[Ameer]

Good luck with that.

[sjfcontrol]

I think part of the confusion in this thread is because LEOs do not need to know the law to arrest you, impound your car, book you for a few hours and otherwise affect your personal freedom, your ability to earn a living, and your reputation. They can't *charge* you with trespassing because the police don't charge you with anything. The court system handles that part, and they would have to file the charges under a specific law, which they would not be able to find. Of course mistakes are still made at that level... but my point is that while I do support our men in blue, ignorance of the relatively new and constantly changing laws that govern CHL carry are common - even with law enforcement.

The fact is that you *can* be arrested for no good reason. You generally won't be, as that creates problems for the arresting officer... but if he believes he's right, you're going to jail. You have to deal with getting yourself out of trouble and whatever other fallout there is from spending time in jail. Lost wages, etc... Sure, you can sue. But can you afford to? Most people cannot.

I think someone should produce a booklet that fits in ones pocket or vehicle, containing all pertinent Texas (and federal?) laws surrounding CHL. I'd carry one. Or maybe give me an ipad app :)

I believe the laws regarding carrying in churches, amusement parks, hospitals, and government meetings changed in 1999, 12 years ago -- and still there are many LEOs that don't know about it. What is your definitions of "relatively new"?

[wgoforth]

I think someone should produce a booklet that fits in ones pocket or vehicle, containing all pertinent Texas (and federal?) laws surrounding CHL. I'd carry one. Or maybe give me an ipad app :)

Well someone has already informed us that there is a "firearms book" that all CHL-ers get that specifies where we can carry.... I guess we can pull that thing out

[Jasonw560]

I always thought that sign was their way a telling me that they did not sell guns there....

That's good. I'm gonna use that. Unless there's royalties involved.

[djjoshuad]

I believe the laws regarding carrying in churches, amusement parks, hospitals, and government meetings changed in 1999, 12 years ago -- and still there are many LEOs that don't know about it. What is your definitions of "relatively new"?

12 years isn't that long for many cops... I'm not saying it's *right* that they're uninformed, or that they have any excuse. My point was that the laws have only been on the books 15-ish years, and they have changed lots of times since then. They could potentially change again this year. Even when we're well within our legal rights, we are still subject to the knowledge level of the LEO in question. CHL holders are more in jeopardy of false arrest than possibly any other group, given that we're carrying deadly weapons and any cop who thinks he's right is going to arrest first and ask questions later.

[wgoforth]

I believe the laws regarding carrying in churches, amusement parks, hospitals, and government meetings changed in 1999, 12 years ago -- and still there are many LEOs that don't know about it. What is your definitions of "relatively new"?

12 years isn't that long for many cops... I'm not saying it's *right* that they're uninformed, or that they have any excuse. My point was that the laws have only been on the books 15-ish years, and they have changed lots of times since then. They could potentially change again this year. Even when we're well within our legal rights, we are still subject to the knowledge level of the LEO in question. CHL holders are more in jeopardy of false arrest than possibly any other group, given that we're carrying deadly weapons and any cop who thinks he's right is going to arrest first and ask questions later.

However, it has NEVER been the law that you must secure written permission of clergy in TX...

[djjoshuad]

agreed... not sure if I said something to the contrary, but you're right.

[wgoforth]

agreed... not sure if I said something to the contrary, but you're right.

No, just I have had LEO's to claim that. So even if i wanted to grant them that laws change, that aint ever been one in TX...some states yes.

[jimlongley]

However, that ain't my problem.

It will be if you run into one of the above mentioned LEOs who don't understand the actual law and think that gun busters signs are effective.

And they are going to handcuff me and drag me away for what? I can't be charged with trespassing unless they either have a valid 30.06 sign or they have given me verbal notice. I then must be given the opportunity to comply with their reqeust. They can't simply charge me with trespassing because I'm there.

Good luck convincing the above mentioned LEO of that.

And that's your privilege to think that way. But if they "catch" you, they must ask you to leave. They can't cause you problems simply because they "caught" you. (I don't like the term "catch", because it implies you have done something wrong, which you have not done.)

But they will think you have done something wrong, and they will have caught you.

Their understanding is irrelevant.

Once again, you will have to explain that to the LEO who thinks the gunbusters sign is effective, as he cuffs you.

Only the law is relevant. The law says they have to post a 30.06 sign if they don't want me armed in their store or upon discovering that I'm armed, they must ask me to leave. If that were to happen, I would apologize and tell the manager that since they did not have valid notification posted I was unaware that I wasn't allowed to carry in their store. If he then pointed me to the sign, my reply would be that the sign is not valid notification.

And that will convince them? I think not, you will probably wind up explaining it to a judge, and relying on HIS interpretation.

Yet it is their responsibility to do so, just as it is mine to be knowledgeable of the laws that govern my conduct as a CHL holder.

Yes, and you will have ample opportunity to prove that to them, afterward.

I'm disinclined to do that. I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. I'm not trying to "get away with something". I'm complying with the law. I expect retailers to do the same. When they don't, it is not my responsibility to educate them, unless they want to pay me as a consultant to advise them where to find the appropriate law.

And I am inclined to do that, and after they reply, as many do, that their signs are legal, adequate, posted because the city makes them (one of my favorites) and all of the other excuses, I still don't see any reason to give them my money.

[PappaGun]

... TSA, where I worked for three plus years also, despite "allowing" guns to be transported in checked bags, says CHL on airport property is illegal.

Jim,
Is this a local interpretation from TSA?
I've lived in other parts of the country where carrying in the non-secure areas of the airport didn't seem to be an issue.
But I couln't tell you if that was local custom, a different TSA interpretaion or some thing else.
Does TSA jurisdiction extend in to the unsecured area of the airport?