Tell me where I was in the wrong...

[sjfcontrol]

The good folks at Bullet Trap teach CHL classes and work under the assumption that you know the laws. That sign does not apply to you if you have a CHL. That sign is to keep folks from coming in with loaded(UNCONCEALED) firearms. It is amazing how many well meaning folks will walk in with a loaded gun, whip it out of the box and ask them what it is worth or if they can "fix it". Again... this is NOT speculation... they don't mean for folks with a CHL to disarm in the parking lot or anywhere else.

Well, that's a bit irritating. The sign should then read "Unless you are a CHL holder, no loaded weapons." or something similar. The sign is misleading.

I am not trying to be a wise cracker but we should all know that the sign does not apply to us as CHL holders. The signage issues are covered in all CHL classes. There is only one sign that applies to us. All others don't. For me, there is nothing misleading about a "no loaded guns allowed" or a "gun busters" sign at any business. This one is no different.

Ehh, not so much I am afraid. I had no idea until going through CHL instructor training this week that instructors are being taught that all no gun signage tells you the intent and should be obeyed. During breaks, I talked with various other students about the matter and most seemed to have agreed that you have been served notice. In fact, the Captain went as far as to say that if a sign is non-compliant, call it in to the DPS... and that even if the business did not do what was proper, you are to respect their signage intent. While I do not agree, it is incorrect to assume that "the signage issues are covered in all CHL classes" to the correct view. What is disturbing, is that there were 81 instructors coming out of this class...and many more been/being taught this view.

It is generally recognized that the CHL legal department lady has 'agendas', that cloud her opinions.
Don't believe everything you hear.

[wgoforth]

The good folks at Bullet Trap teach CHL classes and work under the assumption that you know the laws. That sign does not apply to you if you have a CHL. That sign is to keep folks from coming in with loaded(UNCONCEALED) firearms. It is amazing how many well meaning folks will walk in with a loaded gun, whip it out of the box and ask them what it is worth or if they can "fix it". Again... this is NOT speculation... they don't mean for folks with a CHL to disarm in the parking lot or anywhere else.

Well, that's a bit irritating. The sign should then read "Unless you are a CHL holder, no loaded weapons." or something similar. The sign is misleading.

I am not trying to be a wise cracker but we should all know that the sign does not apply to us as CHL holders. The signage issues are covered in all CHL classes. There is only one sign that applies to us. All others don't. For me, there is nothing misleading about a "no loaded guns allowed" or a "gun busters" sign at any business. This one is no different.

Ehh, not so much I am afraid. I had no idea until going through CHL instructor training this week that instructors are being taught that all no gun signage tells you the intent and should be obeyed. During breaks, I talked with various other students about the matter and most seemed to have agreed that you have been served notice. In fact, the Captain went as far as to say that if a sign is non-compliant, call it in to the DPS... and that even if the business did not do what was proper, you are to respect their signage intent. While I do not agree, it is incorrect to assume that "the signage issues are covered in all CHL classes" to the correct view. What is disturbing, is that there were 81 instructors coming out of this class...and many more been/being taught this view.

It is generally recognized that the CHL legal department lady has 'agendas', that cloud her opinions.
Don't believe everything you hear.

No sir, these were all the DPS instructors in our Instructor Class I just completed today (been there all week). I am not saying they are correct (in fact the opposite) but I am saying instructors are being told this and that most instructors in the class were buying it...so that the comment that the OP should have been taught this (only 30.06 is valid) was not necessarily the case. He may NOT have been taught such.

[03Lightningrocks]

The good folks at Bullet Trap teach CHL classes and work under the assumption that you know the laws. That sign does not apply to you if you have a CHL. That sign is to keep folks from coming in with loaded(UNCONCEALED) firearms. It is amazing how many well meaning folks will walk in with a loaded gun, whip it out of the box and ask them what it is worth or if they can "fix it". Again... this is NOT speculation... they don't mean for folks with a CHL to disarm in the parking lot or anywhere else.

Well, that's a bit irritating. The sign should then read "Unless you are a CHL holder, no loaded weapons." or something similar. The sign is misleading.

I am not trying to be a wise cracker but we should all know that the sign does not apply to us as CHL holders. The signage issues are covered in all CHL classes. There is only one sign that applies to us. All others don't. For me, there is nothing misleading about a "no loaded guns allowed" or a "gun busters" sign at any business. This one is no different.

Ehh, not so much I am afraid. I had no idea until going through CHL instructor training this week that instructors are being taught that all no gun signage tells you the intent and should be obeyed. During breaks, I talked with various other students about the matter and most seemed to have agreed that you have been served notice. In fact, the Captain went as far as to say that if a sign is non-compliant, call it in to the DPS... and that even if the business did not do what was proper, you are to respect their signage intent. While I do not agree, it is incorrect to assume that "the signage issues are covered in all CHL classes" to the correct view. What is disturbing, is that there were 81 instructors coming out of this class...and many more been/being taught this view.

Wow...that is more than disturbing. The instructer of that class should be reported for teaching improper training. I am surprised that they will just let any old goof ball teach CHL classes.

Gosh... I am just busted open by something this disturbing. I have to ask you. Did this instructer say exactly how he knew the intentions of someone posting a gun buster sign? I assume they(the business owner) are telling criminals that armed robbery is not allowed at their place of business. There could be many reasons a business posts a gun buster sign that have nothing to do with the desire to restrict a CHL holder.

[speedsix]

...there's a perverted thrill in "bein' skeered of the gooberment"...and it's a shameful thing...they work for US...and no matter what our position in society, part of our job is to re-train them to be "skeered" of us...I'm old enough to remember the day when a public servant did serve...US...and shame on a "teacher" who dwells on "yeah, we know what the law says BUT you could have a problem"...we need to be taught/led back to the day when we did what the law says and that was the end of it...we're never above the law...and neither are "they"...

[RPB]

03Lightningrocks
... they probably wanted the sign below, but gave up on finding it too soon

[03Lightningrocks]

...so that the comment that the OP should have been taught this (only 30.06 is valid) was not necessarily the case. He may NOT have been taught such.

If the OP has been hanging around this forum as long as you and I have, it would be safe to assume the OP has been told this more than 465,768,000,001 times.

I am going to leave it alone now but please don't pass improper laws along to your students. It is hard enough complying with CHL laws without us making up laws that don't exist.

[03Lightningrocks]

03Lightningrocks
... they probably wanted the sign below, but gave up on finding it too soon

I bet your right.

[wgoforth]

Wow...that is more than disturbing. The instructer of that class should be reported for teaching improper training. I am surprised that they will just let any old goof ball teach CHL classes.

Gosh... I am just busted open by something this disturbing. I have to ask you. Did this instructer say exactly how he knew the intentions of someone posting a gun buster sign? I assume they(the business owner) are telling criminals that armed robbery is not allowed at their place of business. There could be many reasons a business posts a gun buster sign that have nothing to do with the desire to restrict a CHL holder.[/quote]

And I agree with you 100%, I even asked about the old Vernon Statutes that many business cite, asking how can you violate a law that doesn't exist? Their canned response was "You knew the intent." I was please with most of the class, and some great DPS folks taught it...but it is like taxes. CONGRESS (not IRS) writes the tax laws. IRS only enforces it and they are not always right. Similarly, Legislature writes CHL law and DPS enforces and are not always right. There were several smaller issues that were matters of interpretation that came along I don't think most of us would agree with (ie, "printing.") but the signage was the most disturbing to me. Oh, also that you could not turn men away from a Woman's CHL class or one designed just for your congregation as it would be against federal discrimination laws.

[wgoforth]

...so that the comment that the OP should have been taught this (only 30.06 is valid) was not necessarily the case. He may NOT have been taught such.

If the OP has been hanging around this forum as long as you and I have, it would be safe to assume the OP has been told this more than 465,768,000,001 times.

I am going to leave it alone now but please don't pass improper laws along to your students. It is hard enough complying with CHL laws without us making up laws that don't exist.

Oh believe me I don't intend to.. but do plan to inform that this is what the law says but that doesn't mean the DPS will interpret same way. I am concerned that we may be starting to have a declining loss of rights in this, as if this is now common thought with DPS, it can be requested that it be amended thusly later if enough folks believe this.

[03Lightningrocks]

I like this one.

[speedsix]

...I've always viewed CHL instructors as more entertaining than authoritative...the best value in the class is to tell us where to find things in the LAWS that we're expected to obey...the rest is often opinionated and anecdotal...just like a lot of what we get here...good food for thought, but not to be accepted at face value...it should spur us to get off our lazy duffs and look up the laws and learn them...then factor in caselaw, if any, and be aware of others' experiences...either good or bad...but anytime in life we ask to be spoonfed...we're not gonna necessarily like the menu...
...listen, take notes, ask questions, learn the terminology and some of the changes...but realize no instructor or internet pard's gonna stand beside you on the street or in the courtroom...and the judge's gonna have on his bench pretty much the same info you have in the CHL16...except his'll have a much nicer cover...
...long ago, there was this group of people called Bereans...who were given high praise because after they sat attentively through the sermon,(and, hopefully, after a good chicken dinner)they dragged out the Book and checked out what they'd been told...to see if it was so...we could do well to do likewise...

[wgoforth]

I like this one.

Now to be clear, they did point out that no-gun signage does not prevent crime and even encourages...it was the form of signage that they believed enforceable to be the issue. All said they wished there were not any signs. One student was a lawyer, and I pointed out the wording of 30.06 stating that a business MUST use this wording. I thought SURELY a lawyer can read the law, he shook his head no and said that it only meant what the business was to display, and that just because they failed to do it right didn't mean we could.. I guess he was thinking along the line like if a bar fails to put up a 51% we still can't carry in a bar. Again, I do NOT agree with what I heard and saw in this, but making all aware that this is going to become an issue if it is being taught to and believed by instructors.

[wgoforth]

...I've always viewed CHL instructors as more entertaining than authoritative...the best value in the class is to tell us where to find things in the LAWS that we're expected to obey...the rest is often opinionated and anecdotal...just like a lot of what we get here...good food for thought, but not to be accepted at face value...it should spur us to get off our lazy duffs and look up the laws and learn them...then factor in caselaw, if any, and be aware of others' experiences...either good or bad...but anytime in life we ask to be spoonfed...we're not gonna necessarily like the menu...
...listen, take notes, ask questions, learn the terminology and some of the changes...but realize no instructor or internet pard's gonna stand beside you on the street or in the courtroom...and the judge's gonna have on his bench pretty much the same info you have in the CHL16...except his'll have a much nicer cover...
...long ago, there was this group of people called Bereans...who were given high praise because after they sat attentively through the sermon,(and, hopefully, after a good chicken dinner)they dragged out the Book and checked out what they'd been told...to see if it was so...we could do well to do likewise...

[sjfcontrol]

Now to be clear, they did point out that no-gun signage does not prevent crime and even encourages...it was the form of signage that they believed enforceable to be the issue. All said they wished there were not any signs. One student was a lawyer, and I pointed out the wording of 30.06 stating that a business MUST use this wording. I thought SURELY a lawyer can read the law, he shook his head no and said that it only meant what the business was to display, and that just because they failed to do it right didn't mean we could.. I guess he was thinking along the line like if a bar fails to put up a 51% we still can't carry in a bar. Again, I do NOT agree with what I heard and saw in this, but making all aware that this is going to become an issue if it is being taught to and believed by instructors.

Actually, lack of proper 51% signage is a defense to prosecution for carry in a bar. 46.035(k)

[wgoforth]

Now to be clear, they did point out that no-gun signage does not prevent crime and even encourages...it was the form of signage that they believed enforceable to be the issue. All said they wished there were not any signs. One student was a lawyer, and I pointed out the wording of 30.06 stating that a business MUST use this wording. I thought SURELY a lawyer can read the law, he shook his head no and said that it only meant what the business was to display, and that just because they failed to do it right didn't mean we could.. I guess he was thinking along the line like if a bar fails to put up a 51% we still can't carry in a bar. Again, I do NOT agree with what I heard and saw in this, but making all aware that this is going to become an issue if it is being taught to and believed by instructors.

Actually, lack of proper 51% signage is a defense to prosecution for carry in a bar. 46.035(k)

Defense yes, but we know not to carry there. I don't know not to carry in a non legitimate 30.06 location.