Oh, yes, absolutely, ALL entrances, including those used by trades and delivery.sjfcontrol wrote:How about adding that the sign must be displayed at all public entrances to the protected area?jimlongley wrote:And those same business owners, having accidentally discovered that you are carrying counter to the sign that DPS told them was adequate and proper, at least attempt to have you arrested, and raise a big stink either way. And if you are arrested you are out the bucks for the ride and possibly even more if the cops and DA agree with the store owner and DPS. And the stink the store owner is raising gets picked up by the liberal media and they raise a whole new stink about arrogant gun owners attempting to carry on private property counter to the owner's wishes, and then the AG issues an opinion that ANY sign is good.PUCKER wrote:Here's the possible "upside" to this...business owners that WANT to prohibit CHLs call up and talk to this gal at DPS...she tells them ANY sign will work...(do you see where I'm going with this?)...so the business owners just post up a gunbusters sign, no guns sign, etc...and NOT a valid 30.06 sign. Just a thought.
Nope - goal for 2011 legislative session - strong positive language in new legislation to replace the current language, making it absolutely clear where CHLs can carry, TO EVERYONE (not just us who can read) and that one, and only one, sign is the right sign and that all others will be considered invalid in the eyes of the law and not subject to arrest.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “State Employee says no 30.06 needed???”
- Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:19 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Replies: 130
- Views: 20676
Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:04 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Replies: 130
- Views: 20676
Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
And those same business owners, having accidentally discovered that you are carrying counter to the sign that DPS told them was adequate and proper, at least attempt to have you arrested, and raise a big stink either way. And if you are arrested you are out the bucks for the ride and possibly even more if the cops and DA agree with the store owner and DPS. And the stink the store owner is raising gets picked up by the liberal media and they raise a whole new stink about arrogant gun owners attempting to carry on private property counter to the owner's wishes, and then the AG issues an opinion that ANY sign is good.PUCKER wrote:Here's the possible "upside" to this...business owners that WANT to prohibit CHLs call up and talk to this gal at DPS...she tells them ANY sign will work...(do you see where I'm going with this?)...so the business owners just post up a gunbusters sign, no guns sign, etc...and NOT a valid 30.06 sign. Just a thought.
Nope - goal for 2011 legislative session - strong positive language in new legislation to replace the current language, making it absolutely clear where CHLs can carry, TO EVERYONE (not just us who can read) and that one, and only one, sign is the right sign and that all others will be considered invalid in the eyes of the law and not subject to arrest.