TexasCHLforum.com

To quote Shakespeare, theis has become "full of sound and fury" and I shall retire unconvinced and unconverted and you can look up your own reference.

sjfcontrol wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

I was a TSA agent at Love Field when I had these discussions, under the guise of understanding what "WE" should do if we discovered someone carrying despite the "30.05" signage in some locations around the airport. Airport police, up to command level, and airport administrators, informed us that they would arrest and had assurances that the DA would prosecute, despite the signage being non-compliant, we had training meetings on the subject, partly due to the change in the law at that time. You can say it is certain that they would not prosecute, but unless you are the DA, it is also still only your opinion. Hark back to the Harris County DA when he was saying that despite MPA, he still intended to prosecute anyone who was caught with what he deemed as an illegal handgun, concealed without benefit of a CHL, and tell me about DAs conforming to the law.

Good information as such, however I believe you've mentioned that this was a few years ago. If pre-2003 then their policy probably didn't take into account the explicit "defense" to 30.05 now provided to CHL's. Even then, I doubt a prosecution would have been successful, but now it's in "black and white, as is the exception for government owned property provided in 30.06.

Secondly, your discussions don't necessarily constitute a conscious/official policy by the City of Dallas or the Dallas County prosecutors. I have no doubt that they told you what they thought they would do, but since the issue hasn't resulted in an arrest, we really don't know if they were bluffing.

-Scott

The whole point of mentioning the discussions which took place was that the law had just changed and the signage, which was questionable at best before the change, was now per the law meaningless. City of Dallas, which runs Love Field, took the official stance that they "would prosecute" (their words) any CHL holder found to have entered Love Field carrying. The last time I was at Love Field, at Christmastime, I spoke to old friends and co-workers, and was informed that the attitude is still the same, and the signs are still where they were. I entered through the parking garage and saw no signage, a situation I am much more willing to take a chance on.

Hmm, that's interesting. You don't consider the conversations you've had with them to be oral notice?

No, unless you consider policy meetings between TSA and Love Field mgt (City of Dallas) and DPD, to be that. I do not.

sjfcontrol wrote:I will point out that there is no case law proving that eating a bacon-cheeseburger in public is not illegal, too. So, until someone gets arrested and prosecuted for that, we all better conceal our lunches! (Hmmm, must be approaching lunch time!)

My point is that even if somebody didn't like my public burger consumption, he would first have to find an officer willing to arrest, and a DA willing to prosecute. Unlikely!

"But, but..." you say, "eating a cheeseburger in public is not illegal!" Correct! (At least at the moment. ) Neither is carrying past a non-complient 30.06 sign.

No -- I don't want to be the 30.06 test case, but I don't want to be the cheeseburger test case either.

On the other hand. If that's the future fate has in store for me, I am confident that such nonsense could be relatively quickly dealt with. It doesn't make sense to me to "cower in my basement" (avoid invalid 30.06 establishments) for fear of breaking a non-existant law.

Where is the law that says eating a cheesburger in public must be licensed?

And what law are you saying is non-existant?

I have stated my reasoning for avoiding giving anti-gun places my money so they can profit from it, is that "cowering . . ."? If so, then I will cower, confidant that in doing so I will find plenty of other places that would like my money and truly do not care if I carry.

ScottDLS wrote:

I was a TSA agent at Love Field when I had these discussions, under the guise of understanding what "WE" should do if we discovered someone carrying despite the "30.05" signage in some locations around the airport. Airport police, up to command level, and airport administrators, informed us that they would arrest and had assurances that the DA would prosecute, despite the signage being non-compliant, we had training meetings on the subject, partly due to the change in the law at that time. You can say it is certain that they would not prosecute, but unless you are the DA, it is also still only your opinion. Hark back to the Harris County DA when he was saying that despite MPA, he still intended to prosecute anyone who was caught with what he deemed as an illegal handgun, concealed without benefit of a CHL, and tell me about DAs conforming to the law.

Good information as such, however I believe you've mentioned that this was a few years ago. If pre-2003 then their policy probably didn't take into account the explicit "defense" to 30.05 now provided to CHL's. Even then, I doubt a prosecution would have been successful, but now it's in "black and white, as is the exception for government owned property provided in 30.06.

Secondly, your discussions don't necessarily constitute a conscious/official policy by the City of Dallas or the Dallas County prosecutors. I have no doubt that they told you what they thought they would do, but since the issue hasn't resulted in an arrest, we really don't know if they were bluffing.

-Scott

The whole point of mentioning the discussions which took place was that the law had just changed and the signage, which was questionable at best before the change, was now per the law meaningless. City of Dallas, which runs Love Field, took the official stance that they "would prosecute" (their words) any CHL holder found to have entered Love Field carrying. The last time I was at Love Field, at Christmastime, I spoke to old friends and co-workers, and was informed that the attitude is still the same, and the signs are still where they were. I entered through the parking garage and saw no signage, a situation I am much more willing to take a chance on.

And I should point out that DPD at Love Field said they would arrest, based on the non-conforming signage, and despite the black and white law.

sjfcontrol wrote:

jimlongley wrote:
Nope, don't reckon, I am convinced that if I were discovered to be carrying in one of those places with non-compliant signage, that the result could range all the way up to a LV Costco scenario, and I do not want to place myself in that sort of danger. Let them go ahead and show their true colors and post the big ugly sign, and was the intention of the legislation establishing it, or not post the big ugly sign, two choices, no more; "well they only mean that for the non-chls" or "They only put that sign up to satisfy the anti-gun nuts, and they secretly want the CHLs to be there" And surely not ruining it for anyone. Like the non-compliant signage at Love Field, it's not a "wink wink nudge nudge" sign, I know that the "authorities" at Love intend to prosecute, or attempt to, despite the deficiencies of their signage, I have spoken to them about it, and I see no reason to expect that AMC Theaters would probably not prosecute me, so I just choose not to give them my money, and I let them know why.

I think what you're missing, is that it's not the "authorities at Love Field", or "AMC Theaters" that will be prosecuting you. Criminal offenses are prosecuted by the District Attorneys. Presumably, they know the laws, and know that in order to prosecute for violation of PC 30.06 "Trespass by holder of license to carry concealed handgun", the premises must be posted by a sign with specific parameters. (Or other valid notice must be given as specified in section 30.06.) If you walk past a non-compliant sign, are you risking possible arrest? Perhaps, if the officer is not properly trained on the current requirements, but the DAs certainly would not attempt to prosecute if the proper signage (or other notice) were not in place. All they'd do is reduce their conviction rates.

It seems to me that there a a lot of people who are afraid of doing things that are not illegal.

OK, maybe I truncated the terminology a bit, but the result is the same, it would be Love Field or AMC who would be bringing the charges, which still loosely fits under "prosecute."

I was a TSA agent at Love Field when I had these discussions, under the guise of understanding what "WE" should do if we discovered someone carrying despite the "30.05" signage in some locations around the airport. Airport police, up to command level, and airport administrators, informed us that they would arrest and had assurances that the DA would prosecute, despite the signage being non-compliant, we had training meetings on the subject, partly due to the change in the law at that time. You can say it is certain that they would not prosecute, but unless you are the DA, it is also still only your opinion. Hark back to the Harris County DA when he was saying that despite MPA, he still intended to prosecute anyone who was caught with what he deemed as an illegal handgun, concealed without benefit of a CHL, and tell me about DAs conforming to the law.

Individual LEOs at Love also said that if they discovered the "violation" in a circumstance that they had some discretion in, they would probably not arrest because the signage was recognizably bogus, but that the command structure, and thus their jobs, said to arrest.

Interesting, in light of the OP, which pointed out the success of Aggiedad in getting non-compliant signage removed and creating a truly CHL friendly environment, that so many have come in with their opinions that any attempt to approach the posters of such signs is "ruining it" for those same persons by making the attempt to remove a blight from the CHL landscape.

Once again, I have been successful in contacting such signage posters twice over several years, and none of my efforts have resulted in the big ugly sign replacing a non-compliant one, and the smattering of replies that I have received saying they had no intention to change despite being quoted the law, have been put on notice that their signage is non-compliant and I expect to name them in the civil suit should they discover that I am carrying under my CHL because they now know the signs are wrong.

Have any of the rest of you had a similar level of success in your efforts? Has all of that self-satisfied going past non-compliant signs ever resulted in one being removed? Or do you just keep on smugly going by and saying to yourselves "I have a gun, and they don't know it, and I got away with it."?

There is no case law, there is no Attorney General opinion about passing non-complian signs, and even the "little white booklet" is mum on the subject, so your feeling of invincibility relating to passing non-compliant signage is still nothing more than your opinion, unless and until you get case law in the books, you get the Attorney General to break his silence on it, or you get the wording of the law changed. Nothing more than opinion, and as worthless as you hold mine to be.

But here's a constructive suggestion, something that you can do to prove your point easily. The next time you go to a gun show at a government owned building and see that big ugly sign out front, just go ahead and walk right by, you already know that it doesn't mean anything, and be sure to let us know the result. And also let us know how you make out when they stop you and you tell them their sign is non-compliant and therefore actually "CHL friendly."

Meantime I will continue to err on the side of my opinion until one of you manages to come up with a convincing counter opinion, or some case law, or an AG opinion (still only really opinion) or get the wording of the law changed. And I will still tell anyone who posts any sort of anti-gun sign, non-compliant or otherwise, that I choose to spend my money elsewhere.

Embalmo wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

Embalmo wrote:First of all, I'm talking about CHL law, not opinion, so please stop talking about opinions so we can be on the same page with this discussion.

And it is merely your opinion that you can pass a non-compliant sign with impunity, an opinion that I disagree with. I have succeeded in getting non-compliant signs removed and not replaced with the big ugly one, has your strategy resulted in any similar improvement?

Embalmo wrote: Second, I just quoted you as saying you don't care if your actions keep me from going into a business that previously allowed guns; so you should understand why I'm asking that you allow me to make my own decision regarding where I want to shop.

And it is, once again, merely your opinion that the business with a non-compliant sign consciously allows guns - there is no case law, no JUDICIAL opinion, to support yours.

Embalmo wrote: And third, you're talking about "getting away" with walking past a non-compliant sign, and being arrested for doing so. It isn't illegal to walk past a non-compliant sign. Again, not mine, or anyone else's opinion. We're all subject to CHL law, and that includes LEOs.

If I can't argue "you can't beat the ride" then you can't argue the other side of it. And it was aggie_engr, whose argument you have taken up, who said it was "spoiling it" for the rest of you by attempting to find out the motive for a non-compliant posting and encouraging such a location to remove it in favor of law abiding citizens, as well as pointing out their loss of income otherwise. I care if my actions truly deprive you of some freedom, but what you have right now is merely an illusion and I feel no grief over repairing your mistaken belief.

Embalmo wrote:A business that has a non-compliant sign legally (and that is all that matters when it comes to CHL law) allows me to carry. If you don't agree with that, please don't shop there, but don't have this "no loss" attitude when the rest of us can't go there, or even worse, can't defend ourselves in the event of a crisis.

Embalmo

I already do not shop there, if I know about their sign, and if I already know about their sign, they have heard from me. If they have heard from me and not responded, I still do not shop there. If they have responded and have not taken down non=compliant signage, then have a record showing that they do not intend to comply with Texas Law and I feel no compunction about passing that sign, in part because if they have me arrested, I have documented their refusal to comply, and will see them in civil court. If they have responded and taken down non-compliant signage, then they have received a letter of thanks from me, and I even recommend them to friends. If they have either responded or not and changed to the big ugly sign, then I feel no loss, and also feel that I have defended you and others like you against a possible false arrest as well as saving you from supporting someone who actively dislikes you.

I will continue to do it my way, and you can go your way, and agree to disagree with our opinions, and that is what they are, no facts, no case law, nothing more than opinion, and you have not presented an argument that has changed mine one whit, and I assume you don't care for my arguments either.

We can't have any sort of discussion as long as you pit opinion against CHL law; that's why I asked you not to. Take a look over that little white booklet they gave you and get back to me.

Embalmo

Like I said, it's nothing more than your opinion, nothing in the book says you will not be arrested, nothing in the book says that you may pass a non-compliant sign with impunity "In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:" it is merely your opinion that it does, and not the opinion of a court or the Attorney General.

Embalmo wrote:First of all, I'm talking about CHL law, not opinion, so please stop talking about opinions so we can be on the same page with this discussion.

And it is merely your opinion that you can pass a non-compliant sign with impunity, an opinion that I disagree with. I have succeeded in getting non-compliant signs removed and not replaced with the big ugly one, has your strategy resulted in any similar improvement?

Embalmo wrote: Second, I just quoted you as saying you don't care if your actions keep me from going into a business that previously allowed guns; so you should understand why I'm asking that you allow me to make my own decision regarding where I want to shop.

And it is, once again, merely your opinion that the business with a non-compliant sign consciously allows guns - there is no case law, no JUDICIAL opinion, to support yours.

Embalmo wrote: And third, you're talking about "getting away" with walking past a non-compliant sign, and being arrested for doing so. It isn't illegal to walk past a non-compliant sign. Again, not mine, or anyone else's opinion. We're all subject to CHL law, and that includes LEOs.

If I can't argue "you can't beat the ride" then you can't argue the other side of it. And it was aggie_engr, whose argument you have taken up, who said it was "spoiling it" for the rest of you by attempting to find out the motive for a non-compliant posting and encouraging such a location to remove it in favor of law abiding citizens, as well as pointing out their loss of income otherwise. I care if my actions truly deprive you of some freedom, but what you have right now is merely an illusion and I feel no grief over repairing your mistaken belief.

Embalmo wrote:A business that has a non-compliant sign legally (and that is all that matters when it comes to CHL law) allows me to carry. If you don't agree with that, please don't shop there, but don't have this "no loss" attitude when the rest of us can't go there, or even worse, can't defend ourselves in the event of a crisis.

Embalmo

I already do not shop there, if I know about their sign, and if I already know about their sign, they have heard from me. If they have heard from me and not responded, I still do not shop there. If they have responded and have not taken down non=compliant signage, then have a record showing that they do not intend to comply with Texas Law and I feel no compunction about passing that sign, in part because if they have me arrested, I have documented their refusal to comply, and will see them in civil court. If they have responded and taken down non-compliant signage, then they have received a letter of thanks from me, and I even recommend them to friends. If they have either responded or not and changed to the big ugly sign, then I feel no loss, and also feel that I have defended you and others like you against a possible false arrest as well as saving you from supporting someone who actively dislikes you.

I will continue to do it my way, and you can go your way, and agree to disagree with our opinions, and that is what they are, no facts, no case law, nothing more than opinion, and you have not presented an argument that has changed mine one whit, and I assume you don't care for my arguments either.

Embalmo wrote:

jimlongley wrote: Exactly. There is only one way to find out what their intention is, and that is to ask. If they decide to go ahead and post huge and ugly compliant signs, then no loss, you either don't give them your money or you disarm before entering and I vote for no guns = no money.

Thank you jim;ongley-You said it better than I ever could. If a new "gun free zone" is created and one person gets to decide for the entire CHL community where they can and cannot shop, it's "no loss". And he is talking about places that never restricted guns in the first place. What if someone gets attacked in one of those "no loss" establishments?

Embalmo

Your argument makes no sense to me. The shopkeeper is under the impression that he has restricted guns, so it's not new, just compliant, and you can still disarm and give them your money.

Embalmo wrote:

Aggiedad wrote:The differences of opinon continue ... My final thoughts on this subject:
Not all noncompliant signs are CHL "welcome mats". Someone else also pointed out that even noncompliant signs let you know what the store's policy is ... GO's faded sign was not a CHL "welcome mat"; it was an old sign that came down when I inquired about it.
My emails to GO corporate did not speak for anyone else and did not imply such.
I did not make any decisions for anyone (I don't even know how to do that).
My stance on this subject = Gross selfishness? ... An opinion with which I do not agree.
I do not believe that I am absolutely right and you (those that disagree with me) are wrong in this matter (or vice versa).

Metaphorically speaking, there is more than one way to skin a cat. However, I am certain that you respect my right to disagree with your opinions just as I respect your opinions and your right to patronize businesses who have noncompliant "no gun" signs.

IMO, this horse is dead. If anyone wishes to beat it some more, go for it. The snow in Colorado is calling my name

This horse will breathe as long as there are folks that don't recognize that the only legal way that any shopkeeper can voice any intent or deny anyone their right of defense is through a valid 30.06 sign; that not any one's opinion, it's the law. Many of us have a problem when an INDIVIDUAL gambles with EVERY ONE'S ability to continue patronizing a place that wasn't denying any one's right to legally carry; the business that you corresponded with could have, and may yet post a new compliant sign. So we'd rather CHLs stick to just making decisions for themselves.

Embalmo

You obviously have your opinion, and I obviously think that you are misguided. As has been stated, I, and others, can't understand why you would support a business that doesn't want you and then claim that I, and those like me are magically denying to the right to do business with them. There's a simple solution to your desire to do business there if they actually put up the big ugly compliant sign, disarm and go ahead and patronize someone who does not respect you.

If you eliminate taking the ride as an argument, then you should equally, by the same reasoning, eliminate your own getting away with it ploy. You are not really getting away with anything, you are just carrying concealed somewhere that someone does not welcome you doing so, and if discovered, you are going to put a blot on my reputation, merely by virtue of getting caught, whether you take a ride or not, as there will be that shopkeeper out there saying, "Maybe my sign wasn't compliant, but it was understandable, and those arrogant CHLs just ignored it."

Aggiedad wrote:Further explanation about what led me to contact Great Outdoors' corporate office (and for those who think one should not ask a business about its "no guns" sign):

1. There's no telling how many times I ate at that restaurant before I noticed their old and faded sign. It wasn't even at the door. I think the only reason I saw that time was that I parked right in front of it ... I saw it when I got back in the truck to leave after eating ...
2. I did not write in my email to Great Outdoors, "You have a non-compliant sign and I don't have to obey it"; I asked what their corporate policy was as was curious to know if "no guns" was corporate policy or the store manager's decision to post the sign.
3. I took the time to ask in a nonconfrontational manner, what the deal was and got a good result which clarifies their position for all of us. Yes they could have said, "We don't want guns in our store" and that would have been clear too. I (we) now know for certain where they stand.
4. If "no guns" was corporate policy or manager policy (either way), I was not going to spend another nickle there if the sign stayed up ... non-compliant or not.

And I do much the same thing when I make contact, I point out that keeping law abiding gun carriers from doing business with them merely costs them money while making no one safer, and ask if it is corporate policy, local policy, or policy at all. If the reply is, as I have had happen, something on the order of "For the safety of our patrons we do not allow guns on our premises" I will, and have, point out that the sign does not comply with TX law and thus would and could be ignored by CHL holders without violating the law, although I would not be doing so as it was my intention to boycott them and influence as many people as I could to follow my lead.

Aggiedad wrote:I'm a bit surprised at the "turn a blind eye and keep your mouth shut about non-compliant signs" comments. Whether a business posts a no guns sign that is legally enforceable or not, their intent was certainly posted so then the question is ... Why would any CHL holder want to support a company that denies one's freedom guaranteed by the Constitution? Yes, I know, concealed is concealed so who would know but again, why support that business? I don't get it.

I don't either.

ScottDLS wrote:For the record... I regularly carry a concealed handgun in the non-secure area of Dallas Love when I have reason to be there. It doesn't concern me a whit, because it's clearly legal. As they used to say on Law and Order, "It's black letter law". See big black letters below. While it's an extremely low probability, I AM willing to be the proverbial "test case" on this. I am blessed to have the wherewithal to hire a very good attorney should I need one, and would probably have a decent 42 USC 1983 civil case were I unjustly arrested for carrying at DAL. I bet (and I regularly do by carrying there) that I could beat a 30.06 or 46.035 criminal case "pro se", even before trial because the law is so clear. In fact, a police officer or federal agent carrying openly at DAL, only has a defense to prosecution to 46.02. So if the legal beagles at DAL were really smart they'd try to charge a CHL with 46.02, because the CHL is only a Defense and they arguably could avoid a civil rights "color of law" case. But my understanding from previous posts are that they would go for a 46.035 or 30.06 prosecution.

So for the time being, I'm going to go on concealed carrying past non-compliant signs, walking down the street, openly in my house and at the range, and doing all the other things that are not against the law. I'm still worried about removing that mattress tag though...





(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property
on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased
by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which
the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under
Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Well, I, for one, can't afford to be a test case, and I had all those arguments with officers and others at Love, and not one of them would disobey superior officers' orders to enforce the signage, even if a couple felt as though they might take a pass on enforcement if it were only they that made the discovery.

And, as I have pointed out before, quoting the law to a LEO who is in the process of placing you under arrest is not likely to draw very much interest from said LEO, "Tell it to the judge" being a typical response from someone who isn't interested enough in that portion of the law to have memorized all of its subtle nuances. I am even reminded of the Pyrrhic arguments various members here have had with the gate guardians at gun shows being held on government property, where they cheerfully apply the section despite the exception.

Oldgringo wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

Aggie_engr wrote:

jimlongley wrote: If they decide to go ahead and post huge and ugly compliant signs, then no loss...

Except for ruining it for the rest of us.

Ruining what? Do you actually spend money in support of those place which quite obviously discriminate against you?

OTOH, they're not discriminating against me and my CHL. They are telling unlicensed people that their guns aren't welcome. You reckon...

Nope, don't reckon, I am convinced that if I were discovered to be carrying in one of those places with non-compliant signage, that the result could range all the way up to a LV Costco scenario, and I do not want to place myself in that sort of danger. Let them go ahead and show their true colors and post the big ugly sign, and was the intention of the legislation establishing it, or not post the big ugly sign, two choices, no more; "well they only mean that for the non-chls" or "They only put that sign up to satisfy the anti-gun nuts, and they secretly want the CHLs to be there" And surely not ruining it for anyone. Like the non-compliant signage at Love Field, it's not a "wink wink nudge nudge" sign, I know that the "authorities" at Love intend to prosecute, or attempt to, despite the deficiencies of their signage, I have spoken to them about it, and I see no reason to expect that AMC Theaters would probably not prosecute me, so I just choose not to give them my money, and I let them know why.

Aggie_engr wrote:

jimlongley wrote: If they decide to go ahead and post huge and ugly compliant signs, then no loss...

Except for ruining it for the rest of us.

Ruining what? Do you actually spend money in support of those place which quite obviously discriminate against you?

Aggiedad wrote:

Aggie_engr wrote:Why not just walk right by non-compliant signs? Non-compliant signs in no way prohibit chl's from carrying in said establishment...

I did and you are correct ... and in my email to GO president, I pointed out that it the was not unlawful for me to cc in their restaurant (there was wording on the sign that said it was) but that worst thing I could be guilty of was misdemeanor trespassing if I were asked to leave and refused to do so.

Yes, I could have continued to silently ignore the sign but why patronize a store that doesn't support my rights? Once politely notified, if the signs hadn't come down, I would not have gone back. They did and I will.

Exactly. There is only one way to find out what their intention is, and that is to ask. If they decide to go ahead and post huge and ugly compliant signs, then no loss, you either don't give them your money or you disarm before entering and I vote for no guns = no money.

OTOH, if they tell you that their policy is no guns, ala Buffalo Wild Wings, but they refuse to put up compliant signs, then they hae been put on notice that they are not in compliance with the law and cannot expect their "corporate policy" to have any effect.

And of course there is always the possibility that they will note that they have signs up which discriminate against, and offend, some of the most law abiding citizens of our great state, and take them down, as has been my experience a couple of times.