TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote: I interpreted the DPS instructors statement as saying that a business posting a 30.06 sign, even if non-compliant with the law, shows the 'intent' of the business to prohibit CHL's from carrying there, but they in no way were they saying it was legally binding and you would be prosecuted. However, as Charles stated, if you want to be a test case on those that are not close, we will all the moral support we can muster in your legal battle.

And that was what that DPS attorney told me several years ago. She told me that DPS would consider any sign "close enough" as long as the language was somewhere near correct and they didn't care what height the letters were, the mere act of posting the sign showed intent. She got a little upset with me when I asked if a posted speed limit of 30mph meant that 39mph was close enough because, after all, it was in the 30s.

I have tended to treat even the 6th Floor Museums patently and blatantly non-compliant 3x5 card posting as at a minimum of intent to cause me a lot of difficulty if I get caught, even if I am not eventually convicted.

baldeagle wrote:jimlongley, in response to your comments, my statements are my opinion. OCT entered businesses with unlicensed possession signs. This prompted questions from uninformed people as to why they were not being arrested. The next step was to argue that any sign should be honored because, as the CBS 11 story pointed out, MDA's argument is that the business owner's intentions are clear, regardless of whether or not the sign is compliant. I place the increased scrutiny of 30.06 directly at the feet of OCT for that reason. Obviously I'm fully aware that the bad guys are the anti-gun zealots. I don't blame OCT for them trying to get the law changed. I blame OCT for drawing unneeded attention to it, which is why groups like MDA are now on it like a chicken on a bone.

Others may not see it that way, and that's their privilege.

Acknowledged, although I would be right up there with others in asking why, since the only licenses Texas issues for possession is CHLs, the OCT carriers were not arrested.

I have emailed CBS11 pointing out that the reason the sign was legislated that way is to ensure that the business owner's intentions are clear. Some have argued, in open fora, that business owners who post non-compliant signage are really in favor of concealed carry and are merely posting the signs to make MDA and their ilk happy. Now that MDA has figured this out, instead of insisting that businesses posting signage in compliance with the law, they want the law changed. I still see only the most tenuous, mostly a juxtaposition of timing, of connections between OCT's activities and MDA's campaign, it could as easily be attributed to CHL holders on here objecting to other CHL holders notifying businesses with non-compliant signage that it was so and being roundly scolded for "ruining it" for others.

Beiruty wrote:As if criminals have regard to any sign to restrict having guns on the premisses.

And that is the rub.

Keith B wrote:

jimlongley wrote: I have yet to see a business that was not required by TABC to post the "unlicensed possession" sign do so. The sign means that alcohol is being sold, not for consumption on premises, by that business, and that it is legal for a CHL holder to carry there under the authority of their CHL, but it is a felony for anyone else to carry there. You won't see that sign on a business that sells for consumption on premises, nor will you see that sign on a business that does not sell alcohol, it is a TABC sign, not a CHL sign.

Just a correction, these are also required to be posted at businesses that make less than 51% of their revenue from on-premise consumption sales. Any restaurant that serves alcohol is required to post them. If they sell alcohol at all, then they must post either the blue 'Unlicensed possession sign OR the 51% red sign, as determined by their license.

True, but: "I have yet to see a business that was not required by TABC to post the "unlicensed possession" sign do so."

baldeagle wrote:When you see a sign that says "The unlicensed possession of a weapon on these premises is a felony with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a fine not to exceed $10,000." what does that mean to you? To me it means the licensed possession of a weapon is not a felony. IOW, come on in, pardner.

Many businesses post these types of signs because they know it placates the sheep while still honoring our right to carry. By drawing attention to the signs and the law, OCT may have placed some businesses in the uncomfortable position of having to take a public stand on CHL. For example, due to OCT's actions, Kroger has been targeted by MDA and Starbucks and Chipotle have publicly stated that they prefer that you leave your guns at home. (This, of course, does not have the force of law, so you are perfectly free to go into their stores armed.) If enough fuss is made about it, they may start posting 30.06 signs.

OCT is directly to blame for that. When they began walking into businesses armed with rifles, people began pointing to non-compliant signs and saying why aren't they being arrested?

I have yet to see a business that was not required by TABC to post the "unlicensed possession" sign do so. The sign means that alcohol is being sold, not for consumption on premises, by that business, and that it is legal for a CHL holder to carry there under the authority of their CHL, but it is a felony for anyone else to carry there. You won't see that sign on a business that sells for consumption on premises, nor will you see that sign on a business that does not sell alcohol, it is a TABC sign, not a CHL sign.

I still do not see a direct connection between the 30.06 sign and OCT. While I am in favor of Open Carry, I am not a member of OCT and do not necessarily agree with their tactics. But the correct response to anyone pointing at a 30.06 sign, compliant with the law or not, and asking why someone open carrying a long gun is not being arrested is that the sign does not relate to anything other than concealed carry by a CHL holder, and that's all. If a business wants to prevent someone from open carrying on their premises, all they need to do is put up a no guns allowed sign of some sort, and that will suffice, except for concealed carry by a CHL holder.

I have not observed any of the businesses that have been "patronized" by OCT putting up any kind of no guns signage, or 30.06 signs and I think that although OCT might have caused a thought or two along the lines of preventing carry here and there, they are being held responsible by many for something that should more properly be laid at the feet of Bloomberg and co. Nor have I seen any business that upgraded their signage attribute that to OCT.

I think that this is correlation without causation and a lot of the bashing of OCT is unwarranted, and it just sounds an awful lot like the bashing that the NRA gets.