TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:We are in a circle. Property owners rights, known or not. Period.

Indeed. But that's why we have these discussions, because they have no clear winner.

Keith B wrote:

APynckel wrote:
So here is where my mind faces a dichotomy. If the Gunbusters sign isn't a restriction to carry, then how or why is a 30.06, in legally required print or not? I know the law says it is, but why? Concealed carry is concealed so that people don't know you're carrying.

The 30.06 sign is a good thing. It was put into the statutes in 1997. Prior to that (1995 - 1997) a gunbusters or any other 'No Guns' sign was valid to keep a concealed carry holder from entering legally. The verbiage and requirements were specifically made the way they are to make sure the sign was visible as well as make it a little bit of an annoyance for the business to post due to the size. If a business goes about posting the right way, then they are serious about keeping concealed carry out of their location, and I will abide by their wishes and take my business elsewhere if at all possible.

I agree it has a good side, that it allows you to not disrespect the wishes of the owner of the property before stepping foot inside, but concealed carry is concealed, and no one should know you have a firearm on you in the first place, so why is it even necessary?

edit

RKirkwood wrote:If the 30.06 sign is improper you can just carry past it. IMO, there could be reasons for it or other issues by carrying past it. This has been discussed before.

1. The owner knowingly post an incorrect sign keeping the anti happy and allowing legally licensed CHL into his business because they know the sign have no bearing.
2. Carry past it and being discovered may get you the ride but no charges. As said before concealed means concealed!

As for the 51% sign it might be that the manger don't know which sign to put out. Example - Specs on Mason road has a BLUE gun sign but the new Specs off of I10 in Katy has the RED 51% sign. On the TABC site it listed as BLUE gun sign.

Well, from the private businesses point of view (assuming he didn't know the sign was posted in fallacy), If you carry past it then you are disrespecting the wishes of the establishments owner, as if he had asked you not to carry even if it's incorrect, and you are now trespassing and should be arrested.

So here is where my mind faces a dichotomy. If the Gunbusters sign isn't a restriction to carry, then how or why is a 30.06, in legally required print or not? I know the law says it is, but why? Concealed carry is concealed so that people don't know you're carrying.

If he wanted to "respect" the anti's, but still allow concealed carry, why post it at all? No one who respects concealed carry can respect the anti's point of view.

AlaskanInTexas wrote:

APynckel wrote:If they choose to arrest you, when they were at fault, why are they not subject to the same result if they didn't follow the law?

If the "gunbusters" sign isn't legally binding to a CHL, how is an improper 30.06 binding?

A non-compliant 30.06 sign has no legal effect on a CHL holder. Are you suggesting that if a business owner posts a non-compliant 30.06 sign they should be arrested? I think you might be getting a little worked up over a non-issue.

Well, if they are under the assumption that it is legally binding, they can order a police officer to arrest you for not respecting their wishes. Subsequently, there would be criminal charges brought against you, correct?

I'm not worked up, I'm just enjoying the argument.

If they choose to arrest you, when they were at fault, why are they not subject to the same result if they didn't follow the law?

If the "gunbusters" sign isn't legally binding to a CHL, how is an improper 30.06 binding?

Keith B wrote: It's the 30.06 sign. You should have learned that in your CHL class.

I could have sworn there was required registration with the state in order to post one.

Though I may be deluded.

None the less, if they post the sign incorrectly, how can you consider it to be legally binding?

Keith B wrote:How would a private business posting a 30.06 sign be fraudulent? I can see that they may not get the sign correct by law, but the intent of the business would be to prevent you from carrying concealed. But in doing so, how would they be trying to commit fraud?

Is there not an application process to restrict CHL's from carrying within the building? Or do you just have to post the sign?

Keith B wrote:People can sue for anything, but in this case I think you would be throwing your money to the wind (aka the lawyer). However, while I am a strong supporter of 2A, I am just as strong a supporter of property owner rights. I feel a privately owned business should have the right to restrict whatever activity they feel they want to on their property. I have the right to not patronize that business.

I concur, but if we are required to obey legal 30.06 signage under penalty of arrest, the equal and opposite should be required of the private business.

Keith B wrote:There are no legal ramifications for posting an improper 30.06 sign. There was a bill introduced last year that would have posed a penalty for them on government buildings, but not private. However it never made the floor.

As for 51%, there is a penalty for that from TABC. The establishment must post the correct sign per their license type. A call to TABC if one is found will get it corrected.

Hrm.

Well being that the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed," one would assume that it would be "common sense" for there to be some kind of criminal offense of infringing on the right of an individual to carry in an establishment, especially if it (the restriction) was done fraudulently.

Taurus.40 wrote:When in doubt check out Texas 30.06. It tell which places are correctly posted.

That's not the point of this thread. I want to know what penalties an establishment would face for posting illegal 30.06 or 51%, since we would be arrested for carrying in legally restricted areas.

If the 30.06 they posted, assuming that they went through the legal means to restrict their business from legal concealed carry, was posted incorrect? If there are legal ramifications for someone carrying concealed in a legally restricted area, are there not legal ramifications for improperly posting such a sign (such as fraudulent 30.06 signage, or improper signage)?

What if an establishment that wasn't a 51% posted a 51%?

I am just wondering, because they would not hesitate to arrest us, does that coin not have another face?