TexasCHLforum.com

jason812 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:37 pm

Vol Texan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:07 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:27 am
Its called Constitutional Carry.

I may be wrong here, but I think there is a difference. Vermont has Constitutional (no permit required) Carry but “no guns”signs still have force of law.

I wouldn't call that Constitutional Carry but I get your point and could see having to put language in a bill to make all signs unenforceable.

jason812 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:27 am I like the class action lawsuit idea against this group. Not as a way to get any money from them but to turn the table so to speak and force them to bleed money thru legal fees. Much the same way that has been done to pro-gun organizations. Does there lawsuit slander all of us with a texas3006.com login and who have added entries? If so, my feelings are hurt and I'm going to go hide in a safe spot. Now I'm on record claiming my emotional distress.

Vol Texan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:19 am Well, there is a simple solution to make the entire suit moot:

Make it such that no variant of any “no guns” sign has the force of law. Call it the “Florida technique”, or the “Georgia provision”, or the “most-places-in-Montana-except-that-liberal-infested-pit-named-Missoula” accord.

Its called Constitutional Carry.

I may be wrong here, but I think there is a difference. Vermont has Constitutional (no permit required) Carry but “no guns”signs still have force of law.

Well, there is a simple solution to make the entire suit moot:

Make it such that no variant of any “no guns” sign has the force of law. Call it the “Florida technique”, or the “Georgia provision”, or the “most-places-in-Montana-except-that-liberal-infested-pit-named-Missoula” accord.

The very premise of this suit is flawed.

Specifically, Texas property owners who espouse this viewpoint must post multiple large, text-heavy signs containing language specified by the State in order to exercise the longest established and most fundamental of their property rights: the right to exclude. If these property owners use other means of indicating that firearms are not welcome on the premises—even if entirely reasonable and understandable—they cannot avail themselves of Texas’s criminal trespass laws.

There is a misconception that 30.06 is a sign. It is not. 30.06 is the law that allows private property owners to bar concealed carry. The sign is only one of multiple ways to provide notice, and indeed it is the least ‘powerful’ method under Texas law. Simply saying “Dude, no guns” has more of a legal impact, and that is only one of many varieties of phraseology that can be employed.

Given that the number of permutations and combinations of words available to the business owners is nearly infinite (e.g. “you can’t carry here”, “no guns allowed”, “get that thing out of here”, etc., etc, and other etc.), the “free speech” aspect of the most impactful method of notification is about as free as free can get.

Nobody MUST post a sign as stated by the complainant. Signs are altogether optional, because the absence of a sign still affords the private property owner with the full effectiveness of 30.06.