TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:15 pm There was this case from a while back.

Things were a little different that many years ago and some details also, but otherwise I think this is a fair assessment of how something like this might go if someone took the ride for carrying past a sign that did not strictly meet the 30.06 or 30.07 requirements.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=58991

Thank you for posting that link. I hadn't thought about that one in some time. That soldier went though a lot of hassle. Wonder if he ever got his military career back on track?

Soccerdad1995, I find the majority of what you say to be entirely plausible in the context of a retail store, or other general public business. However, the (incorrect) sign is at a hospital. I believe that the "medical community", when taken as a whole, has a bias against firearms for various reasons, and the carrying of firearms by anyone who isn't law enforcement. Additionally, I believe that they are more than willing to "make a stink" about it, and that law enforcement is going to pay more attention to what "medical professionals" have to say than they would the average LTCer. I've carried past a few (obvious) incorrect signs such as gunbusters at regular businesses like gas stations without much thought because I knew those signs didn't really apply to me, plus I was properly concealed. However, I would not do that at a hospital (which I should have made clearer in my previous posts).

Hope you have a Happy New Year.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:06 am

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:38 pm

1911 Raptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 25, 2018 9:07 am

imkopaka wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:17 pm

LDB415 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:06 pm Can a single sign be used for both 06 and 07 in a single wording or does each one need it's own individual sign to be valid? IOW, Pursuant to 30.06 & 30.07 etc etc exactly like that, not a really large single sign with Pursuant to 30.06 etc. and below that Pursuant to 30.07 etc..

The law states what the sign must have, but does not state anything it cannot have. As long as the requirements are met (all wording is exact, block letters at least 1" high, contrasting colors, etc) it is valid, even if they combine the two into one sign - that combined sign is still "a sign posted on the property that: (i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish; (ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height;  and (iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public," even though it also has the other language. In the same way, they can add a title ("firearms prohibited," "concealed carry prohibited," etc), a gunbuster logo, their company logo, etc. As long as it meets the other requirements, it passes.

I agree.

However, the wording on that sign (the one posted by Pawpaw) is NOT exact per the law. It has been jammed together to save space so they don't have to have two signs up. For the record, I am not stating I want to be the "test case". I simply believe that sign to not be within specification per the law.

It's the equivalent of a traffic ticket. I'm not afraid to be a "test case". I also drive right at the speed limit, follow cars at just over the minimum legal distance, and go through intersections that have a yellow light. Not afraid to be a "test case" for those non-crimes, either. Heck, I might even get crazy and water my lawn the exact maximum amount allowed by my city ordinance.

While I understand what you are saying, the likelihood of those other offenses resulting in a trip in the back of a squad car are pretty slim. However, depending upon the jurisdiction, "violating" that sign might get you that ride, even if you later get released. To be honest, the intimidation factor works on me because I don't want to get tossed into a jail cell with actual criminals until someone higher up the chain comes along to clear things up.

1911 Raptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 25, 2018 9:07 am

imkopaka wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:17 pm

LDB415 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:06 pm Can a single sign be used for both 06 and 07 in a single wording or does each one need it's own individual sign to be valid? IOW, Pursuant to 30.06 & 30.07 etc etc exactly like that, not a really large single sign with Pursuant to 30.06 etc. and below that Pursuant to 30.07 etc..

The law states what the sign must have, but does not state anything it cannot have. As long as the requirements are met (all wording is exact, block letters at least 1" high, contrasting colors, etc) it is valid, even if they combine the two into one sign - that combined sign is still "a sign posted on the property that: (i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish; (ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height;  and (iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public," even though it also has the other language. In the same way, they can add a title ("firearms prohibited," "concealed carry prohibited," etc), a gunbuster logo, their company logo, etc. As long as it meets the other requirements, it passes.

I agree.

However, the wording on that sign (the one posted by Pawpaw) is NOT exact per the law. It has been jammed together to save space so they don't have to have two signs up. For the record, I am not stating I want to be the "test case". I simply believe that sign to not be within specification per the law.

twomillenium wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:48 am

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:38 am The worst part of the almost-correct-but-still-wrong signs is that they carry an intimidation factor. The people putting them up might even know it's wrong, but they do it anyway to reduce their burden while counting on a "might beat the rap but not the ride" situation to stop people from legally carrying in that location. And, of course, nothing gets done to prevent this kind of stuff, as there aren't any penalties for the attempted intimidation. Either both parties need to follow the law on things like this, or no one should get in trouble for it.

I don't quite understand the "ride" part of your statement. Once, you carry past the sign in a manner that is obvious you are carrying, oral notification means you must leave immediately. (whether or not the sign is legal) If the actor want to argue or ignore the oral notification, it is their obnoxious behavior that put them in risk of the ride. Oral notification can be merely a direct statement to the carrier can be in form of "No firearms allowed here", also applies even is there is not a sign.

Several times on this forum I have read people stating that if a sign is "close enough", it is not worth becoming the "test case". Thus that sign, though not up to the legal definition, functions as an intimidation factor to keep people who are carrying legally (with LTC) from entering the establishment, whatever that might be.

The worst part of the almost-correct-but-still-wrong signs is that they carry an intimidation factor. The people putting them up might even know it's wrong, but they do it anyway to reduce their burden while counting on a "might beat the rap but not the ride" situation to stop people from legally carrying in that location. And, of course, nothing gets done to prevent this kind of stuff, as there aren't any penalties for the attempted intimidation. Either both parties need to follow the law on things like this, or no one should get in trouble for it.