TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

rdwilson wrote:Apparently the governing board has determined that a 30.06 sign is necessary to protect the building's occupants.

Welcome to the forum.

The following question is not directed at you and is really a rhetorical. And from another thread, the above is word use that drives me up a wall. Just who do they think they are protecting themselves from? A group of people that is just as and maybe more law abiding than the police? The thought that posting a 30.06 is needed to protect the occupants or employees makes me

Agreed. And I know that I am "preaching to the choir" here. The problem remains and I have stated this to the folks in charge. Placing the signs in NO WAY protects the persons on the property. In fact, it tells the bad guys, who will not abide by the law anyway, that any potential victims will not be able to offer any effective resistance if attacked. The signage can actually make the persons *less* safe that they might be otherwise.

Update: I have now written permission to carry on the property. And thanks for the welcome to this forum.

MeMelYup wrote: Your church has posted 30.06 signage?

This is not the church that I attend. They are clients and I am considered a contractor. I do lot of work with non-profits.

Thanks everyone for the input.

Yes, my first instinct was to tell them that, I am not welcome on their property, do not feel safe, and to find someone else. We discussed it today and I now have written permission. Problem solved. In addition, I have a key and the alarm code so I would suppose that the property is "under my control" to some extent. This is fairly common in my business as no one want to stick around until the wee hours of the night while I work on the computer network. I usually get to know the cleaning crews quite well.

Except as you all know... Posting the sign tells the bad guys and whack jobs it is open season on unarmed civilians.

One thing that I didn't mention because I didn't want to cloud the issue with religion, is the place in question is a church. This is clearly covered in Penal Code - Sec. 46.035 (b),(6)

In my mind churches are a more tempting target and are at a higher risk because;
a.) a large number of people gather in one place,
b.) there is always someone that disagrees with their particular doctrine no matter what religion it happens to be, and
c.) religion seems to be a "hot button" in some folks minds so I worry about the mentally ill becoming violent.

I discussed this with the pastor and he agrees with my assessment but the Council (or whatever they call it at this particular church) has made this decision.

The governing board of the organization has the opinion that "no one needs to have a gun on the property". I suspect this is another misguided attempt to deter crime and "insure the safety" of visitors.

A reasonable and prudent man would recognize the fact that criminals and insane persons don't read signs or follow the rule of law. The man in charge is very reasonable, supports my concealed carry, but he is subject to a governing board and the rules that they concoct.

Contacting an attorney that specializes in gun laws is the best advise given. Thanks for that. But I don't want the financial burden of paying the fees.

I was working there last Friday night until 11:30 PM and there are many things that go bump in the building at that time of night. Not to mention loading up all of my equipment alone in a big empty parking lot. Being able to defend myself is a big plus in terms of peace of mind.

I think that perhaps I will write a letter to the organization stating that they will need to find another technician to work on their server and network as I no longer am welcome on their property. I do not feel safe in a "gun free" facility as it tells all of the potential attackers that they will face little opposition. The whole idea of concealed carry is to deter crime by placing doubt in the minds of criminals.

BTW, thanks for the welcome to this board. I have been lurking for some time but, until now, have not had a reason to post.

Thanks for the quick reply. I am aware of the LEOSA but I have not met the important requirement to:

"during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers".

I still have my TCLEOSE card and "photographic identification" issued by my former department but neither state that I have qualified in the last year.

I had scoured the relevant Texas statutes and found no official "exemption" to the 30.06 rule hence my question posted here. And yes, I would prefer to have written permission although I have already had verbal assurances that it is OK to carry.

I apologize if this exact question is already been answered but I can not seem to find an answer that fits my situation.

I am a contract IT worker and one of the locations where I occasionally work will be posting a 30.06 sign in the near future. I advised them that I do not feel safe because they are advertising to the bad guys that this is a gun free zone and would be "easy pickings" for some nut job to shoot up the place without fear of an armed response. In addition to that, I usually perform my work after normal business hours and on weekends where building is mostly vacant. Apparently the governing board has determined that a 30.06 sign is necessary to protect the building's occupants.

I advised them that I would no longer to perform work at that location due to their prohibition of handguns by CHL holders. Given that I am retired police and have passed a background check performed by that business, the highest authority at that particular location has no problem with me carrying my concealed handgun while on the property in question.

I understand that written permission exempting me from the 30.06 may allow me to legally carry. Is this true? If so, it there a template or example document that has passed muster in judicial proceedings? Can anyone point me to such a document?