TexasCHLforum.com

APynckel wrote:

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?

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.

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?

APynckel wrote:

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?

APynckel wrote:

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.

APynckel wrote:

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.