TexasCHLforum.com

Scott in Houston wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:46 pm It's driven by their #1 expense, liability insurance. They're required to post.

I'm still waiting to hear this from someone who actually underwrites insurance or see it in writing on an insurance plan.

Its the excuse most of my previous employers have used, and yet I have extreme doubts about how truthful that is. If they can't show me a piece of paper saying 'this insurance is based on the exclusion of legally owned firearms from your property', then I will absolutely never believe it. That like a rental insurance agreement stipulating no candles may be used in the building... It doesn't exist.

Scott in Houston wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:27 pm I’d prefer no new sign legislation of any type. Any time a light shines on the concept of signage, it tends to create collateral damage that is not positive for those of us who carry.

EDIT: the only signage legislation I’d support is to remove the concept all-together!

This. And make "gun-buster" signs only apply to unlicensed carry (assuming we get constitutional carry soon) once someone is asked to leave.
All the regs for courts, schools, etc can remain for unlicensed/constitutional carry.

But more signage laws aren't going to help. We already have municipalities posting signs in areas where there are specifically not permitted to do so.