TexasCHLforum.com

Kythas wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

jmra wrote:I am somewhat surprised that an elected official hasn't proposed that 30.06 signs must have a state seal in order to be valid. This way all valid 30.06 signs would have to be purchased from the state at $100 a pop. Would be a revenue source for the state and posting a non-compliant sign of course would result in a $10,000 dollar fine.

That makes it too easy to post a sign. I'm all for making it as inconvenient as possible to post a valid sign.

I disagree. If a business owner wants to prohibit CHLs from carrying in his business, he has the absolute right to do so without jumping through governmental hoops and complying with government regulations.

Too often, people disagree with burdensome government regulations except when said regulations prohibit or restrict actions they disagree with. For example, many people who believe government should stay out of our lives as much as possible and advocate individual freedom also think it's a good idea for government to ban smoking at restaurants. This, to me, is hypocritical. Either we want liberty in all things or we don't.

A shop owner has the perfect right to post his business 30.06. I then have the right to choose not to do business at that shop, just as I would also choose to not eat at a restaurant which allows smoking. I believe the free market, free of government regulations and rules, would properly and more efficiently decide which was more profitable - allowing smoking/30.06/anything else or not.

I believe anything which restricts the freedom of a business owner to conduct his business in whichever way he sees fit to conduct it goes against the principles of freedom and liberty which has served our country so well; up until the last 50 years or so, anyway.

I would agree with you if the business owner's decisions were not enforced by the State via criminal sanction as they are with 30.06. If the business wants to use the power of the State to prohibit some behavior then they should have to jump through the hoops that the State legitimately sets.

I presume you are against the parking lot bill too, since it restricts the rights of employers to enforce behavior standards on their own property (or property of others) or in their employees' cars.

I've followed a lot of threads on 30.06 over the years here on Texas CHL Forum. A lot of commentary focuses on the definition of "notice" in the law and the specifications for written notice. The statute is very specific on what constitutes written "notice". However, there is a lot of discussion on the definition of "contrasting colors" and "conspicuously posted", English and Spanish, etc.

My input after spending time reading the law is that maybe we should be focusing more on "receiving" notice. I think one could argue that the detailed specifications for signs and written notice in the law were put there to emphasize that you have to "receive" the proper notice before you are trespassing.

In a criminal case the prosecution generally must prove the elements of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". So in the case of improperly worded signs, or signs that are too small, or not in Spanish...one is tempted to argue (successfully in my view) that the definition of "notice" was not established. I think a better argument, would be... "prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendant RECEIVED notice...". If the sign is too small, or wrongly worded, or posted somewhere where you probably didn't see it, I think it would be very difficult to prove that you received the notice.

To paraphrase the late Johnnie Cochrane... "If the sign doesn't fit (too small), you must acquit..."

CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if
the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code, on property of another without effective
consent; and
(2) received notice that:
...