TexasCHLforum.com

fagancarco wrote:I have seen the sign at only one Chilis. I didn't check to see if it was valid, just took my gun back to the car. Your advice is sound nevertheless,with one caveat.

Just as an old or improperly worded 30.06 makes it legal to carry in a establishment, a 51% sign improperly placed would do the same. I see no real difference. IMO

I'm open to correction if there's a legal opinion out there somewhere, or wording in the law I haven't seen.

You are wrong. See my comments above about "defense to prosecution."

CHL law doesn't make it legal to carry a concealed pistol. What it does is give you a defense to prosecution if you do......so long as you have the CHL license. Carrying the concealed handgun is still illegal. That is the legal default. You just have a defense to being prosecuted for it if you have the plastic.

Similarly, if a valid 30.06 is posted inside the premises rather than at the entrance, the CHL holder has a valid "defense to prosecution" if he enters the premises. BUT....once he is inside and sees the valid sign, he has now been given effective notice, and the only way he can continue to have a defense to prosecution is to leave immediately. If he stays, he is not only in violation of the law, but he also no longer has the defense to prosecution.

And as importantly, he can no longer make the moral claim to being a law-abiding person. You either are, or you aren't. There really isn't a gray area in-between. If you find that you are not supposed to be there and you don't leave immediately, then you are willfully breaking the law.

Just calling a spade a spade.....

"Defense to prosecution" is a trio of words which is liberally sprinkled throughout the mishmash of laws which regulate CHL. I can't cite chapter and verse off the top of my head, but it was not that long ago that it became a requirement for (red) 51% establishments to conspicuously post their 51% signage at the establishment's entrance. This change made it a "defense to prosecution" for the armed CHL holder if he/she walked into a (red) 51% establishment, unawares that they were not supposed to be there because of that sign. If I recall correctly, the recent law allows for the CHL holder to leave the premises without being arrested, once they are apprised of the situation—same as with 30.06 signs which are not posted at the entrances.

"Defense to prosecution" doesn't mean a thing is legal. It means that you have a defense to prosecution if arrested, so long as you comply with the law once you realize that you've broken it.

I understand Skiprr's objection. You, I, we, all got our CHLs based on a demonstrated reputation of being law-abiding people. A law-abider is one who consciously abides by the law to the best of his abilities. Sometimes, this is not convenient. But being a law-abider means that you don't pick and choose which laws you will obey and which you won't obey based on convenience. Therefore, when entering an establishment with no signage at the door, and then seeing a prominently displayed 30.06 sign at the back of the lobby, a law-abiding person will turn around and walk out. He or she won't finish their business and then leave with it is convenient. The same applies to 51% signs which are not posted at the entrance. Entering such a business armed is still illegal, but you have a defense to prosecution because you did not receive effective notice at the entrance. However, once you have seen the sign, you have received effective notice. And if you stay even in the face of having received that notice, then you are not only in violation of the law, but you also no longer have a defense to prosecution.

The law says that, once you have been given effective notice, you have to leave. By leaving the building, you remain a law-abider. By staying, you become a law-breaker.

It really IS that clear and simple. Personally, I don't care what somebody else does. I am not responsible for the reliability of their moral compass. But I know what I have to do if I want to continue to call myself a law-abiding person. If you are the kind of person who would stay and finish their meal after they had received effective notice, then you are not a law-abider, no matter how much you try to dissemble and redirect. The law is the law. If you don't break it, you are law-abiding. If you break the law because you did not have effective notice, then the law grants you a defense to prosecution as long as you get right with the law.......in this case, by leaving as soon as notice is received. If you break the law because you did not have effective notice, and then you continue to break the law despite having received effective notice, then A) you cannot reasonably claim to be a law-abiding person; B) you no longer have a defense to prosecution; and C) you are now a petty criminal.

Way to go.

Red or blue sign? It matters.