Section 30.06 is the only part of the restrictions about where CHL holders cannot carry that I do not want to see repealed. I fully agree with the property rights argument, but it is also our right not to patronize those businesses where the signs are posted.frankie_the_yankee wrote:1) 30.06 type limitations will not be removed next year. It will be 2009 at the earliest. Even then, it will be an uphill battle. Look at what happened with the parking lot bill this year. The business interests kept it off the calendar until the last minute and it died without a vote. Expect them to fight 10 times harder against repealing 30.06 provisions.
Even though they represent workplaces and public accommodations, expect them to scream "Private property rights!" from every rooftop.
It is also within the rights of a business to post a non-30.06 compliant sign, and perfectly legal for us as CHL holders to ignore noncompliant signs.
I do not want any punishment for posting non-compliant 30.06 signs, but I would like a punishment for failure to post a compliant 51% sign (I would also like to see posting requirements similar to 30.06 signs), or, barring that, a defense to UCW in a 51% establishment that a compliant sign was not posted.2) There is even less of a chance that any bill would pass that would punish people for posting non-compliant signs, or for posting 30.06 signs in places where they are not enforceable (i.e. various government buildings). It is very rare that the government makes law that allows its own agents to be thrown in jail for failing to perform some duty (or improperly performing it).
Tossing in jail is something they do to you, not to themselves.