TexasCHLforum.com

dicion wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:I'm glad that there was no prosecution. I also personally know that the DA didn't prosecute a case in involving an illegal who had pawned in Irving 12 car stereos stolen in Bedford.

... and this piece of garbage hasn't been deported already, why?

It's hard enough to kick public officials out of office, much less deport them.

Wildscar wrote:

WildBill wrote:If you have a corpse, any reasonable person would conclude that the person is dead.

No no its like in the movies. They are never dead they always come back to life when you go to poke them.

Which is why you borrow Moonpie's Winchester to poke them with.

If you people keep alluding to zombies, in light of recent local events, I'm gonna start a "best ammo for aliens" thread.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:Furthermore, the law isn't vague. It requires that the language be 'identical' to that included in PC 30.06; not close, not similar, not meaning the same thing.

This is something else I find awkward with 30.06; the language must be exact, but refers to "this property." What if I want to mail someone notice that they are not allowed to carry on my property? (Assume, for the sake of argument, that I only want to prohibit the recipient, and not everyone, so posting on the property would not achieve the desired result.)

What if I own a chain of businesses, and want to notify someone in writing that they can't carry at any of them? IMO, changing the wording to allow "this property" to be replaced with language particularly describing the property referenced, and requiring that the sign or other notice state specifically (i.e. not just "Management," but at least "[business name] Store Manager" or similar) under whose authority the notice is given (with contact information) would be a good thing. (and potentially useful in cases of leased properties, since it would let us know whether to complain to the landlord or the manager -- more importantly, it would eliminate the appearance conveyed by the wording that the property is somehow off-limits by default under state law, by clarifying that the prohibition is by the decision of the owner or owner's representative) Any thoughts from the legal team?