TexasCHLforum.com

Craven Moorehead wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Craven Moorehead wrote:I've had my CHL now for about 7 years and haven't seen a 30.06 sign yet. I live in a fairly large city and the only signs I've seen relating to carrying a firearm are on liquor stores and convenient stores. It's not a 30.06 sign and it says, the unlicensed carry of a handgun is prohibited on the premises. I personally don't care what kind of sign someone has posted. If they say no guns, I don't go in. They may be losing a customer, but if it's private property that's their right. No way am I going to risk losing my CHL to prove a point.

I'm new to the CHL forum and would also like to say howdy. I joined up mainly to keep an eye on what's going on with the open carry bills and to see what folks are saying about it. Living in a very populated city I won't be doing any open carry but I think it's a good thing. Won't have to worry about accidentally showing or printing. If out in the country,rural areas, or places where I know people won't freak out, I certainly would open carry. Lets hope the House gets it done.

Welcome to the forum Craven.

Have you gone into any of the businesses with the "unlicensed possession" signs?

Why yes I have. Because I'm licensed.

Craven Moorehead wrote:I've had my CHL now for about 7 years and haven't seen a 30.06 sign yet. I live in a fairly large city and the only signs I've seen relating to carrying a firearm are on liquor stores and convenient stores. It's not a 30.06 sign and it says, the unlicensed carry of a handgun is prohibited on the premises. I personally don't care what kind of sign someone has posted. If they say no guns, I don't go in. They may be losing a customer, but if it's private property that's their right. No way am I going to risk losing my CHL to prove a point.

I'm new to the CHL forum and would also like to say howdy. I joined up mainly to keep an eye on what's going on with the open carry bills and to see what folks are saying about it. Living in a very populated city I won't be doing any open carry but I think it's a good thing. Won't have to worry about accidentally showing or printing. If out in the country,rural areas, or places where I know people won't freak out, I certainly would open carry. Lets hope the House gets it done.

mloamiller wrote:

mloamiller wrote:Grand Prairie Police and Fire headquarters building, at Arkansas and 161, is 30.06 posted.

I sent an email to the city attorney asking them to explain why this was posted; no response.

I was in the building earlier this week and saw the Chief of Police, so I asked him about it. He acknowledged that the sign couldn't be enforced in the public, non-secure areas. He said it was there because if you did carry into the building and entered the secure area, you would have to put your gun in a lockbox, at which point it would be obvious you were armed. His concern was that the civilian receptionists would then feel unsafe, knowing someone was armed, and he would have to add bullet-proof screens around the receptionists desk. This would not only be expensive, but would ruin the open feeling of the reception area (and it is a very nice building/lobby). He went on to say that if anyone challenged the placement of the signs, he may have to do that anyway.

So the good news is he knew the law and acknowledged my right to carry in the public areas of the building. I'm not real happy with the decision to post the sign anyway, however, as it just makes it more confusing for those who aren't as familiar with the law, and what can be enforced.

cb1000rider wrote:

C-dub wrote:[
And the two statutes may seem to contradict each other, but the top one is the only one of them is required. Then, if they do want to prohibit CHLs from carrying they must post the 30.06. They tried and almost succeeded, but fell short by not including the Spanish text.

Sir, did you see the posted sign at whole foods?
Yes. I noticed it wasn't compliant as it didn't have Spanish language.
Sir, do you speak spanish?
No.

Yea, I don't want to sit in front of a jury on that...

JKTex wrote:I just edited to change proper to improper 30.06.

I agree, for those no familiar with the laws, they might be confused. Either way, the top is posted all over the place and shouldn't be confusing or foreign, and the bottom just doesn't cut the mustard. Although I've never figured out how to actually cut mustard, unless you let it dry.

JKTex wrote:Someone's trying to save space by combining 2 signs on a home made sign vs the TABC provided and required sign and a proper 30.06.

You know what they say about cutting corners to save a buck...........

I assume it's a grocery store, small local place?

BTW, it's not relevant to this thread though.

JKTex wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

JKTex wrote:

JohnMarine wrote:Austin city hall is posted. They hold court some times and have the whole building posted everyday regardless if there is court that day or not.

A court or building with space used as a court is a prohibited place regardless of 30.06 so if Austin City Hall is posted, it's for no effective reason.

This is incorrect. The definition of "premises" includes "a building or portion of a building, . . ." If only a portion of a building is used as a court, then only that portion of the building is off-limits.

Chas.

Thanks for the correction. I have to admit I don't think I've ever read it, I just thought I understood it. So much for thinking.

JKTex wrote:They're still wrong. 30.06 has nothing to do with carrying in a court.

Carry may be illegal if the building does house a court, but they still don't understand the law, and still don't understand that.

jb03 wrote:My local doctors office and hospital have 30.06 signs posted at their entrances.(basically one building). This is a hospital funded by taxpayers so am unclear on the legality of them posted 30.06 signs. However, their signs are invalid as they are only posted in English.

blackdog8200 wrote:UPDATE 2/28/2013

WHO SAYS YOU CAN"T BEAT CITY HALL?

I Recieved a call from Mark McAvoy the Executive Director for the Houston Permitting Center,

He informed me that the sign on the door will be removed in the next few days! They are reviewing their policy and Executive order to comply with State Law. He did say they were not going to advertise the change but that I should expect to see it soon.

Molon Labe

RottenApple wrote: And last but not least, regardless of the 30.06 sign, the Sports Complex is not off limits (if it is actually owned by the city/county) unless there is a professional sporting event going on. I'm fairly certain your grandkids' ballgames would not qualify.

Dieseldave1 wrote:Last Sunday I attended a non-sporting event at the Dell Diamond (baseball team) in Round Rock, TX. As I approached the entrance, an appropriate 30.06 was posted. However, if there was no professional sporting event that day, is it legal to CCW?

E10 wrote:I visited City Hall again just today. The 30.06 signs at the rear entrance aren't within specs - the letters are less than 1" high. I pointed this out to the unarmed security guards, and they just laughed. No active metal detectors today - only on City Council meeting days, I guess. I'm considering turning this into an avocation. Might even be fun, arguing with attorneys and politicians and such.

sjfcontrol wrote: I would like to think that since the definition of 'premises' is "...building or portion of a building...", that they would be restricted to making only the smallest reasonable portion of that building off limits. I suppose it would take a court case to set precedent.

sjfcontrol wrote:

C-dub wrote: If you are referring to this post from Charles, I think there is a difference between the city that has done this by putting a "clerk's" office in City Hall and declaring it off limits than an actual Court. Again, I could be wrong, but I thought the intent of this request was to point out how the statute was being abused by cities, not that it was being applied incorrectly. I believe, that his example of a city putting a court clerk's office in City Hall and declaring the entire building off limits is legal, but severely abuses and takes advantage of the statute.

(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;

I would contend that the highlighted portion is a distinction without a difference. If it's being mis-applied, it's being abused.