But it may not always be that simple. I work in one of three office buildings owned by a company in California and managed locally. One Christmas season about 3 years ago, an individual bought a surplus AK47 clone for his brother as a Christmas gift. Not wanting to leave it in his car in the parking lot, he chose to carry into the building to his office to keep it secure form the rash of auto burglaries that had plagued the area.. It doesn't matter that he was dressed in business attire and not carrying it in any form of threatening manor it still triggered a MWAG 911 call. By whatever chain of events that then followed, the out of state liability insuring agent instructed the California-based owner to order the local management company to post valid 30.06 signs on the buildings. It doesn't matter if they have no impact or bearing on an individual open carrying a rifle into the building that originally triggered this cascade of buffoonery.Charles L. Cotton wrote: ...
To those who still argue that in-your-face open-carry tactics are not harmful to gun rights overall, I give you Exhibit A. Prior to demonstrations with long guns, 30.06 wasn't even on the radar. Now, even though we will be able to preserve TPC §30.06 there likely will be more businesses posting 30.06 signs because they are more aware of the terms of TPC §30.06.
Some claim they won't enter a store if any "no guns" signs are posted and that's a personal choice. I will follow the law. I will also give the business owner the benefit of the doubt as some percentage of generic "no guns" sings are posted knowing they do not prohibit CHLs from carrying.
Chas.
Now all three buildings that sit side-by-side there on the beltway are clearly posted. And within those buildings are many businesses including a drug testing facility for pre-employment, a workforce group, many business that employ individuals such as myself and several other places where people who are visiting have no choice go elsewhere - they must disarm to abide by the law and that's it.
It doesn't matter if some of the business owners in the buildings want or don't want the signs. Moving your business whether it occupies a single suite or an entire floor is a painful expense for the business.
You have to understand that all it has to to is finally reach that "critical mass" where your constantly finding yourself disarming a couple times a day in order to go about your daily business. Then of course is the follow-on issue of thieves figuring out that parking lots of 30.06 posted business are ripe for the picking. Remember how great it was that Hospitals required the 30.06 posting to actually affect CHL carriers? In the 4+ years I have been carrying enough of the hospitals have caught on that it has reached the tipping point so if I know I'm visiting a hospital I'm pretty much prepared to disarm. There are 96 hospitals in the TEXAS3006.COM database alone.
My money says that "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America" like most other non-CHL holders in the state of Texas haven't a clue what the 30.06 provision is or they would have demanded Target post them up instead of just issuing a statement. Nonetheless, every follow on discussion on every news article about the Target and Starbucks fiasco is ripe with discussion about how 30.06 signs are not on the doors at Target or Starbucks yet. No one seems to have enough self control to stop blurting "Beetlejuice".
How about we stop fanning the flames and let it burn out. Should some group attempt to word up a bill against 30.06 all CHLers need contact their state reps en masse and explain where their vote goes in order to bury it. We are being our own worst enemy on this one. We need to stop educating the antis on what the 30.06 provision is and how to use it or they will eventually find it a powerful tool to beat us over the head with.