TexasCHLforum.com

If they are attempting to combine the required TABC blue sign with a voluntary 30.06 sign, they left out the language on the blue sign about the penalties for unlicensed possession (maximum 10 years in prison or $10,000 fine). Can they do that? Does TABC allow businesses to alter or omit any of the language on the blue sign (or the red signs for that matter)? Seems like a terrible precedent if so - a business shouldn't be able to just paraphrase whatever it wants and call it TABC compliant.

Keith B wrote:The TABC sign does grant you permission to carry there, it just says it's not against the law. The TABC requires those signs to be posted, so the property owner does not have an option.

The property owner DOES have the option to not post a 30.06, as that is their choice to post it to prevent carry by a CHL. So, they are stating they do not want you carrying there and have followed the requirements in the statutes to legally prevent it.

Yes, I understand all that. Did you look at the picture posted by the OP?

The point is that it appears that Whole Foods has taken the TABC sign language, modified the language in some bizarre fashion to point out that the TABC code allows you to carry if you have a CHL, but then says "but we won't let you carry here" and splices the 30.06 language onto the end. It's a very goofy - and frankly stupid - way to do it as they go out of their way to tell you that they are forbidding what state law allows. It's bizarre to me that they would go to this much trouble when the requirements are otherwise pretty cut and dried.

Can a business modify a TABC sign? I was under the impression that TABC's language was promulgated just like 30.06.

I took my daughter ice skating at the downtown Austin Whole Foods this afternoon and had the exact same question about the sign as the OP. I even took a picture and was intending to post it here. Great minds think alike!

fwiw, there was an identical sign next to the one I saw in Spanish, so I guess they have that part covered. I don't know whether the letters were 1" or not, I didn't measure. I assume for the sake of discussion that they are although overall the sign seemed smaller than others I've seen.

My question was with the wording. As someone noted, they seem to be sort of combining a TABC blue (non 51%) sign with a 30.06. I guess there's nothing technically wrong with that except that I thought TABC promulgated their signs, and I didn't think the blue signs went out of their way to say that you can carry concealed if you have a license. So there's that.

I know that there is not a standard, promulgated form of 30.06 other than the 1" and Spanish requirements, but I've never seen one as anything other than a stand-alone. But I'm not aware of anything saying that can't combine it with anything they want as long as the required wording is there in the proper size.

What is strange, to me anyway, is why would you state that you CAN carry concealed under one statute if you have a license, but then in the very next breath say "but you can't do it here because of this other statute". Why not just post the required TABC blue sign and then post a 30.06? This makes no sense. The statutes aren't that hard to understand and some lawyer somewhere had to come up with this goofy hybrid version on his own.