TexasCHLforum.com

zeroskillz wrote:The idea that it's okay to carry there because the Government owns it, is like saying the Bank can put rules and restrictions on what you do in your home because they own it.

Last time I checked, I have to pay homeowners insurance.
Why??? Why do I have to pay it?
Simple. Because "they" own it, and told me to.
Also, the point is moot because a bank and a homeowner sign a contract that both agree to.
You can't equate the same thing to an individual and their government.
The law contains the restriction about government property because it is meant to protect the citizen from an overstepping government.
Private business can mostly do whatever it wants.

Annoyed, as they say, repetition is the key.

The only reason most of us know this stuff like we do is because we talked about... a lot... ad nauseam.
Reading is great. Knowing the words helps, but asking about it helps a lot too. Reading, plus discussion, helps us learn it better. You ever wonder why they made you read the book, and THEN talk about what you just read, back in school? Repetition!

Please, continue to ask. You may come up with something we've never thought of.

Like I said back on page 3, they will now be posting at the Ft. Worth Gun Show, just as they do at the High Caliber Gun Show, at the same venue.

Again, sorry guys.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Actually, that makes my point. For whatever reason, one's chances of having to fend off an armed robbery gang, or even a mugger, at a gun show are miniscule.

I don't see a point made at all. The same chance exists that I will be confronted by a gunman this Sunday at church.
With such a "minuscule" chance, will I still carry?
You bet yer fanny!
If the chance exists, "Murphy" will show up eventually.
And as we all know:
"Chance favors the prepared mind."

Your AD point is valid and well taken.
However, the gang raiding scenario might be a bit flawed.
With all of the confusion over what is legal and right going on here, don't you think it would be even more so for those outside or our realm of understanding? As untrue as it is, the rest of the world is happy thinking we are deranged "gun nuts" who would "shoot first and ask questions later".
For all "they" know, everybody in there is armed to the teeth.
That'd sure keep me away, presuming I was John D. Badcritter.
(my apologies to anyone who may actually have that name, and my deepest sympathies... Need a hug?)

BUMMER!

Well guys, I have to offer my apologies.
I have single handedly caused a 30.06 sign to be posted at the next Fort Worth Gun Show.
I've been conversing with the guy who sponsors it and have been explaining 30.06 to him.
He never fully understood it before. He's a great guy.
Sadly, after our email conversing, he has chosen to have a compliant 30.06 sign made for the event.
Now that I know him personally, I won't be testing the "government property" section.
Just as I don't carry in others homes whom I know wouldn't appreciate it.
Personal choice, call me a hypocrite if you wish.

I don't know what to say... I'm so ashamed.
I'VE FORSAKEN MY CHL BRETHREN!!!

Oh well, he did offer me free admission for my help.
Sorry guys.

And since most people here didn't like to carry loaded there anyways, I guess it wasn't that big of a deal.
It's sure gonna feel weird carrying an unloaded, unconcealed gun around in public...

Ok, that's all. I prostrate myself before you and await your much deserved wrath. PM's only please. This thread need not wander any farther from topic.

Well, that was anything but brief.
Descriptive, informative, and full of proper grammatical splendor, but brief it was not.

Anyway, I have neither said, done, nor recommended doing anything illegal.
The simple fact that a law enforcement officer may not like it is no reason for me to not do it.
I follow the law just as he does.
There are officers who, to this day, oppose the carrying of firearms by the citizenry.
Their personal opinion is of little consequence to me if I am doing nothing wrong.

Do you wish to tell me that you would not do something that was entirely legal simply because an authority figure made it known they didn't like it?

P.S. Welcome to the board! And if you don't mind, a PM with the information you mentioned would be peachy.
I always like learning more about the community.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:How do you know for sure that there isn't some compliant 30.06 sign somewhere that you also may have missed?

If such a sign existed, and I missed it, then it wouldn't fit the "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public." stipulation, would it? Thereby making it null and void.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: What's "exhilarating" about sneaking a gun into some place where the people in charge clearly do not want you to do so?

I carry a gun for protection (that I hope I will never need)- not to be exhilarated.

Geez, semantics!
Perhaps a better choice of words (to untwist Fankie's girdle) would be "liberating".
I would feel liberated, as in, unbound by the tawdry confinements of unenforceable "No guns!" signs.

Is that better? Have I appeased you?

Believe me, I carry to protect myself, my wife, and my new little girl (OH YEAH, BTW, I HAD A BABY GIRL WHILE ON SABBATICAL FROM THE FORUM )
The idea that you would have me sacrifice my own, and their, security to bend to the wishes of a sign that in no way legally binds me from carrying my firearm, is appalling.
If bad people can enter a church and do bad things, a gun show is by no means whatsoever a "safe haven".

57Coastie wrote:kauboy wrote:

"Now, with absolutely no 30.06 sign in sight, I think I have the board's complete and full endorsement that I would have been well within the law to walk right past the officers and into the venue packin heat. Right???"

Wrong, Cowboy. Wrong. Not as long as my presence is accepted on this forum.

Jim

I sure hope you're kidding.
If you honestly believe that this opinion will be accepted by CHL holders who have read and understand the law, I don't suspect you'll be around here too long.
If a public facility(not mentioned as off limits in the law) does not post a 30.06 compliant sign, a CHL carrier may carry into it. (unless otherwise given proper notice, of course)
If you don't support such action... why in the world are you here?

Kerbouchard wrote:I don't know anybody who runs a gunshow or I would ask them, but here it goes.

People running gunshows in TX are very likely to know the law. Why don't they just post a legal sign and be done with it?(arguments about gov't property aside)

It just doesn't make since to go through the trouble of a "NO LOADED GUNS, NO exceptions for CHL's" sign...
And the way the sign in the picture was worded and colored, it could easily mean No loaded guns and that CHL's are excepted.

I just don't understand why they leave it up to interpretation...does anybody know for sure?

You might not believe this, but in my conversing, through email, with the very folks who host the Fort Worth Gun Show, they don't fully understand the law as much as they would like.
They said, as mentioned here, that it is mainly for insurance purposes that they have any signs, and off-duty officers manning the front table.

I knew some cocky soul would find that offensive.
It wasn't meant to be.
And he can blow his "verbal directive" out his ear.
An officer cannot just order you do do anything he wants at his whim without due cause.

Barron76 wrote: Also, I was taught in my CHL class that if there is an "unenforceable" (not a 30.06) sign that you can walk right past but if you are given specific orders either verbal or in writting stating that you cannot carry inside an establishment even with a CHL then that is as good as a 30.06 sign and you can still be in trouble for criminal trespass at that point...

Firstly, had there been a sign, I still disagree that any part of 30.06 can be legally enforced on government owned property.
Second, you are correct on verbal notice, if done so by the owner, or someone under the owners authority. But, if I had walked through the line, paid my fee and not said a word, they wouldn't have reason to give me verbal notice, and all would be peachy.
You are correct on the two above points.
However, any "written" notice must still contain the language exactly as described in 30.06. Formatting aside, the words must be the same.
Any writing other than that described in 30.06 of the Penal Code is considered null and void to a CHL carrier.
The signs at the show were non-compliant.

And I think that officer was out of line. He'd never admit it, because he probably doesn't know it.
Very few officers fully understand CHL law as it exists today.

Kraig, the main point here is, this time there was no 30.06 sign to speak of. Anywhere!
I do agree that the presence of officers in no way enforces an unenforceable sign, but it sure does add a slight discomfort factor to those fresh to CHL.

While I may have read the sign improperly and assumed they were now in favor of CHL, I'm still pleased to see that they no longer attempt to restrict carry based on an unenforceable 30.06 sign.

Ok, just got back in from dinner after church with the folks.

i snagged the pic like I promised. Sadly, on Saturday I was suffering from something I like to call "selective reading disorder".
I missed the second "NO"



However, just as the preceding day, no 30.06 sign. I could have walked right in, but I was with a friend and didn't even want the remote possibility of causing any scene with him there(embarrassing), so I hoofed it on back to the truck and regretfully disarmed.

Now, with absolutely no 30.06 sign in sight, I think I have the board's complete and full endorsement that I would have been well within the law to walk right past the officers and into the venue packin heat. Right???

Come May, when they return, I really hope the same scenario plays out and I can actually walk in armed. That will be exhilarating!

Any picture I take is for the sake of discussion here only. I don't care what "they" think about it.
Also, it isn't illegal for a venue to post an unenforceable sign. Nowhere in Texas law does it stat that it is an offense to post such a sign where one is not enforceable.

BTW Annoyed man, no that wasn't us. We were the ones pushing a baby stroller. (teach 'em young, that's my motto )

And Frankie, since you love to interpret real estate law, how does this argument strike you:

Noting that:
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Question:
Would the "by" in this clause not constitute that the "government entity" is the one doing the leasing? Therefore, this law would overstep any other laws pertaining to a lease when a governmental entity is involved.
Else, it would be "leased to a government entity" if we were to assume that the government entity is at the "end of the chain", as you say.

Anyways, I'll be heading there again today, hopefully to see the same sign as yesterday, snap a shot, (carry loaded), do some AR-15 perusing, and post the pic later tonight.

If anybody else is gonna be there, I'll be in a bright orange hat. Probably the brightest in the room, with an F-35 fighter plane on it.
C'ya there!