In Lufkin yesterday

fadlan12 · #1

I went to Lufkin Tuesday for my neices birth. I have been in th habbit of looking for 30.06 postings. No postings at Woodland Heights medical center, nothing at morales's resturant on 1st (good mexican food!

), but at Kurth memorial library there was a 30.05 with a "no guns allowed" on the door. This is just an old law predating the 30.06 right?

I took my new carry rig which is is a Steyr M40A1 in a akj concealco holster: the holster makes the difference. It was easier to conceal than my kimber UC in a desantis holster.

longtooth · #2

Neither hospital here is posted. Only legal post of 30-06 that I know of is the Brookshire Brothers corparate offices. Their stores are not posted.

fadlan12 · #3

Thats good, I have yet to see one posted anywhere. I 'm sure this summer will mean more trips to east texas, it would be cool to get together to shoot at a range.

jimlongley · #4

30.05 is a way cities have of trying to skirt 30.06. You can guarantee if you are caught carrying that you will be reported to the police and they might arrest you. I think they are counting on the cost of a defense against an unlawful arrest being too much to bear.

longtooth · #5

fadlan12 wrote:Thats good, I have yet to see one posted anywhere. I 'm sure this summer will mean more trips to east texas, it would be cool to get together to shoot at a range.

I stay ready to keep from having to get ready.

Will go out tomorrow after work w/ Mom. She takes her renewal class Sat. & wants to brushup.

CHL/LEO · #6

30.05 is a way cities have of trying to skirt 30.06. You can guarantee if you are caught carrying that you will be reported to the police and they might arrest you. I think they are counting on the cost of a defense against an unlawful arrest being too much to bear.

Speaking only for myself, if I answered this call no one would get arrested. I would tell the CHL holder that at the legal request of the owner/manager he can't come there anymore and that would be it. If the complainant pushed it the most they could do is ask for a Criminal Trespass warning to be given to the CHL holder. All that means is that if they come back again after being warned they are subject to arrest.

Take your business elsewhere and then call the people who own the business and tell them why you're now going to their competition. They probably could care less but you never know. Perhaps the manager of the establishment had the sign posted and the owner had no clue as to how it might effect his revenue.

These type of blanket "no gun" signs apply to LEOs too. If we're off duty and someone has one of them posted then we're supposed to obey their wishes. There are other places we can't carry unless we are on-duty and in uniform. A plain clothes officer on-duty cannot carry into certain areas and even uniformed officers can't carry into certain areas. Most of them are federally regulated but we still have to be aware of them.

In my humble opinion this 51% rule is nonsense. CHL holders should be allowed to carry there. If they do something stupid while they are there (or anywhere for that matter) then they should be held accountable (the same applies for a LEO).

fadlan12 · #7

It was a library, does the 30.05 have to be posted like the 30.06 where it has to be spelled out? It was just a ghostbuster and penal code 30.05. Nothing else written.

You have to take verbal notification regardless so it would be a moot point if they said "hey no guns" if you were somehow made.

gearhead21 · #8

CHL/LEO wrote

These type of blanket "no gun" signs apply to LEOs too. If we're off duty and someone has one of them posted then we're supposed to obey their wishes. There are other places we can't carry unless we are on-duty and in uniform. A plain clothes officer on-duty cannot carry into certain areas and even uniformed officers can't carry into certain areas. Most of them are federally regulated but we still have to be aware of them.

This amazed me when I moved to Texas. As a police officer in Illinois, there was nowhere that I couldn't carry, on or off duty. Starting about 1998 (when we got a new courthouse) we did have to lock up our gun when going to court. The downside was that after I retired, carrying would have been a crime

stevie_d_64 · #9

CHL/LEO wrote:Speaking only for myself, if I answered this call no one would get arrested. I would tell the CHL holder that at the legal request of the owner/manager he can't come there anymore and that would be it. If the complainant pushed it the most they could do is ask for a Criminal Trespass warning to be given to the CHL holder. All that means is that if they come back again after being warned they are subject to arrest.

Point of order...

If a person is given a "Criminal Trespass" warning, because of their infraction of carrying a gun in a facility covered by a notice given under 30.06, and they comply...

Does the warning still stand if they return to the same facility at a later date and time, yet are not carrying and violating sufficient notice under 30.06???

My point being that the tresspass warning was issued because the CHL violated the 30.06, yet if they return to the same place without having the firearm on them is that still a violation of that order or warning???

I'm just trying to hypothisize, if that I have been issued a warning, and I leave, but I return to this public place unarmed, which was the case for the warning, and I return unarmed, is that really busting the condition of that warning...

See what I mean??? Technically, I admit I may be violating this warning, but conditionally, I would think I would not, since I am unarmed upon my return...