Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

[APynckel]

If the 30.06 they posted, assuming that they went through the legal means to restrict their business from legal concealed carry, was posted incorrect? If there are legal ramifications for someone carrying concealed in a legally restricted area, are there not legal ramifications for improperly posting such a sign (such as fraudulent 30.06 signage, or improper signage)?

What if an establishment that wasn't a 51% posted a 51%?

I am just wondering, because they would not hesitate to arrest us, does that coin not have another face?

[Taurus.40]

When in doubt check out Texas 30.06. It tell which places are correctly posted.

[APynckel]

When in doubt check out Texas 30.06. It tell which places are correctly posted.

That's not the point of this thread. I want to know what penalties an establishment would face for posting illegal 30.06 or 51%, since we would be arrested for carrying in legally restricted areas.

[Keith B]

There are no legal ramifications for posting an improper 30.06 sign. There was a bill introduced last year that would have posed a penalty for them on government buildings, but not private. However it never made the floor.

As for 51%, there is a penalty for that from TABC. The establishment must post the correct sign per their license type. A call to TABC if one is found will get it corrected.

[APynckel]

There are no legal ramifications for posting an improper 30.06 sign. There was a bill introduced last year that would have posed a penalty for them on government buildings, but not private. However it never made the floor.

As for 51%, there is a penalty for that from TABC. The establishment must post the correct sign per their license type. A call to TABC if one is found will get it corrected.

Hrm.

Well being that the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed," one would assume that it would be "common sense" for there to be some kind of criminal offense of infringing on the right of an individual to carry in an establishment, especially if it (the restriction) was done fraudulently.

[Keith B]

There are no legal ramifications for posting an improper 30.06 sign. There was a bill introduced last year that would have posed a penalty for them on government buildings, but not private. However it never made the floor.

As for 51%, there is a penalty for that from TABC. The establishment must post the correct sign per their license type. A call to TABC if one is found will get it corrected.

Hrm.

Well being that the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed," one would assume that it would be "common sense" for there to be some kind of criminal offense of infringing on the right of an individual to carry in an establishment, especially if it (the restriction) was done fraudulently.

People can sue for anything, but in this case I think you would be throwing your money to the wind (aka the lawyer). However, while I am a strong supporter of 2A, I am just as strong a supporter of property owner rights. I feel a privately owned business should have the right to restrict whatever activity they feel they want to on their property. I have the right to not patronize that business.

[APynckel]

People can sue for anything, but in this case I think you would be throwing your money to the wind (aka the lawyer). However, while I am a strong supporter of 2A, I am just as strong a supporter of property owner rights. I feel a privately owned business should have the right to restrict whatever activity they feel they want to on their property. I have the right to not patronize that business.

I concur, but if we are required to obey legal 30.06 signage under penalty of arrest, the equal and opposite should be required of the private business.

[Keith B]

People can sue for anything, but in this case I think you would be throwing your money to the wind (aka the lawyer). However, while I am a strong supporter of 2A, I am just as strong a supporter of property owner rights. I feel a privately owned business should have the right to restrict whatever activity they feel they want to on their property. I have the right to not patronize that business.

I concur, but if we are required to obey legal 30.06 signage under penalty of arrest, the equal and opposite should be required of the private business.

How would a private business posting a 30.06 sign be fraudulent? I can see that they may not get the sign correct by law, but the intent of the business would be to prevent you from carrying concealed. But in doing so, how would they be trying to commit fraud?

[APynckel]

How would a private business posting a 30.06 sign be fraudulent? I can see that they may not get the sign correct by law, but the intent of the business would be to prevent you from carrying concealed. But in doing so, how would they be trying to commit fraud?

Is there not an application process to restrict CHL's from carrying within the building? Or do you just have to post the sign?

[Keith B]

How would a private business posting a 30.06 sign be fraudulent? I can see that they may not get the sign correct by law, but the intent of the business would be to prevent you from carrying concealed. But in doing so, how would they be trying to commit fraud?

Is there not an application process to restrict CHL's from carrying within the building? Or do you just have to post the sign?

It's the 30.06 sign. You should have learned that in your CHL class.

[APynckel]

It's the 30.06 sign. You should have learned that in your CHL class.

I could have sworn there was required registration with the state in order to post one.

Though I may be deluded.

None the less, if they post the sign incorrectly, how can you consider it to be legally binding?

[AlaskanInTexas]

It's the 30.06 sign. You should have learned that in your CHL class.

I could have sworn there was required registration with the state in order to post one.

Though I may be deluded.

None the less, if they post the sign incorrectly, how can you consider it to be legally binding?

Not delusional; just mistaken. Happens to us all.

[APynckel]

If they choose to arrest you, when they were at fault, why are they not subject to the same result if they didn't follow the law?

If the "gunbusters" sign isn't legally binding to a CHL, how is an improper 30.06 binding?

[AlaskanInTexas]

If they choose to arrest you, when they were at fault, why are they not subject to the same result if they didn't follow the law?

If the "gunbusters" sign isn't legally binding to a CHL, how is an improper 30.06 binding?

A non-compliant 30.06 sign has no legal effect on a CHL holder. Are you suggesting that if a business owner posts a non-compliant 30.06 sign they should be arrested? I think you might be getting a little worked up over a non-issue.

[3dfxMM]

It isn't.