TexasCHLforum.com

I know that we can't carry our concealed firearm where a posting of a 30.06 or 51% sign. I know from my class that the instructor informed us if a store has a signed that is not a 30.06 such as Firearms Prohibited or no guns allowed that we can still carry our concealed into the premises. Am I correct? Stores such as IKEA or Toysrus has a sign that is not a 30.06. It's a generic sign that they posted up.

Correct!

Unless it is a 30.06 or 51% you are legal to carry.

Now, if someone, say the owner or manager happened to see you had a weapon and asked you to leave, then you need to leave as that would be verbal notice that you would need to abide by. This is true if no signs of anytype.

There has been lots of discussion about illegal 30.06 signs here too. For instance, say the lettering is to small. You have to decide if you want to maybe be a test case on that one, or maybe have to take a ride to jail. Personally, I would not test a none compliant 30.06. I would just leave and give my business to another establishment where I know I'm legal.

If I'm wrong with any of this, someoe will jump in and correct me.

lws, you summed it up pretty accuratly. Good job!

MinhWin wrote:now guns allowed

Carry with a smile!

The 51% sign itself doesn't make it illegal to carry. Currently it is not the sign that makes a 51% place illegal it is the actual classification by TAbC

Liberty wrote:The 51% sign itself doesn't make it illegal to carry. Currently it is not the sign that makes a 51% place illegal it is the actual classification by TAbC

Not to take issue, but it is the classification by TABC which defines whether a 51% sign is required or not:

"Sec. 411.204. NOTICE REQUIRED ON CERTAIN PREMISES. (a) A business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the business premises a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c).
(b) A hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the hospital or nursing home, as appropriate, a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c) other than the requirement that the sign include on its face the number "51".
(c) The sign required under Subsections (a) and (b) must give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) A business that has a permit or license issued under the Alcoholic Beverage Code and that is not required to display a sign under this section may be required to display a sign under Section 11.041 or 61.11, Alcoholic Beverage Code.

(e) This section does not apply to a business that has a food and beverage certificate issued under the Alcoholic Beverage Code."

I think we might be saying the same thing, but differently.

joe817 wrote: I think we might be saying the same thing, but differently.

I believe we are, the only reason I brought it up is that, the sign has shown up in some inapropriate places and therefore invalid, and some times the signs aren't there when they should be. This could get a CHL holder in trouble, at least until September when this gets fixed.

edited to Fix the month

You are both saying the same basic thing, but there is a major difference. Under the current law, the TABC makes the 51% determination. It has two effects. the first is the requirement to post the sign and the second is the premises are off limits.

But the important part for this discussion is that the place is off limits to a CHL whether or not they obey the rules to post the sign. If TABC says they are 51%, they are off limits even if they are also breaking the laws by not posting.

srothstein wrote:You are both saying the same basic thing, but there is a major difference. Under the current law, the TABC makes the 51% determination. It has two effects. the first is the requirement to post the sign and the second is the premises are off limits.

But the important part for this discussion is that the place is off limits to a CHL whether or not they obey the rules to post the sign. If TABC says they are 51%, they are off limits even if they are also breaking the laws by not posting.

However, if they ARE breaking the law by not posting the sign, a nice call to TABC is warranted, and they will probably be fined if found to be improperly (or not at all) posted.

The TABC folks I've spoken to in the past were very friendly and helpful and did not seem dismissive of my claim at all. They stated that they would immediately investigate it. I don't know if they did or not, as I have not been back to the establishment I reported since, however, the gentleman I spoke with seemed genuinely interested in my claim.

It felt to me that they do not get very many citizen complaints about the signs, so when I called, they were all about it. I think we should all make it a duty of ours to call and report any establishments that are improperly posting signs, as it can have very Real, and Serious consequences for US, if something happens at one of those locations, and it is improperly posted.

Thanks Steve. Just another reinforcer that, when in doubt, go look at the establishment's license itself.

srothstein wrote:the place is off limits to a CHL whether or not they obey the rules to post the sign. If TABC says they are 51%, they are off limits even if they are also breaking the laws by not posting.

I appreciate these discussions for these complex rules are starting to sink in my thick cranium. Does that mean if they're illegally not posting the 51% sign, we can still be breaking the law? Seems to me that if it's not posted, we should be in the clear. How are we to know what their classification is unless they tell us? Thanks in advance for the clarification.

Hos wrote:I appreciate these discussions for these complex rules are starting to sink in my thick cranium. Does that mean if they're illegally not posting the 51% sign, we can still be breaking the law?

That's correct this month. Right now the presence or lack of a sign makes no difference in whether we're violating 46.035 by carrying there.

Hos wrote:How are we to know what their classification is unless they tell us?

Apparently we're expected to disarm, go inside, and ask to see their physical license. For whatever reason, the online system has nearly every detail one could want about a licensed premises except their 51% status.

boomerang wrote:

Hos wrote:I appreciate these discussions for these complex rules are starting to sink in my thick cranium. Does that mean if they're illegally not posting the 51% sign, we can still be breaking the law?

That's correct this month. Right now the presence or lack of a sign makes no difference in whether we're violating 46.035 by carrying there.

I just want clarify that after This month if there is no 51% sign we are good to go. If there is a 51% sign and the place is not a legitimate 51% establishment we can carry.

Liberty wrote:

boomerang wrote:

Hos wrote:I appreciate these discussions for these complex rules are starting to sink in my thick cranium. Does that mean if they're illegally not posting the 51% sign, we can still be breaking the law?

That's correct this month. Right now the presence or lack of a sign makes no difference in whether we're violating 46.035 by carrying there.

I just want clarify that after This month if there is no 51% sign we are good to go. If there is a 51% sign and the place is not a legitimate 51% establishment we can carry.

Actually, doesn't the revised statute (can't find the new verbiage right now) state 'defense to prosecution'? If that is the case,then I don't consider it 'good to go', just that we have a defense if caught. They can still arrest you and cause you lots of legal headaches until you can go to prove your defense and they drop the charge or you win in court.

Keith B wrote:Actually, doesn't the revised statute (can't find the new verbiage right now) state 'defense to prosecution'? If that is the case,then I don't consider it 'good to go', just that we have a defense if caught. They can still arrest you and cause you lots of legal headaches until you can go to prove your defense and they drop the charge or you win in court.

IIRC, the main difference is the burden of proof at trial. The prosecution must show an exception does not apply, whereas the defense is required to assert a defense to prosecution and show it does apply.