Asked to carry past a 30.06 sign

[lildave40]

Me and a co worker the other day went out to lunch. Upon arrival to the restaurant My coworker saw me stop and was looking for any signage. He asked me what I was doing? I told him I wanted to make sure that I am legal. As soon as I said that he says its concealed just go past it. At first I thought about doing it, but it came to my head if I go past the sign I will be breaking the law. Luckily there was no sign and I was able to enter. This got me really thinking that with all these signs going up. The criminals are getting more and more rights than people who follow the laws.

Sad days if you ask me.

[Papa_Tiger]

This got me really thinking that with all these signs going up. The criminals are getting more and more rights than people who follow the laws.

Sad days if you ask me.

The criminals don't have any more rights, they just have less regard for the law.

[zimmerdesignz]

Criminals don't have more rights but they have a lot more signs declaring those areas as easy pickings and welcome to the party. The signs should read:

Welcome any and all thieves. Inside are patrons that are intimated by guns and are therefore easy game. Please come in, wave your gun around and take all of our belongings.

[Lynyrd]

Criminals don't have "rights," as you put it. Criminals commit crimes, ignore laws, harm other people. Some in the media would love to get their hands on a story where someone with an LTC proceeded past a 30.06 sign while carrying. They could use that to drum up lots of loud talking by liberal politicians who would love......, you get the idea.

If one of my friends prompted me in that way we would have had a very frank discussion about my desire to keep my license, and why.

[jb2012]

I have always been curious how things would wind up should a person ignore 30.06 and be required to use lethal force. Is the lethal force then considered murder regardless, because the person shouldn't have had the gun to begin with? Will the lethal force be justified but person given a ticket for ignoring 30.06? Or will all be dropped because of justified self defense. I'm sure it is different from city to city, county to county, and state to state, just curious what everyone's opinion is!

[denwego]

I have always been curious how things would wind up should a person ignore 30.06 and be required to use lethal force. Is the lethal force then considered murder regardless, because the person shouldn't have had the gun to begin with? Will the lethal force be justified but person given a ticket for ignoring 30.06? Or will all be dropped because of justified self defense. I'm sure it is different from city to city, county to county, and state to state, just curious what everyone's opinion is!

I've thought about that because of the penal code's section on justifying deadly force and the presumption it was reasonable:

§9.32c - (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

Now, if you were carrying past a 30.06 sign and therefore trespassing, no jury is gonna care about that if some terrorist came in with a machine gun and tried to Paris up the place, but otherwise it could be a problem - if you're engaged in any criminal activity, even something as trifling as a Class C Misdemeanor, a prosecutor could make the argument that you had the duty to retreat before using deadly force. It has always struck me as a tougher argument to make that "I couldn't run away in the circumstances" versus "he was trying to commit a violent felony against me"... less patent proof in the first situation, often.

[goose]

I have always been curious how things would wind up should a person ignore 30.06 and be required to use lethal force. Is the lethal force then considered murder regardless, because the person shouldn't have had the gun to begin with? Will the lethal force be justified but person given a ticket for ignoring 30.06? Or will all be dropped because of justified self defense. I'm sure it is different from city to city, county to county, and state to state, just curious what everyone's opinion is!

I suspect that it is even more complex than that. Does the perp have a track record? Domestic violence, other assault crimes, etc, etc. Did the perp pistol whip or shoot anyone before you shot? Was it a 17 year old and this was their first offense, it just happened to be with a gun and you around? Were their four perps or only one? Probably way too many variables. I think that we could conjure up instances (geography you described included) that could readily go both ways. Like so many discussions here, it is all speculation until a couple of court rulings start to give precedence.

[goose]

tried to Paris up the place

(I just liked the turn of phrase)

[treadlightly]

Me and a co worker the other day went out to lunch. Upon arrival to the restaurant My coworker saw me stop and was looking for any signage. He asked me what I was doing? I told him I wanted to make sure that I am legal. As soon as I said that he says its concealed just go past it. At first I thought about doing it, but it came to my head if I go past the sign I will be breaking the law. Luckily there was no sign and I was able to enter. This got me really thinking that with all these signs going up. The criminals are getting more and more rights than people who follow the laws.

Sad days if you ask me.

One of my favorite philosophical points is "Don't accommodate what you don't want."

If you don't want 30.06 signs, don't accommodate them by allowing them to not inconvenience you. Accept the hindrance. Let it spur you to higher levels of diplomacy to eradicate the silly things.

Of course, remain of good cheer. Don't stoop to the level of an anti. Someone opposed to guns will always win a pro-gun argument based on strident or angry thinking.

Unfortunately, that rule doesn't work in reverse.

[rotor]

I have always been curious how things would wind up should a person ignore 30.06 and be required to use lethal force. Is the lethal force then considered murder regardless, because the person shouldn't have had the gun to begin with? Will the lethal force be justified but person given a ticket for ignoring 30.06? Or will all be dropped because of justified self defense. I'm sure it is different from city to city, county to county, and state to state, just curious what everyone's opinion is!

This is not from Texas but a physician I believe last year, was carrying concealed illegally in the hospital where he worked when a psychiatric patient tried to kill him. He actually was wounded, he pulled his concealed handgun and shot the perp. From what I remember the physician was considered a hero as it was felt the perp was going to try to kill a bunch of people. Now has that changed the hospitals philosophy about carry?? I don't know. I also don't know if charges were placed against the physician. But he is still alive.

[WildBill]

Maybe I am over simplifying things or I don't understand the point of this thread.
If a business has a 30.06 sign you have two choices. Disarm or go elsewhere. That is your decision.
If you think that your safety is jeopardized by being unarmed and not willing to take the risk. Don't go in.
Of course you can still continue to try to convince businesses not to post 30.06 signs, but until they take their sign down. that is their decision.

[baldeagle]

I have always been curious how things would wind up should a person ignore 30.06 and be required to use lethal force. Is the lethal force then considered murder regardless, because the person shouldn't have had the gun to begin with? Will the lethal force be justified but person given a ticket for ignoring 30.06? Or will all be dropped because of justified self defense. I'm sure it is different from city to city, county to county, and state to state, just curious what everyone's opinion is!

I've thought about that because of the penal code's section on justifying deadly force and the presumption it was reasonable:

§9.32c - (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

Now, if you were carrying past a 30.06 sign and therefore trespassing, no jury is gonna care about that if some terrorist came in with a machine gun and tried to Paris up the place, but otherwise it could be a problem - if you're engaged in any criminal activity, even something as trifling as a Class C Misdemeanor, a prosecutor could make the argument that you had the duty to retreat before using deadly force. It has always struck me as a tougher argument to make that "I couldn't run away in the circumstances" versus "he was trying to commit a violent felony against me"... less patent proof in the first situation, often.

If the place is signed, then you do not have the right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used. You are trespassing. So your fate is in the hands of the jury. If they decide your trespass is offset by your actions, they may acquit you. If they don't, you could be put away for a long time.

You may or may not think this is reasonable. I'm just quoting the law and pointing out that by walking past the sign, you have indeed broken the law and lost your grounds for self defense.

[Unocat]

Decided to delete and not participate. I think I should stock to the holsters sub forum

[rentz]

as an leo friend once told me, its a personal decision....but IF you actually have to use it you wont really care too much about having broken a law if it saves your life.

[jb2012]

Disclaimer** I don't and won't carry past a 30.06 just one of those questions I was curious about.