30.06/30.07 signs went up at work.

[growlerVII]

So, after the passage of the open carry law in Texas my employer put up signs on the door. No biggie, private business and all. But, I felt and, I'm not alone in this; that the signs paint a really big bullseye on us. They're only posted on employee entrances, so any vendor coming in wouldn't see them. When I asked about them I was told that management didn't "want it to become a problem". As far as I know, no one carries, or has carried at work........it has never been a problem. Am I wrong for feeling so exposed?

[BurtG]

They've created a free fire zone where one didn't exist before.
No worries.

[growlerVII]

My thoughts exactly. And come to find out the signs only apply to a select few........apparently some personnel are a bit more privileged than others. I'm not whining, again......private business and all, the owners can do as they please. It's just a little unsettling to me. They could've just posted a memo.

[C-dub]

By only placing 30.07 signs at employee entrances and not at each entrance I think the 30.07 signs are invalid. Also, if these employee entrances are not located where others would or could see them the 30.06 signs may also be invalid. I remember another thread quite a while back where a company put up 30.06 signs in the employee break room. Those signs would be invalid because they were not in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

It's a very gray area that I don't think has been challenged in court. Is a sign that I can see as an employee, but that is not clearly visible to the public, effective notice to me?

[Kenneth77]

I think that there should have been no laws made for the 06-07 sings IMO , i went to go see a movie in burleson friday and saw they are now posted and lost my business just glad i saw them before we got tickets. I thought that terry said there was going to be laws changed on that but i could be wrong .

[rtschl]

I think that there should have been no laws made for the 06-07 sings IMO

Kenneth77, if that had happened then any gunbuster sign and any size placed anywhere on the premises could result a Class A misdemeanor now a Class C for most places for CHL/LTC. Those big ugly signs are for our benefit to make sure we get properly notified.

Now it is another argument to wish that places that are open to the general public would not have the force of law for carrying past a sign rather than when someone refuses to leave when asked like most other trespass citations.

[lildave40]

I am glad someone posted this. I have a question one of my customers just posted both signs not at the entrance of the building but at the entrance of the office. My question is The receptionist sits in front of the signs and does not go into that area that is posted. Can she still carry at work because she does not go into that location?

[ScottDLS]

I think that there should have been no laws made for the 06-07 sings IMO

Kenneth77, if that had happened then any gunbuster sign and any size placed anywhere on the premises could result a Class A misdemeanor now a Class C for most places for CHL/LTC. Those big ugly signs are for our benefit to make sure we get properly notified.
...

Maybe. Though during the two years before 30.06 we never did find out whether 30.05 could be applied that way, as the then AG opined 20 years ago. However, it's good that we have a clear sign definition in 30.06/7 now and that the penalty for missing it has been reduced.

On the other hand, it's sometimes beneficial to have vagueness vs. a clear legal definition. Such vagueness often benefits the defendant in criminal cases. The best defense against prosecution from these statutes is to not get charged, due to the effectiveness of your concealment.

Before everybody gets to squawking about Forum Rule 3, let me offer that I wouldn't want to get tried for walking past a (nominally) non-compliant sign (wrong wording). Even though it's CLEARLY NOT ILLEGAL per the statute. So what, the law is what the judge says it is and they are not all perfect. That's why we measure it against the potential penalty when deciding the best course of action.

[rotor]

My thoughts exactly. And come to find out the signs only apply to a select few........apparently some personnel are a bit more privileged than others. I'm not whining, again......private business and all, the owners can do as they please. It's just a little unsettling to me. They could've just posted a memo.

1. You can talk to your bosses to see if they change their minds.
2. You can try to get a written exemption, some apparently have exemptions.
3. You can go bare.
4. You can quit.

[ScottDLS]

My thoughts exactly. And come to find out the signs only apply to a select few........apparently some personnel are a bit more privileged than others. I'm not whining, again......private business and all, the owners can do as they please. It's just a little unsettling to me. They could've just posted a memo.

1. You can talk to your bosses to see if they change their minds.
2. You can try to get a written exemption, some apparently have exemptions.
3. You can go bare.
4. You can quit.

Or you could just carry anyway and take your chances. Note I am not advocating this, but it is a choice...just like driving 56 in a 55...

[rotor]

My thoughts exactly. And come to find out the signs only apply to a select few........apparently some personnel are a bit more privileged than others. I'm not whining, again......private business and all, the owners can do as they please. It's just a little unsettling to me. They could've just posted a memo.

1. You can talk to your bosses to see if they change their minds.
2. You can try to get a written exemption, some apparently have exemptions.
3. You can go bare.
4. You can quit.

Or you could just carry anyway and take your chances. Note I am not advocating this, but it is a choice...just like driving 56 in a 55...

I guess that is a choice but since we have a LTC and tend to be honest and law abiding people I don't believe it's in our nature to purposely break the law. And I know that nobody here is advocating that.

[ScottDLS]

Nor am I, but I've heard some people around here make right turns on red from the outside lane....

[Kenneth77]

I think that there should have been no laws made for the 06-07 sings IMO

Kenneth77, if that had happened then any gunbuster sign and any size placed anywhere on the premises could result a Class A misdemeanor now a Class C for most places for CHL/LTC. Those big ugly signs are for our benefit to make sure we get properly notified.

Now it is another argument to wish that places that are open to the general public would not have the force of law for carrying past a sign rather than when someone refuses to leave when asked like most other trespass citations.

Me saying there should be laws on having the signs means that i believe that companies should not be able to exclude people from their business based on a law that says you can carry if you have the proper license now with saying that i feel like a bar is not a place to be carrying unless you plan on not drinking which i would say for most of us that is hard to do . I just think that most companies that post up sings are being lied to buy someone saying they have to put them up and i blame that on the ATF because some stores have admitted they where told by law they have to and i am not talking about the 51% either . To me this whole 06-07 thing is the same has not allowing someone in your business because of their color !!!

[rssecurity]

Or you could just carry anyway and take your chances.

It is a bigger chance than you think. Remember that if you are breaking any law except for minor traffic violations and you have to [justifiably] use your gun, you lose the presumption of reasonableness should the DA want to prosecute. That means you just greatly increased your chances of jail time. And carrying past a valid sign is not a minor traffic violation.

[ScottDLS]

Or you could just carry anyway and take your chances.

It is a bigger chance than you think. Remember that if you are breaking any law except for minor traffic violations and you have to [justifiably] use your gun, you lose the presumption of reasonableness should the DA want to prosecute. That means you just greatly increased your chances of jail time. And carrying past a valid sign is not a minor traffic violation.

This is a red herring. If you carry past a valid sign (class C misdemeanor) you lose your automatic PRESUMPTION of justification under PC 9.31/32. Believe me if you shoot someone and the DA wants to get you...you better make sure you can justify the shoot, presumption or not. It's pretty clear the law was intended make it harder for a criminal to say that he was acting in self defense while committing another crime (like burglary). Yes the class C 30.06 violation costs you your presumption, but it would be kind of hard for the prosecution to argue that the violation was material to your (lack of) justification. I'm really hoping I never shoot anyone, but if I'm watering my lawn on the wrong day (class C) and a bad guy runs into my yard at me with a knife, I'm not going to stop and turn off the water before I draw on him...