TexasCHLforum.com

Our church had the Carter Bus Sunday. While I was donating, I sat across an interesting sign. It was the typical Glock gun buster. But below an English and Spanish language sign was the words "Pursuant to HB 30-06 & 30-07". There is no way this can be legal, right?

Hybrid signs do not meet the letter or intent of the law. They seem to be popular at hospitals.

Pawpaw ,

What do mean by 'hybrid signs'?

Thanks!

Abraham wrote:Pawpaw ,

What do mean by 'hybrid signs'?

Thanks!

The sign in the OP's post combines parts of the text of both 30.06 and 30.07, thus creating a hybrid sign that does not comply with either 30.06 or 30.07.

oljames3 wrote:

Abraham wrote:Pawpaw ,

What do mean by 'hybrid signs'?

Thanks!

The sign in the OP's post combines parts of the text of both 30.06 and 30.07, thus creating a hybrid sign that does not comply with either 30.06 or 30.07.

Pawpaw wrote:Hybrid signs do not meet the letter or intent of the law. They seem to be popular at hospitals.

Junk Sign.jpg

To paraphrase Leroy Van Dyke, I'd "Just Walk on By" that sign.

I open carried on a Carter Blood Drive bus at my church several months ago and not a word was said to me. It also had the invalid sign. But I was in my security uniform.

You are technically trespassing and may be asked to leave where hybrid signs are posted but unless you refuse to do so when asked are not at risk of any sort of legal jeopardy.

WildRose wrote:You are technically trespassing and may be asked to leave where hybrid signs are posted but unless you refuse to do so when asked are not at risk of any sort of legal jeopardy.

I don't think you are trespassing unless/until they ask you to leave and you refuse.
The hybrid sign has no force of law.

IMO. Not legal advice.

RoyGBiv wrote:

WildRose wrote:You are technically trespassing and may be asked to leave where hybrid signs are posted but unless you refuse to do so when asked are not at risk of any sort of legal jeopardy.

I don't think you are trespassing unless/until they ask you to leave and you refuse.
The hybrid sign has no force of law.

IMO. Not legal advice.

You are correct but we're saying the same thing in two different ways.

WildRose wrote:You are technically trespassing and may be asked to leave where hybrid signs are posted but unless you refuse to do so when asked are not at risk of any sort of legal jeopardy.

If the sign is posted it is legal notice that firearms are not welcomed thus you are technically trespassing if carrying.

Unless however they ask you to leave and you refuse to do so you are in no legal jeopardy.

Not being a lawyer I may not be stating it in proper legalese but to be clear, in order to be prosecuted on the charge you would have to be told to leave and refuse.

WildRose wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

WildRose wrote:You are technically trespassing and may be asked to leave where hybrid signs are posted but unless you refuse to do so when asked are not at risk of any sort of legal jeopardy.

I don't think you are trespassing unless/until they ask you to leave and you refuse.
The hybrid sign has no force of law.

IMO. Not legal advice.

You are correct but we're saying the same thing in two different ways.

WildRose wrote:You are technically trespassing and may be asked to leave where hybrid signs are posted but unless you refuse to do so when asked are not at risk of any sort of legal jeopardy.

If the sign is posted it is legal notice that firearms are not welcomed thus you are technically trespassing if carrying.

Unless however they ask you to leave and you refuse to do so you are in no legal jeopardy.

Not being a lawyer I may not be stating it in proper legalese but to be clear, in order to be prosecuted on the charge you would have to be told to leave and refuse.

No, you are not "technically" trespassing until they ask you to leave. The hybrid sign is not an enforceable sign any more than a gun buster sign. It may show their wishes but it holds no weight of law. The law is very specific on 30.06 and 30.07 posting. Now, once they ask you to leave, if you refuse, it becomes trespassing.

I have a different question.

The premise of this thread was a bus parked on church property. In that context, do the rights of the real property owners get overridden by the owner of the vehicle? My vivid imagination wants to look at the situation in much larger context. How about if the bus is parked at Wal-Mart? Can a bus owner park on private property and overrule any of the other rights of the land owner? If I park my RV at Wal-Mart, can I do the same?

Regarding the hybrid sign, our police chief has been very clear. His officers will compare the wording to what is listed in the TPC and if there isn't a match, no action will be taken. That said, if you are in someone's bus regardless of reason and they ask you to leave, regardless of why, I'm guessing that at least a disorderly conduct charge could be possible.

For my money, Carter is the epitome of the Liberal mentality who want what they want and are willing to bend the rules to try to get it. They are no different from the government officials who deliberately flaunt the Attonery General's rulings. I was a mult-gallon donor and have not given a drop since they posted their brick and mortar locations. I have to deal with the government. I don't have to deal with Carter.

chasfm11 wrote:For my money, Carter is the epitome of the Liberal mentality who want what they want and are willing to bend the rules to try to get it. They are no different from the government officials who deliberately flaunt the Attonery General's rulings. I was a mult-gallon donor and have not given a drop since they posted their brick and mortar locations. I have to deal with the government. I don't have to deal with Carter.

I achieved 50 gallons of lifetime donations to Carter (starting when they were Wadley Blood Center, before the name change). Just as I reached the 50 gallon mark, they posted the .06 and .07 signs. I wrote a courteous letter to both the donation center where I was known by my first name, and the main office. Details here: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... r&start=15

I got a call back from the donation center manager who was also upset about the signs - her father-in-law had CHL/LTC. Never got a response from the main office. And I've never crossed their threshold again.

Thanks all for the info about hybrid signs = gun buster signs, but why would they post them at all, given donors are just that...donors.

Aggravate me (especially in rural locations) with such signage and kiss my donation good-bye.

Many posts here about Carter and their 30.06/07 signs. Although the bus was not legally posted the company has pretty well made it clear they don't want your business. You think you are being a good person donating and they look at you as a business bringing money in. If you do not patronize businesses that post then don't patronize Carter. Carter is not in the blood business as a charity. They technically are a non-profit but they are still just a business with well paid employees and the usual retirement plan, etc. If you need their blood it will not be free and will actually be quite expensive. The only way to influence a business that posting is not a good idea is to boycott if they post. Your choice.