Ruark wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:24 amThis is true. I visited Senator Huffman's office a couple of years ago after the big open carry law foofooraw and spent an hour chatting with her assistant. He said the posting of 06/07 signs had skyrocketed since the OC legislation debate, simply because it brought so much publicity and public awareness. Before then, most people had never heard of a "30.06 sign." Subsequently, there was an explosion of commercial sign producers selling them online and in stores, with marketing hype like, "Be sure your business is in full compliance with the new laws!!!" So businesses snatched them up so they could "be in full compliance," including dingbats like the convenience store owner who posted one "so he wouldn't get robbed." Many business owners have seen the light since then, but still, the damage was done. Now we have signs all over the place, and nobody is open carrying.Scott in Houston wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:27 pm I’d prefer no new sign legislation of any type. Any time a light shines on the concept of signage, it tends to create collateral damage that is not positive for those of us who carry.
It's probably a foregone conclusion that an attempt to eliminate the signs completely, which has utterly no chance of passing, would generate another wave of such "collateral damage."
Totally agree.
I had a couple of businesses near me that had no signs and then ended up posting both signs after the 06/07 stuff came out.
I got one to remove the .06 sign through a letter I wrote which led to a phone call. It turns out, the owner, was fine with concealed carry but was told by some sign sales person or company that to prohibit open carry, you had to post both signs. He was told that both signs were required to be posted together.
When I walked him through the purpose of each sign and showed him that no where in the law does it say you must post both signs, he removed the 30.06 and let the 30.07.
It took me quite a bit of time just to influence this one place with a very friendly owner.