Combined 30.06 & 30.07 signs.

[BSHII]

I’ve noticed several office buildings in downtown Houston with a single, combined sign reading, “PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 30.06 & 30.07 . . . . MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A HANDGUN THAT IS CONCEALED OR CARRIED OPENLY.”

I don’t see how these signs could be compliant when the statutes require “language identical to the following,” not “language substantially similar to the following.”

Just thought I would share.

[AJSully421]

Agreed. I would ignore it heartily.

[Blackhorse1]

If it ain't right, then it's wrong.

[EP45]

Hello, I believe an example is attached below.

[parabelum]

Ignore and carry on. One caveat I’d add is that I would not carry openly in a place that has already signaled anti gun stance. I’d try and avoid such place altogether, but if I absolutely must go in for whatever reason, I’d keep it concealed.

[Grayling813]

Ignore and carry on. One caveat I’d add is that I would not carry openly in a place that has already signaled anti gun stance. I’d try and avoid such place altogether, but if I absolutely must go in for whatever reason, I’d keep it concealed.

[oljames3]

Ignore and carry on. One caveat I’d add is that I would not carry openly in a place that has already signaled anti gun stance. I’d try and avoid such place altogether, but if I absolutely must go in for whatever reason, I’d keep it concealed.

This sign does not use "language identical to the following" as required by 30.06 and 30.07 and thus has no force of law. I would avoid this business if at all possible. It seems, to me, to indicate that I could expect to be asked to leave were I to carry openly in this place. Were I compelled to enter, I would carry concealed in a manner that actually concealed my handgun rather than my HEB method of simply covering the S&W M&P9 M2.0 5" 17+1 in a Sarariland 7TS ALS on my hip.

[EP45]

The sign I posted above is actually at a hospital. That means it almost surely went through their legal department. That would mean that the hospital got bad legal advise. Hear lots of incorrect statements from similar sources.

[Grayling813]

The sign I posted above is actually at a hospital. That means it almost surely went through their legal department. That would mean that the hospital got bad legal advise. Hear lots of incorrect statements from similar sources.

I've posted a report on Texas3006 app of a hospital in Arlington with that same sign.

[oohrah]

Or you could poke the bear if you were in a whimsy mood ...

[C-dub]

The sign I posted above is actually at a hospital. That means it almost surely went through their legal department. That would mean that the hospital got bad legal advise. Hear lots of incorrect statements from similar sources.

I went through a similar discussion with a former employer years ago before I realized the futility of trying to be helpful to some people. It started with signs attempting to prohibit carry in the buildings and I learned my lesson there. Then a couple of years later they included the parking lot since it was private property and this was after the "parking lot law" had become effective. They thought they were okay since it was private property. I pointed out to them it didn't matter and showed them the statute. They said their lawyers had looked it over and they stood by their prohibition. I knew the lawyers they spoke of since I'd had interaction with them and knew what type of lawyers they were. They were not firearms or even related type lawyers and this type of thing was out of their milieu. At this time the TRSA was soliciting employers that were in violation and since mine was somewhat high profile in Texas and the DFW area and with more than 1k employees it was resolved fairly quickly after I sent them a copy of the employee policy prohibiting it. The signs were taken down and the policy was changed within a year. A few co-workers came to me and asked if I had anything to do with that and I denied it for several years until after I was gone. The ones that asked said they figured it was me, but couldn't prove it.

They are posted 30.06 &.07 and we've discussed them on this forum a few times. I did not start those threads and IIRC participated very little if at all because I was an employee at the time and tried not to be associated with them if it ever came to anything legal.

[BSHII]

Ignore and carry on. One caveat I’d add is that I would not carry openly in a place that has already signaled anti gun stance. I’d try and avoid such place altogether, but if I absolutely must go in for whatever reason, I’d keep it concealed.

This sign does not use "language identical to the following" as required by 30.06 and 30.07 and thus has no force of law. I would avoid this business if at all possible. It seems, to me, to indicate that I could expect to be asked to leave were I to carry openly in this place. Were I compelled to enter, I would carry concealed in a manner that actually concealed my handgun rather than my HEB method of simply covering the S&W M&P9 M2.0 5" 17+1 in a Sarariland 7TS ALS on my hip.

My presumption is that any business with substantial resources (and the PM of the major office buildings in question certainly qualifies) has access to competent legal advice and therefore made the deliberate decision to post a non-compliant sign. I interpret that as an attempt to thread the needle by placating the hoplophobes while winking at the carrying public.

[BSHII]

Ignore and carry on. One caveat I’d add is that I would not carry openly in a place that has already signaled anti gun stance. I’d try and avoid such place altogether, but if I absolutely must go in for whatever reason, I’d keep it concealed.

I made sure to locate my office in a downtown building with neither sign, although sometimes I have business in buildings that do have them. I would say a majority of downtown buildings have no sign, a significant minority have 30.07, several have no compliant signs of various types, and only a few have compliant 30.06 and 30.07 signs. Tip: Of the few with compliant 30.06 signs, I can only think of one building that has them at its tunnel entrances.

[chasfm11]

My presumption is that any business with substantial resources (and the PM of the major office buildings in question certainly qualifies) has access to competent legal advice and therefore made the deliberate decision to post a non-compliant sign. I interpret that as an attempt to thread the needle by placating the hoplophobes while winking at the carrying public.

I'm not sure that is universal. I believe that places like Buffalo Wild Wings, Sprouts Farmers Market and others like them have management teams that are so arrogant that they believe that they can overrule or by-pass our elected officials. It is not about what is legal but what they can do to intimidate the less-than-secure. We, on this forum, spend a lot of time working on the letter of the law while I suspect as much as 50 percent of LTC holders in Texas have only their class information from which to base decisions. A lot of people are risk averse and are not going to go against something that looks legal, even if it isn't. The combined signs are simply a way of reducing the square feet of signage in their front window. If push comes to shove, I worry that there are enough D.A.s who might see it their way, too.

My personal approach is to avoid businesses that don't want my business. If I have no choice but to go in, I follow the law, the real law as documented in the TPC and not the permutations that businesses invent. My only accommodation is to go back to real concealment instead of the pseudo concealment that I have often adapted since open carry was passed.

[RoyGBiv]

I walked into a store the other day. Looked for signs, saw none. On the way out I saw the signs from inside the store. They had posted them on the fixed panels of an automatic sliding glass door. When I approached the store going in, those doors were open, blocking the signs on the panels that were, at the moment, behind the open doors. The moving panels had a bunch of other artwork on them, obscuring the signs behind them.