Walking through 30.06 signs

[LedJedi]

This is a subject that's been discussed here off and on for a bit, and I thought it deserved it's own thread.

I'm not going to get into the legality of size, contrast or placement as to me it's almost irrelevant. I say almost because I believe the store/business owners have a responsibility to place the sign in a very obvious place which is why the law is so specific imo. You guys can debate the legality of that stuff all you want and I'll happily watch (and learn from the fine folks on this forum).

My point:
Business owners have rights and freedoms just like you and I. We have no legal "right" to patronize a private business. We are there at the invitation of the owners. The owners have a very real legal (and in my opinion moral) right to arbitrate how firearms are carried on their property. To ignore that and disrespect their rights makes you little better than any disrespecting thug on the street.

If you had a business and wanted it posted 30.06 for whatever reason (just pretend for a moment) how would you feel about folks ignoring your wishes on your property?

To blatantly and willfully carry across a 30.06 sign that is generally posted in good faith (if not by letter of the law) is to completely ignore the property rights of that owner. Would YOU want to be treated that way? It's just Un-American and completely disrespectful in my opinion.

However, you do have the power to express your opinion and your influence by means of talking with the owners/employees and by voting with your dollars. Make the owner aware of the situation and how you feel about it and if needed, vote with your dollars and make them aware of your vote.

[anygunanywhere]

Marvelous post idea LEdjedi. My compliments.

I respect private property rights. Some of my posts on the subject may not sound like it but I do.

If a private property owner posts his property to prevent patrons from packing, the property owner should take whatever measures necessary to ensure that the invited patrons are as protected as they would be if they were packing.

If I invite you into my home (business), your firearms are welcome. I rely (expect) you to contribute to our common defense. Why would I deny (weaken my defense capability) by denyiing you your firearm?

Anygun

[SkipB]

I have to agree with you Ledi. If I am going into an establishment that doesn't want anyone packing I simply leave my pistol in my car. Just that simple.

[Keith B]

With the thread title 'Walking through 30.06 signs', all I can think of is Casper the Friendly CHL Holder or David Blaine doing one of his illusions!

With that said, I agree that you should try to honor their intent if they try to get it right. I have rights, but so do they. I am not forced to use their business, so if they feel the need to post and try to do it right, I will respect that (even if I may not like it.) If they are the only place available for me to get the item or service I need, then I will disarm, do my business and either leave or if time search out the business highest level to try and convince them to remove the restriciton.

[SkipB]

Casper Morning Keith.

[Smokewagon]

I may not agree with the businesses, but I agree with LedJedi.

[Tactical_Texan_CHL]

Good post! Very true, LedJedi, very true.

[shootthesheet]

If they post an almost-30.06 I will go elsewhere just because I won't give my money to them. If I don't have a choice I will enter and get what I need and leave.

The law is there for them and us. There is no "almost' in sign posting. It is either correct or it is not. No grey area exists. And, in my opinion, if they post an "almost" they don't deserve any respect from me because they are disrespecting me by posting the sign. Same with those that post correct signs. That doesn't mean I am going to even be as much as impolite to them. However, I will do everything in my power to get them to take the sign down. That includes getting every person I can influence to avoid the store in the future.

Respect goes both ways. Self-defense is a God given right. For them to ask me to give up my most effective means of S.D. is a major insult to me. I respect every business owners decision to risk the lives of their patrons and/or go out of business if they choose. I don't respect anyone that chooses their own fear over others right to life.

[Lucky45]

I have some agreements and disagreements.

1. I agree with all the talk about the rights of the business to run as they please and for the customer to patronize and spend they please.

2. My disagreement come from the fact that some people want us to believe that I am suppose to guess what a person intent is.
When a establishment opens to the public for business they have supposedly sat down and went through all the rules and regulations on how they are suppose to operate. These include the MANDATORY signs and posting by several different agencies and departments. eg. Health Dept, Fire Dept, Building Dept, OSHA, TABC, who else...the list goes on. The owner knows the consequences when they DO NOT adhere to the various demands of these groups. ie. fines, closures, arrests, etc. One of the main deals with these groups is that several PERMITS, SIGNS, CERTIFICATE, INSPECTION STICKERS, .......MUST BE POSTED AND VISIBLE IN DIFFERENT AREAS AND VICINITIES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.
The owner cannot and should not take it upon himself to do as he likes/wish and go against any of those RULES AND REGULATIONS. ie. Business sign TOO LARGE per city regs, Permits not posted, inspections stickers missing, fire extinguishers not posted/missing, Emergency Exit not posted/marked etc.

Therefore, If they can FIGURE OUT that the LETTERING and the SIZE of the sign on the outside of their property NEEDS TO BE WITHIN BOUNDARIES of the RULES AND REGS of the CITY/MUNICIPALITY.

THEY CAN FIGURE OUT THAT THE LETTERING AND THE SIZE OF THE SIGN FOR A VALID AND EFFECTIVE 30.06 NOTICE per DPS. PLUS THEY CAN FIGURE OUT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE POSTED. PERIOD.

The laws then says it is a defense to prosecution, if a person of a property does not follow this code.

PS. This does not mean that I'm going to spend my money there, just means that any business that I make a conscious decision to enter, I will obey all legal signs.

[Texian]

LedJedi said,

Business owners have rights and freedoms just like you and I. We have no legal
"right" to patronize a private business.

The first sentence is true; the second sentence is not. I am from the era that denied black americans the right of access to all manor of businesses, either in part or entirety. The civil rights laws of our country do not allow you to discriminate as you wish. The law gives specific rights to many classes of citizens including CHL holders, including the right to enter private businesses along with all other members of the public unless legally proscribed. If the 30.06 signs are not compliant, then they are not legal.

If your conscience and moral code restrain you, of course you should obey them. You are then obeying a higher law than that of the state.

[CWOOD]

I strongly agree with LedJedi regarding the importance of private propery rights. I believe that property owners have a right to to encourage or refuse entry of legal handgun carriers, anti-gunners, smokers, non-smokers (I am one of those), drinkers, non-drinkers or any of a wide range of folks. I believe that they should be able to operate their business how they see fit. If their policies are sufficiently popular with the public they will prosper. If their policies are not sufficiently popular they will fail. Each of us will form our own opinion about the propriety of the business and by our actions contribute to the fate of that bsuiness. Governmental intrusion on the operation should be on the minimalist side in my opinion.

That being said, if that business wishes to deprive me of my liberty with a criminal charge, then they have a very real obligation to do it "by the book". There are specific criteria required to make a valid criminal tresspass charge and the information is readily availalbe. If they want to file the charge, then they must fulfill their responsibility in doing so.

As for respecting the wishes of the property owner, then why bother going with the "close but no cigar limitation". If they post a "NO GUNS ALLOWED HERE" sign or just post the GunBusters sign they are still giving you notice of their wishes. I am not trying to be confrontational, but would your respect for their wishes apply to those signs as well? In asking that I am only asking for clarification.

I am not suggesting that anyone do what I do. In fact, I am not even saying what I would do. Like all of us, it would probably change with the circumstances on each occasion. What I am suggesting is that there is a big difference in a business open to the public expressing their wishes as to how I behave on their property and them attempting to file criminal charges against me.

On the other hand, once an officer or other company representative becomes aware of your carrying status and personally lets you know that you, with your weapon, are not welcome, then 30.06 has just been activated and you must leave immediately as they have then met all the legal requirements to file charges if you fail to do so.

[Doug.38PR]

Property Rights are one of the most important, if not THE most important, God given rights we have. If we don't have property rights we really don't have any rights (including the right to OWN guns).

That being said, if a place is open to the public, and it is required to put up a certain kind of sign that forbids me from being able to protect myself and my friends and family, I would have not moral qualms with walking right past it if I thought I could legally get by with it.

If it was a properly posted sign, I would not go in.

If a sign is a technically noncompliant 30.06 sign, I probably won't enter, but not because I feel it is morally wrong or that I am violating their property rights, but because I don't want to risk getting arrested by a policeman who doesn't know.

They have the right to post signs to legally keep me out. If they do so I am not going to go to court to demand my so-called "civil rights" (which basically means tyranncal court order to steal property and violate property rights). I will simply take my business elsewhere and complain to the company that posted.

[legend]

I understand that business owners have rights, and have the right to ban concealed handguns. As much as I disagree with it, I value their rights to do as they wish, and run the business as they wish. I also think that I have a right to arm myself.

If someone posts a true 30.06 sign then I will obide by it, of course. If someone puts up something resembling a 30.06 sign (Like a single sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper), but it has no legal binding, then I will walk right through it.

Personally, I feel that regardless of what they are trying to do, if they want to keep me from carrying my handgun they can post the correct signage. When you look at the law, it not only tells you the wording, but then tells you exactly how it needs to be posted (1" block letters, contrasting colors, etc.). It's difficult to see the wording without seeing the constraints with which the wording has to obide by...

[tbranch]

I'm not going to get into the legality of size, contrast or placement as to me it's almost irrelevant.

I don't have a problem with the rights of private business or property owners. They do have the right to control their property.

30.06 tells them how to go about enforcing that right. If not, someone could argue that a tiny ghostbuster sign was effective notice. The law allows owners to exercise their right to control of their property while protecting CHLs.

There is no almost sign. It either complies or it does not. If the sign is correct, I will comply and either leave my weapon in the car or do business elsewhere. If not, I was not properly notified and will act accordingly.

Tom

[LedJedi]

I'm not going to get into the legality of size, contrast or placement as to me it's almost irrelevant.

I don't have a problem with the rights of private business or property owners. They do have the right to control their property.

30.06 tells them how to go about enforcing that right. If not, someone could argue that a tiny ghostbuster sign was effective notice. The law allows owners to exercise their right to control of their property while protecting CHLs.

There is no almost sign. It either complies or it does not. If the sign is correct, I will comply and either leave my weapon in the car or do business elsewhere. If not, I was not properly notified and will act accordingly.

Tom

I'm fairly sure that nobody here would pay any heed to a ghostbuster sign. I certainly don't and in my mind it's in no way a slight to a property owner. I always assume that business owners who post those did so deliberately by not posting anything even close to the correct sign.

However, imo, if a business owner goes through the trouble to find the correct text and post it in a reasonably visible location then they have done their part in informing me of their wishes. I will respect those wishes and try to educate the business owner as to the facts of the situation and question their motives in posting if for nothing else, to satisfy my own curiosity.

If the letters are .05 of an inch too short, but it's posted in the correct locations it's close enough for me. Their intent is clear in that situation and I will respect it, talk to the owner and if needed, vote with my wallet.

To ignore their obvious intent is questionably legal at best, but worse it's immoral and contrary to the values our country was founded on by ignoring the rights of private property.

If you don't like a place being posted, do something about it, but don't ignore it.