Walking through 30.06 signs

[LedJedi]

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.
Anygun

You hit the nail on the head there man. That's really what this issue is about and sooner or later I think this is going to be tested in court and will turn a LOT of business around on their heels on 30.06 posting.

IMO a business that deprives you of your ability to carry on their property is responsible for providing that protection. I'm fairly sure texas courts would agree with that. As soon as a CHL holder is forced to disarm, is assaulted and sues there will be case law in place to cite for additional suits. (chime in here Charles, by all means)

That will make every business that posts realize they are TRULY responsible for security at their locations and if they're not willing to provide true personal security then they had better put that liability back on their patrons.

In that day and age I think we'll see a lot less postings. For now, the issue remains.

[M9FAN]

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 don't want to be the "test case" on this issue but I like your thinking, Tom.

[tbranch]

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.

Led,

You might decide to honor their wishes but you have no legal requirement to do so. That's your right. There's no question of legality and you should not try to imply there is one. Go read Texas 30.06. One could argue there is an ethical or moral duty to comply although many would not agree with you. The burden of providing proper notice lies with the property owner and not the CHL.

Property rights (and most others) are not unlimited. Cities have zoning and some owners must comply with CC&Rs (deed restrictions). These place restrictions on how an owner may use their property.

Often there are competing rights and the laws / regulations are designed to protect everybody to some extent. You have the right to free speach yet you cannot yell, "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists. I'd argue that Texas 30.06 attempts to balance both the rights of the property owner and the rights of the CHL to carry.

Personally, I'm not going to try to educate some corporate entity because you are not likely to change their opinion. I'm not opposed to talking to locals, but some corporation from NYC does not understand our culture and you cannot change their mindset (the mindset of their lawyers).

Living in the DFW area, I rarely see valid 30.06 signs and would prefer it stays that way. Your method is dangerous and can lead to greater restrictions rather than fewer. Deep down inside people don't care that we carry and some may even be thankful for it, but they don't want to hear about it or see it. I can live with that.

Tom

[tbranch]

I don't want to be the "test case" on this issue but I like your thinking, Tom.

I'm willing to go there. Even if arrested I highly doubt you would be charged. The law really is clear on this issue. Charles, your thoughts?

Tom

[nitrogen]

I'm not terribly worried about the property rights. I'll be more than happy to give my hard-earned money to someone that respects MY right to self defense.

If they are worried about a legal CHL holder, then I'm not even going to argue about their property rights to keep me off their property; I'll be more than happy to follow their wishes and spend my money somewhere else.

[seamusTX]

Even if arrested I highly doubt you would be indicted.

Violating 30.06 is a misdemeanor. No indictment is necessary for a misdemeanor.

If someone got arrested for ignoring a defective 30.06 sign, they would be arrested, get a lawyer, and most likely get the charge dropped. That would be the end of it. The incident might educate one cop and one assistant DA, and the property owner might put up a conforming sign.

- Jim

[Texian]

In my earlier post, I quoted your first post

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.

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.

Here you have a problem when you refer to something being questionably legal: Either it is legal (statute + case law + OAG) or it is not. The rights of private property are not absolute. Our personal opinions/moral codes do not apply here to anyone besides ourselves. Your personal take on morals and honor is binding on you but it is not binding on others. However, the law is. The "thought police" have not been commissioned yet.

[Lucky45]

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.

Are you saying that the owner can go through all the trouble to find the text, but they don't have to get it right.??? That is smart. What is an establishment just post a 5 near the door. Are we suppose to know their intent is to post a 51and is that clear?? There cannot be any confusion when it comes to signs, and that is why they write down the rules and regs. There are 2 types of a private properties: those CLOSED to the PUBLIC and those OPENED to the PUBLIC. So, nobody is trample over their rights when they opened their doors to the public.If it is the second one, then what would happened if they did whatever they like. Is someone at fault if they ignore a tree with a painted white stripe every 400yds apart? Catch my drift?

[SkipB]

Texian I agree but I thought that is what we were talking about.

[LedJedi]

heh, you folks crack me up sometimes.

like i said, i'm not gonna debate the legality of the issue. Yall have fun doing that. I'm talking more about property rights, morality/ethics, respecting a private property owner because of his obvious intent, etc.

I said my 2 cents i suppose and it looks like there are others like minded who agree. That's enough for me. :)

[DoubleActionCHL]

Let's not confuse ignoring the property owner's rights with ignoring the property owner's wishes.

A property owner who does not WISH to have CHL holders carrying on his property as the RIGHT to enforce his wishes. Texas PC 30.06 details clearly how the property owner MUST go about exercising his right. If he doesn't exercise his right properly, we're not necessarily obligated to abide by his wishes.

Rights are a wonderful thing, but they're not without restrictions and obligations. If we make allowances, let's say, for the size of the letters, then we open the door to allow for other variances. The result will be a statute that is vague and unenforceable.

Now, people will argue that it's his property, we should abide by his rules no matter how they're conveyed. Ok... have you ever taken your own food into the theater? Have you ever taken a hotel towel? Have you ever fed the animals or failed to use the trash can? People ignore the wishes of business owners all the time. Assuming you're not breaking any law, why is this any different?

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't; just playing devil's advocate.

[Lucky45]

like i said, i'm not gonna debate the legality of the issue. Yall have fun doing that. I'm talking more about property rights, morality/ethics, respecting a private property owner because of his obvious intent, etc.

I said my 2 cents i suppose and it looks like there are others like minded who agree. That's enough for me. :)

It will always be a legal issue, but let us put our money where our mouth is. Can you add a POLL to your original post and see what the general concensus is on the matter????
Like, 1. Do you ignore signs that are not specifically per PC30.06 and enter the business anyway?
2. Do you disarm and respect the obvious intent of a property owner, then enter???
3. Do you take your money elsewhere and avoid the property in the future??

[anygunanywhere]

If you choose to not spend your money at 30.06 posted businesses that are not compliant, I certainly ope you folks apply the same logic to every gunbuster sign you see because essentially it is the same. The ones who attempt a 30.06 sign are just slightly better at it.

Anygun

[DoubleActionCHL]

If you choose to not spend your money at 30.06 posted businesses that are not compliant, I certainly ope you folks apply the same logic to every gunbuster sign you see because essentially it is the same. The ones who attempt a 30.06 sign are just slightly better at it.

Anygun

I ignore the 'gunbusters' signs, because I assume they're not aiming at me. On the other hand, I generally choose not to patronize those with 30.06 (or a lame attempt at 30.06). I look upon it as an ignorant or idealistic position taken by management that bears little resemblance to reality. The sad fact of the matter is we can't change their minds. No matter what, they'll continue to look upon us as "one of those gun people."

Spend your money at business that respect your right to self-defense.

[Lucky45]

If you choose to not spend your money at 30.06 posted businesses that are not compliant, I certainly ope you folks apply the same logic to every gunbuster sign you see because essentially it is the same. The ones who attempt a 30.06 sign are just slightly better at it.

Anygun

How come we don't have this problem when it comes to NO PARKING signs. The city of Houston has a mandated sign that has to be post inorder for a business to LEGALLY TOW your vehicle. They had the same problem a few years ago where people would park and then all kinds of signs would appear from out of the blue. On paper plates, napkins, trees, doors of a business 2 doors down, the soffit of the roof and they were towing people's vehicles left and right. When the business owners of Houston were REMINDED of the EXISTING SIGN REGULATIONS and COLOR too, they could not gripe. Plus they had to pay back those folks whose vehicles were towed, for storage, etc. (Thank you, Mayor White) So how many people ignore No parking sign painted on the curb, or on a paint bucket??? Do you expect to see your vehicle when you return to it in Houston?? Betcha bottom dollar, I know mine will be there for sure. So what is the intent of those owners that want to guard parking spaces.???