Walking through 30.06 signs

[Kalrog]

Annoyed - let me ask you this. When you go to someone's house or to someone's business (after you get your CHL obviously): do you announce to the world + dog that you are carrying? I think the idea being that for those who have a CHL, we just carry and don't think anything of it. And we like being discrete about it. I don't tell people that I have a knife any more than I tell them that I have a gun. It just seems strange to expect someone to walk up to your house and say "Hi. I'm hear to fix the AC and I have a gun."

I wouldn't take offense in your more detailed example though (depending on how you phrased it). If I was printing and you noticed it and asked if I had a CHL then I have already messed up because you noticed. I think that gives you a good reason to ask. Although my default reaction to someone if they said yes they had a CHL would be to trust them until they proved unworthy of that trust (which I think differs from yours).

You also mentioned not wanting to carry at home. I see that as another difference between us. There are a dozen cop cars parked in my 5 street neighborhood (residents) and we are less than 2 miles from the local PD office. Safe neighborhood. But break-ins still happen and I take nothing for granted. I am more concerned about the times that I'm not expecting someone than the times that I am expecting someone. That AC guy will be able to be found through his employer if anything goes wrong. The random person who just barges in... not so much. Might not stop it from happening (hence the CHL), but at least there is some recourse in the aftermath.

[anygunanywhere]

My issue is with people that I don't know. It is simple really. If I don't know you, and you are in my house, and you are armed, I want to know that you are armed. That way, I can make sure that I am prepared to counter you in case you turn out to be hinkey.

Hinkey. I think we have a new word to go with doofi.

Annoyed,

You did not answer my question. Do you ask everyone you do not know entering your house if they are armed?

Anygun

[DoubleActionCHL]

I completely understand the reasoning for wanting to know if someone is packing in my own home. I also understand the possible danger that a packing stranger might pose. It is certainly reasonable to want to ask if they're packing. I'd have no problem with that, but I'm then faced with a dilemma.

What other factors might make this person a threat or danger? How many questions should I ask? Is he a convicted sex offender? A child molester? Does he have a knife or other non-firearm weapon? Is he a convicted felon? A fugitive from justice, maybe? Is he a drug addict or has he been drinking before arriving? Does he have a contagious, flesh eating disease?

The list could go on and on. Then, of course, you're faced with the very real possibility that the answers will be false. Then what? Frisk him just in case?

Personally, I allow people to pack in my home. I know they're packing because I know them, and I trust them not to be an idiot or a criminal. Other than that, there are very few people I allow in my home, and I am, of course, armed while they are there.

[tbranch]

That leaves me with no other alternative but to be packing heat myself each time a stranger comes to the door, since I can apparently have no reasonable expectation that a stranger would offer me that information. The thought of it irks me.

Chris,

That really sums it up. It's the reason many of us carry in the first place. I doubt you would have anything to worry about with another CHL and the BGs will ignore your notice. Gun-Free Zones are really Victim-Rich Zones since the only ones who will be armed are the BGs.

Tom

[phddan]

A buisness either posts correctly, or I ignore it.
No moral qualms for me.

If a homeowner doesn't post or give a verbal, than I carry in. It is a two way street. You don't know me, and I don't know you, or your kin folk, or your pit bulls. In order for it to be disrespectful, I have to know that you don't want CHLers in your home.
No moral qualms for me.

Dan

No qualms here either, except - if the business owner/proprietor/manager is too stupid to get the sign right, all the way right, not just an effort, then they don't deserve the business that I can take away from them.

Most business' that attempt a 30.06 sign that I've run across are in a building that is owned by a property management co.
The business' themselves didn't put the sign up. And no, I don't go to taco cabana.
Hospitals, you don't have much choice whether to go in, or somewhere else, when you are visiting someone. And this past 12 months I have been in and out of 6-7 different hospitals at least 10 to 50 times each, and none of them post properly. I have found only 1 urologists that my dad was seeing where the sign was compliant. Matter of fact, that is the only compliant sign I have ever run across.
I'm sitting in a nursing home right now, as I type this, that has a sign, hold on let me go out and look.......................
"State law prohibits carrying a handgun on these premises",
that I am sure that none of the women that work here have a clue that it is useless. Should I bring it to their attention????
"if the business owner/proprietor/manager is too stupid to get the sign right, all the way right, not just an effort," then I don't have any problem entering.
They don't bother me in the least.

Now if I ever run across a valid posted business, that I don't have to go into, then I will make contact with owner/manager and let it be known that they lost business that day, and any future day that I could have used their business, plus all my friends and family's business.

Dan

[Lucky45]

I was reading this earlier and had a thought.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Is there a reason that the legislature would mandate that the lettering be in block letter and be at LEAST ONE INCH in height???? Could it have anything to do with the eyesight of a regular person and there ability to see THOSE WORDS from a specific distance. I'm not a optometrist, but isn't that part of the test as well as on your driver's license??? To read BLOCK LETTERS of different size from a specific distance. So maybe they wanted the sign to be such that a CHL holder would not have to get within inches to read and expose themselves to an infraction with the law. Upon entering a building, a regular person's eyes would be such that you could not MISS or NOT BE ABLE TO READ the POSTED sign (wall, door, window, etc) because of near/far sighted, astigmatism, etc. Letters would not SEEM to join together and make it incomprehensible. So what do you think??? That stickler and little intent of SIZE might be more important than some people are making it out to be.

[0_down]

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.

I agree with Ledi as well - but respectfully, not you.

Take your business and $$ elsewhere - DON'T risk the trip to and from the business and loosing your gun to a car burglar.

[Sport Coach]

Great discussions here. My solution is to use the power of the pen with those who create victim rich zones, letting them know I'll certainly vote with my wallet and discourage others from patronizing. I also include references to various pro self-defense texts which I recommend they read (I know, I know, this is likely hope over experience). I don't say I have a CHL but try to give them a point of view that will make them think twice. This summer I had a very brief discussion with a friend whose family owns grocerty stores like Randall's about the Ghostbuster sign (I don't know what the legality is in OH on signage) they had taken off the store front. He had a simple, odd answer that there was no reason they had the sign in the first place - no other explanation. Either way, what I thought was going to be a very awkward conversation wound up being a like-minded, very brief discussion.

[hkshooter]

Some food for thought my wife brought up the other day when we were talking about this subject.

Can a business suspend any of your other civil liberties on their property? Just because it's private property, they can't deny your civil rights. The only thing they can do is ask people to leave or not come in.

I know some people consider concealed carry a civil right, while others don't. I just think my wife is a genius.

[tbranch]

Can a business suspend any of your other civil liberties on their property? Just because it's private property, they can't deny your civil rights. The only thing they can do is ask people to leave or not come in.

Since the charge for ignoring a valid 30.06 posting is trespassing, I'm led to believe that they are simply telling you not to come onto the property.

Tom

[srothstein]

Some food for thought my wife brought up the other day when we were talking about this subject.

Can a business suspend any of your other civil liberties on their property? Just because it's private property, they can't deny your civil rights. The only thing they can do is ask people to leave or not come in.

I know some people consider concealed carry a civil right, while others don't. I just think my wife is a genius.

I think your wife is wrong. Many businesses restrict other rights while on their property. For exampe, free speech is commonly restricted with stores allowing no, or only seelcted, charities to ask for donations. Many places restrict other property you may carry in with you, such as no outside food or drink in a theater. Many also provide for searches and such, say carrying a backpack into some stores.

Remember, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are limits only on the government. They do not apply to other citizens or private businesses at all.

[hkshooter]

Remember, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are limits only on the government. They do not apply to other citizens or private businesses at all.

I agree with the bill of rights only limiting government. However civil rights are not limited to gov't. Many cases have been fought and won in court showing that privacy rights had been violated in a privately owned business. Both a civil right and in the bill or rights. Also, If one owned a business they could not post a "whites only" sign. As they would be violating someone's civil rights. So you can't violate civil rights in your business.

My wife may be wrong. I just liked the thought provoking statement.

On a similar note, property owners should be allowed to restrict all types of people. However, if you own a private business, you are not allowed to single out based on gender, race, handicap, religion, or age. But apparently you can single-out based on carrying a legal tool. Until you can restrict whomever you want, for whatever you reason you want, you don't really have any property rights at all, just what the government thinks you should have..

[hkshooter]

Since the charge for ignoring a valid 30.06 posting is trespassing, I'm led to believe that they are simply telling you not to come onto the property.

Very true, and I had forgotten about that.

[tbranch]

Very true, and I had forgotten about that.

But I like the way she thinks!

Tom

[Keith B]

Remember, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are limits only on the government. They do not apply to other citizens or private businesses at all.