"No Guns" sign removed!

[Dave2]

First of all, I'm talking about CHL law, not opinion, so please stop talking about opinions so we can be on the same page with this discussion.

And it is merely your opinion that you can pass a non-compliant sign with impunity, an opinion that I disagree with.

That's kinda like you asking me why I'm wearing black socks, me shrugging my shoulders and saying "it's not illegal", and you saying "well that's just your opinion, and one I disagree with".

[sjfcontrol]

Nope, don't reckon, I am convinced that if I were discovered to be carrying in one of those places with non-compliant signage, that the result could range all the way up to a LV Costco scenario, and I do not want to place myself in that sort of danger. Let them go ahead and show their true colors and post the big ugly sign, and was the intention of the legislation establishing it, or not post the big ugly sign, two choices, no more; "well they only mean that for the non-chls" or "They only put that sign up to satisfy the anti-gun nuts, and they secretly want the CHLs to be there" And surely not ruining it for anyone. Like the non-compliant signage at Love Field, it's not a "wink wink nudge nudge" sign, I know that the "authorities" at Love intend to prosecute, or attempt to, despite the deficiencies of their signage, I have spoken to them about it, and I see no reason to expect that AMC Theaters would probably not prosecute me, so I just choose not to give them my money, and I let them know why.

I think what you're missing, is that it's not the "authorities at Love Field", or "AMC Theaters" that will be prosecuting you. Criminal offenses are prosecuted by the District Attorneys. Presumably, they know the laws, and know that in order to prosecute for violation of PC 30.06 "Trespass by holder of license to carry concealed handgun", the premises must be posted by a sign with specific parameters. (Or other valid notice must be given as specified in section 30.06.) If you walk past a non-compliant sign, are you risking possible arrest? Perhaps, if the officer is not properly trained on the current requirements, but the DAs certainly would not attempt to prosecute if the proper signage (or other notice) were not in place. All they'd do is reduce their conviction rates.

It seems to me that there a a lot of people who are afraid of doing things that are not illegal.

[jimlongley]

Nope, don't reckon, I am convinced that if I were discovered to be carrying in one of those places with non-compliant signage, that the result could range all the way up to a LV Costco scenario, and I do not want to place myself in that sort of danger. Let them go ahead and show their true colors and post the big ugly sign, and was the intention of the legislation establishing it, or not post the big ugly sign, two choices, no more; "well they only mean that for the non-chls" or "They only put that sign up to satisfy the anti-gun nuts, and they secretly want the CHLs to be there" And surely not ruining it for anyone. Like the non-compliant signage at Love Field, it's not a "wink wink nudge nudge" sign, I know that the "authorities" at Love intend to prosecute, or attempt to, despite the deficiencies of their signage, I have spoken to them about it, and I see no reason to expect that AMC Theaters would probably not prosecute me, so I just choose not to give them my money, and I let them know why.

I think what you're missing, is that it's not the "authorities at Love Field", or "AMC Theaters" that will be prosecuting you. Criminal offenses are prosecuted by the District Attorneys. Presumably, they know the laws, and know that in order to prosecute for violation of PC 30.06 "Trespass by holder of license to carry concealed handgun", the premises must be posted by a sign with specific parameters. (Or other valid notice must be given as specified in section 30.06.) If you walk past a non-compliant sign, are you risking possible arrest? Perhaps, if the officer is not properly trained on the current requirements, but the DAs certainly would not attempt to prosecute if the proper signage (or other notice) were not in place. All they'd do is reduce their conviction rates.

It seems to me that there a a lot of people who are afraid of doing things that are not illegal.

OK, maybe I truncated the terminology a bit, but the result is the same, it would be Love Field or AMC who would be bringing the charges, which still loosely fits under "prosecute."

I was a TSA agent at Love Field when I had these discussions, under the guise of understanding what "WE" should do if we discovered someone carrying despite the "30.05" signage in some locations around the airport. Airport police, up to command level, and airport administrators, informed us that they would arrest and had assurances that the DA would prosecute, despite the signage being non-compliant, we had training meetings on the subject, partly due to the change in the law at that time. You can say it is certain that they would not prosecute, but unless you are the DA, it is also still only your opinion. Hark back to the Harris County DA when he was saying that despite MPA, he still intended to prosecute anyone who was caught with what he deemed as an illegal handgun, concealed without benefit of a CHL, and tell me about DAs conforming to the law.

Individual LEOs at Love also said that if they discovered the "violation" in a circumstance that they had some discretion in, they would probably not arrest because the signage was recognizably bogus, but that the command structure, and thus their jobs, said to arrest.

Interesting, in light of the OP, which pointed out the success of Aggiedad in getting non-compliant signage removed and creating a truly CHL friendly environment, that so many have come in with their opinions that any attempt to approach the posters of such signs is "ruining it" for those same persons by making the attempt to remove a blight from the CHL landscape.

Once again, I have been successful in contacting such signage posters twice over several years, and none of my efforts have resulted in the big ugly sign replacing a non-compliant one, and the smattering of replies that I have received saying they had no intention to change despite being quoted the law, have been put on notice that their signage is non-compliant and I expect to name them in the civil suit should they discover that I am carrying under my CHL because they now know the signs are wrong.

Have any of the rest of you had a similar level of success in your efforts? Has all of that self-satisfied going past non-compliant signs ever resulted in one being removed? Or do you just keep on smugly going by and saying to yourselves "I have a gun, and they don't know it, and I got away with it."?

There is no case law, there is no Attorney General opinion about passing non-complian signs, and even the "little white booklet" is mum on the subject, so your feeling of invincibility relating to passing non-compliant signage is still nothing more than your opinion, unless and until you get case law in the books, you get the Attorney General to break his silence on it, or you get the wording of the law changed. Nothing more than opinion, and as worthless as you hold mine to be.

But here's a constructive suggestion, something that you can do to prove your point easily. The next time you go to a gun show at a government owned building and see that big ugly sign out front, just go ahead and walk right by, you already know that it doesn't mean anything, and be sure to let us know the result. And also let us know how you make out when they stop you and you tell them their sign is non-compliant and therefore actually "CHL friendly."

Meantime I will continue to err on the side of my opinion until one of you manages to come up with a convincing counter opinion, or some case law, or an AG opinion (still only really opinion) or get the wording of the law changed. And I will still tell anyone who posts any sort of anti-gun sign, non-compliant or otherwise, that I choose to spend my money elsewhere.

[longtooth]

This is a good post Jim.

[ScottDLS]

Nope, don't reckon, I am convinced that if I were discovered to be carrying in one of those places with non-compliant signage, that the result could range all the way up to a LV Costco scenario, and I do not want to place myself in that sort of danger. Let them go ahead and show their true colors and post the big ugly sign, and was the intention of the legislation establishing it, or not post the big ugly sign, two choices, no more; "well they only mean that for the non-chls" or "They only put that sign up to satisfy the anti-gun nuts, and they secretly want the CHLs to be there" And surely not ruining it for anyone. Like the non-compliant signage at Love Field, it's not a "wink wink nudge nudge" sign, I know that the "authorities" at Love intend to prosecute, or attempt to, despite the deficiencies of their signage, I have spoken to them about it, and I see no reason to expect that AMC Theaters would probably not prosecute me, so I just choose not to give them my money, and I let them know why.

I think what you're missing, is that it's not the "authorities at Love Field", or "AMC Theaters" that will be prosecuting you. Criminal offenses are prosecuted by the District Attorneys. Presumably, they know the laws, and know that in order to prosecute for violation of PC 30.06 "Trespass by holder of license to carry concealed handgun", the premises must be posted by a sign with specific parameters. (Or other valid notice must be given as specified in section 30.06.) If you walk past a non-compliant sign, are you risking possible arrest? Perhaps, if the officer is not properly trained on the current requirements, but the DAs certainly would not attempt to prosecute if the proper signage (or other notice) were not in place. All they'd do is reduce their conviction rates.

It seems to me that there a a lot of people who are afraid of doing things that are not illegal.

You make some good points and I understand your point of view, but I'll add my input...admittedly unsolicited.

OK, maybe I truncated the terminology a bit, but the result is the same, it would be Love Field or AMC who would be bringing the charges, which still loosely fits under "prosecute."

I'm not necessarily a terminology stickler either, when the meaning is clear. But "The City of Dallas" (aka Love Field) or AMC would be reporting a (non) criminal violation, not bringing a charge. IIRC the owner does the reporting, Police (maybe) do the arresting, and the County Prosecutor does the charging.

I was a TSA agent at Love Field when I had these discussions, under the guise of understanding what "WE" should do if we discovered someone carrying despite the "30.05" signage in some locations around the airport. Airport police, up to command level, and airport administrators, informed us that they would arrest and had assurances that the DA would prosecute, despite the signage being non-compliant, we had training meetings on the subject, partly due to the change in the law at that time. You can say it is certain that they would not prosecute, but unless you are the DA, it is also still only your opinion. Hark back to the Harris County DA when he was saying that despite MPA, he still intended to prosecute anyone who was caught with what he deemed as an illegal handgun, concealed without benefit of a CHL, and tell me about DAs conforming to the law.

Good information as such, however I believe you've mentioned that this was a few years ago. If pre-2003 then their policy probably didn't take into account the explicit "defense" to 30.05 now provided to CHL's. Even then, I doubt a prosecution would have been successful, but now it's in "black and white, as is the exception for government owned property provided in 30.06.

Secondly, your discussions don't necessarily constitute a conscious/official policy by the City of Dallas or the Dallas County prosecutors. I have no doubt that they told you what they thought they would do, but since the issue hasn't resulted in an arrest, we really don't know if they were bluffing.

Individual LEOs at Love also said that if they discovered the "violation" in a circumstance that they had some discretion in, they would probably not arrest because the signage was recognizably bogus, but that the command structure, and thus their jobs, said to arrest.

Fair enough. However, see above.

Interesting, in light of the OP, which pointed out the success of Aggiedad in getting non-compliant signage removed and creating a truly CHL friendly environment, that so many have come in with their opinions that any attempt to approach the posters of such signs is "ruining it" for those same persons by making the attempt to remove a blight from the CHL landscape.

Once again, I have been successful in contacting such signage posters twice over several years, and none of my efforts have resulted in the big ugly sign replacing a non-compliant one, and the smattering of replies that I have received saying they had no intention to change despite being quoted the law, have been put on notice that their signage is non-compliant and I expect to name them in the civil suit should they discover that I am carrying under my CHL because they now know the signs are wrong.

Have any of the rest of you had a similar level of success in your efforts? Has all of that self-satisfied going past non-compliant signs ever resulted in one being removed? Or do you just keep on smugly going by and saying to yourselves "I have a gun, and they don't know it, and I got away with it."?

This is fine for approaching private businesses and your success in getting non-compliant signs removed adds an additional level of certainty for people who are concerned with such.

There is no case law, there is no Attorney General opinion about passing non-complian signs, and even the "little white booklet" is mum on the subject, so your feeling of invincibility relating to passing non-compliant signage is still nothing more than your opinion, unless and until you get case law in the books, you get the Attorney General to break his silence on it, or you get the wording of the law changed. Nothing more than opinion, and as worthless as you hold mine to be.

Technically no "case law" since that is only made at the appellate level, but there is the Bedford nurses aid who had charges dropped by DA because the "notice" was incorrect per the law.

I don't know what you would "get the wording changed to", especially in the case of government property. With the exception of public meetings, 30.06 just doesn't apply to government property...period.

But here's a constructive suggestion, something that you can do to prove your point easily. The next time you go to a gun show at a government owned building and see that big ugly sign out front, just go ahead and walk right by, you already know that it doesn't mean anything, and be sure to let us know the result. And also let us know how you make out when they stop you and you tell them their sign is non-compliant and therefore actually "CHL friendly."

Unless they're frisking people, why would they stop me? I did the same thing at Dallas Love recently, but nobody stopped me so I didn't make a point to go up to the cop and say... "I'm carry a handgun with a CHL". Similar situation was CHL carry at the Texas State Fair. Someone finally had the time and inclination to prove to the City that they couldn't prohibit it, so now people are admitted without a big hassle. You could eventually get this done at a govt venue gun show, but very few people are willing to go through the trouble just to prove to the Texas CHL Forum that they're right. We'll just have to wait until someone gets arrested for it.

Meantime I will continue to err on the side of my opinion until one of you manages to come up with a convincing counter opinion, or some case law, or an AG opinion (still only really opinion) or get the wording of the law changed. And I will still tell anyone who posts any sort of anti-gun sign, non-compliant or otherwise, that I choose to spend my money elsewhere.

You are correct that we're dealing with opinions here and you know mine. I understand, but disagree with yours. I have previously posted the wording of the law, and some examples of its application in criminal cases...Bedford Nurse's Aid, Handog... I believe both support my opinion of 46.02, 46.035, 30.05 and 30.06. I doubt we're going to get the AG to issue an opinion saying, in effect, driving 55 in a 55 zone is legal, so I guess I agree that we will all behave in the manner that we believe is supported by our opinions.

-Scott

[sjfcontrol]

I will point out that there is no case law proving that eating a bacon-cheeseburger in public is not illegal, too. So, until someone gets arrested and prosecuted for that, we all better conceal our lunches! (Hmmm, must be approaching lunch time!)

My point is that even if somebody didn't like my public burger consumption, he would first have to find an officer willing to arrest, and a DA willing to prosecute. Unlikely!

"But, but..." you say, "eating a cheeseburger in public is not illegal!" Correct! (At least at the moment. ) Neither is carrying past a non-complient 30.06 sign.

No -- I don't want to be the 30.06 test case, but I don't want to be the cheeseburger test case either.

On the other hand. If that's the future fate has in store for me, I am confident that such nonsense could be relatively quickly dealt with. It doesn't make sense to me to "cower in my basement" (avoid invalid 30.06 establishments) for fear of breaking a non-existant law.

[jimlongley]

I was a TSA agent at Love Field when I had these discussions, under the guise of understanding what "WE" should do if we discovered someone carrying despite the "30.05" signage in some locations around the airport. Airport police, up to command level, and airport administrators, informed us that they would arrest and had assurances that the DA would prosecute, despite the signage being non-compliant, we had training meetings on the subject, partly due to the change in the law at that time. You can say it is certain that they would not prosecute, but unless you are the DA, it is also still only your opinion. Hark back to the Harris County DA when he was saying that despite MPA, he still intended to prosecute anyone who was caught with what he deemed as an illegal handgun, concealed without benefit of a CHL, and tell me about DAs conforming to the law.

Good information as such, however I believe you've mentioned that this was a few years ago. If pre-2003 then their policy probably didn't take into account the explicit "defense" to 30.05 now provided to CHL's. Even then, I doubt a prosecution would have been successful, but now it's in "black and white, as is the exception for government owned property provided in 30.06.

Secondly, your discussions don't necessarily constitute a conscious/official policy by the City of Dallas or the Dallas County prosecutors. I have no doubt that they told you what they thought they would do, but since the issue hasn't resulted in an arrest, we really don't know if they were bluffing.

-Scott

The whole point of mentioning the discussions which took place was that the law had just changed and the signage, which was questionable at best before the change, was now per the law meaningless. City of Dallas, which runs Love Field, took the official stance that they "would prosecute" (their words) any CHL holder found to have entered Love Field carrying. The last time I was at Love Field, at Christmastime, I spoke to old friends and co-workers, and was informed that the attitude is still the same, and the signs are still where they were. I entered through the parking garage and saw no signage, a situation I am much more willing to take a chance on.

And I should point out that DPD at Love Field said they would arrest, based on the non-conforming signage, and despite the black and white law.

[jimlongley]

I will point out that there is no case law proving that eating a bacon-cheeseburger in public is not illegal, too. So, until someone gets arrested and prosecuted for that, we all better conceal our lunches! (Hmmm, must be approaching lunch time!)

My point is that even if somebody didn't like my public burger consumption, he would first have to find an officer willing to arrest, and a DA willing to prosecute. Unlikely!

"But, but..." you say, "eating a cheeseburger in public is not illegal!" Correct! (At least at the moment. ) Neither is carrying past a non-complient 30.06 sign.

No -- I don't want to be the 30.06 test case, but I don't want to be the cheeseburger test case either.

On the other hand. If that's the future fate has in store for me, I am confident that such nonsense could be relatively quickly dealt with. It doesn't make sense to me to "cower in my basement" (avoid invalid 30.06 establishments) for fear of breaking a non-existant law.

Where is the law that says eating a cheesburger in public must be licensed?

And what law are you saying is non-existant?

I have stated my reasoning for avoiding giving anti-gun places my money so they can profit from it, is that "cowering . . ."? If so, then I will cower, confidant that in doing so I will find plenty of other places that would like my money and truly do not care if I carry.

[sjfcontrol]

I will point out that there is no case law proving that eating a bacon-cheeseburger in public is not illegal, too. So, until someone gets arrested and prosecuted for that, we all better conceal our lunches! (Hmmm, must be approaching lunch time!)

My point is that even if somebody didn't like my public burger consumption, he would first have to find an officer willing to arrest, and a DA willing to prosecute. Unlikely!

"But, but..." you say, "eating a cheeseburger in public is not illegal!" Correct! (At least at the moment. ) Neither is carrying past a non-complient 30.06 sign.

No -- I don't want to be the 30.06 test case, but I don't want to be the cheeseburger test case either.

On the other hand. If that's the future fate has in store for me, I am confident that such nonsense could be relatively quickly dealt with. It doesn't make sense to me to "cower in my basement" (avoid invalid 30.06 establishments) for fear of breaking a non-existant law.

Where is the law that says eating a cheesburger in public must be licensed?

Same place it says carrying past an invalid 30.06 sign is illegal.

[sjfcontrol]

I was a TSA agent at Love Field when I had these discussions, under the guise of understanding what "WE" should do if we discovered someone carrying despite the "30.05" signage in some locations around the airport. Airport police, up to command level, and airport administrators, informed us that they would arrest and had assurances that the DA would prosecute, despite the signage being non-compliant, we had training meetings on the subject, partly due to the change in the law at that time. You can say it is certain that they would not prosecute, but unless you are the DA, it is also still only your opinion. Hark back to the Harris County DA when he was saying that despite MPA, he still intended to prosecute anyone who was caught with what he deemed as an illegal handgun, concealed without benefit of a CHL, and tell me about DAs conforming to the law.

Good information as such, however I believe you've mentioned that this was a few years ago. If pre-2003 then their policy probably didn't take into account the explicit "defense" to 30.05 now provided to CHL's. Even then, I doubt a prosecution would have been successful, but now it's in "black and white, as is the exception for government owned property provided in 30.06.

Secondly, your discussions don't necessarily constitute a conscious/official policy by the City of Dallas or the Dallas County prosecutors. I have no doubt that they told you what they thought they would do, but since the issue hasn't resulted in an arrest, we really don't know if they were bluffing.

-Scott

The whole point of mentioning the discussions which took place was that the law had just changed and the signage, which was questionable at best before the change, was now per the law meaningless. City of Dallas, which runs Love Field, took the official stance that they "would prosecute" (their words) any CHL holder found to have entered Love Field carrying. The last time I was at Love Field, at Christmastime, I spoke to old friends and co-workers, and was informed that the attitude is still the same, and the signs are still where they were. I entered through the parking garage and saw no signage, a situation I am much more willing to take a chance on.

Hmm, that's interesting. You don't consider the conversations you've had with them to be oral notice?

[jimlongley]

I was a TSA agent at Love Field when I had these discussions, under the guise of understanding what "WE" should do if we discovered someone carrying despite the "30.05" signage in some locations around the airport. Airport police, up to command level, and airport administrators, informed us that they would arrest and had assurances that the DA would prosecute, despite the signage being non-compliant, we had training meetings on the subject, partly due to the change in the law at that time. You can say it is certain that they would not prosecute, but unless you are the DA, it is also still only your opinion. Hark back to the Harris County DA when he was saying that despite MPA, he still intended to prosecute anyone who was caught with what he deemed as an illegal handgun, concealed without benefit of a CHL, and tell me about DAs conforming to the law.

Good information as such, however I believe you've mentioned that this was a few years ago. If pre-2003 then their policy probably didn't take into account the explicit "defense" to 30.05 now provided to CHL's. Even then, I doubt a prosecution would have been successful, but now it's in "black and white, as is the exception for government owned property provided in 30.06.

Secondly, your discussions don't necessarily constitute a conscious/official policy by the City of Dallas or the Dallas County prosecutors. I have no doubt that they told you what they thought they would do, but since the issue hasn't resulted in an arrest, we really don't know if they were bluffing.

-Scott

The whole point of mentioning the discussions which took place was that the law had just changed and the signage, which was questionable at best before the change, was now per the law meaningless. City of Dallas, which runs Love Field, took the official stance that they "would prosecute" (their words) any CHL holder found to have entered Love Field carrying. The last time I was at Love Field, at Christmastime, I spoke to old friends and co-workers, and was informed that the attitude is still the same, and the signs are still where they were. I entered through the parking garage and saw no signage, a situation I am much more willing to take a chance on.

Hmm, that's interesting. You don't consider the conversations you've had with them to be oral notice?

No, unless you consider policy meetings between TSA and Love Field mgt (City of Dallas) and DPD, to be that. I do not.

[jimlongley]

To quote Shakespeare, theis has become "full of sound and fury" and I shall retire unconvinced and unconverted and you can look up your own reference.

[sjfcontrol]

OK, bye Jim...

But here's what Charles had to say about effective notice viewtopic.php?f=7&t=37562&p=446179&hilit=1983#p446179" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This was regarding "oral notice", but is still regarding 30.06 notice...

"Verbal notice" is the spoken work and only the spoken word, not an email. As for an arrest and legal fees, yes that can happen, but LEO's need to understand that no officer can make a good faith arrest for something that is not illegal. Doing so is a civil rights violation and a §1983 lawsuit could and should follow. An argument that TPC §30.06 is unclear will fail; it clearly states "language identical to the following . . ."

I'm not encouraging anyone to carry anywhere they feel uncomfortable. I just don't like to see "our people" giving up statutory protection that was intentionally put into TPC §30.06. It's clear as a bell and that's why there is no case law on the issue.

[Aggiedad]

Haven't left yet so for the whole discussion here about carrying past a non compliant sign ... tell me if I’m right or wrong about this:
1. If caught carrying (even with CHL) where there is a 30.06 compliant sign, one is violating state law and could be prosecuted.
2. If caught carrying (even with CHL) where the “no guns” sign is non compliant:
a.no state law has been broken, however,
b. the property owner could have the CHL holder charged with trespassing if the CHL holder refuses to leave the premises when asked. At that moment, the issue isn’t whether or not a gun sign is compliant or even that one has a CHL and a gun. The issue is that one has been asked to leave and is not doing so.

Generally speaking, I believe the above to be correct (although now that I said that, somebody will come up with an obscure “what if” scenario and prove me wrong) …

The bottom line is: concealed is concealed; no one needs to know. If we CHL holders conceal properly, no one will know we are carrying. BTW, I chose to contact Great Outdoors via email rather than asking to speak to the manager so as to remain unidentifiable. If the sign did not come down and on the odd chance I decided to eat there anyway in the future, they wouldn’t be able to place my face and I’d remain just another customer BUT …
I still don’t understand why one would WANT to continue to spend money in a place where one is not welcome. In the case of the Great Outdoors in question, there are 3 (maybe 4) other sub shops within sight … If the sign did NOT come down, why not support the others instead?

Ok, NOW I’m headed to Colorado …

[Dave2]

I still don’t understand why one would WANT to continue to spend money in a place where one is not welcome. In the case of the Great Outdoors in question, there are 3 (maybe 4) other sub shops within sight … If the sign did NOT come down, why not support the others instead?

Ok, NOW I’m headed to Colorado …

Because not all people view a non-compliant sign as an un-welcome mat. The only way to resolve this issue is to contact every single business that's posted a non-compliant sign and ask them if CHL holders really are unwelcome or if it's up for some other reason. If somebody else cares enough to put in the effort, more power to them, but I have neither the time or the inclination.

(The preceding mini-rant was not directed at Aggiedad, or any other one person.)

Have a safe trip! I love the mountains in CO. It's one of the few places in this country that I'd move to without visiting first.