TexasCHLforum.com

The class A and felony penalties on campus do not apply to concealed carry outside of buildings, correct? Same as today, at least for public campuses. Is that correct? Will the penalty for a 30.06 violation, outdoors, on a private campus be a class C? I am now confused.

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

cowhow wrote: That's the meat of my question...and to also be clear I am not advocating breaking the law either. But, if I find myself beyond an enforceable 30.06 sign I am not necessarily at that point being handed a Class C and $200 fine. As I understand that portion of the bill it's only after oral notice is given that I either depart or suffer the consequences, Class A, loss of CHL, jail time, etc. Am I understanding correctly?

Most people won't even know you are carrying. Here would be a more realistic scenario: You walk into an establishment that is 30.06 posted. For whatever reason, your shirt rides up and the employee sees you are carrying. If they call the cops and you are confronted, LEO can write you up to a $200 ticket for violating 30.06 (assuming it's Jan 1, 2016 or later). If you refuse to leave the premises, then you are going to get charged with a Class A.
Since most won't even notice you are carrying, you will probably be on your way without any encounter.

If they had 30.07 posted also in this scenario, could you get charged with both?

Charged with both 30.06 & 30.07 violations? I doubt one could justify that. Unless you are asking 30.07 being charged with Class C & Class A. Of course, it all comes down to whether you were given oral notice and failed to depart to justify the Class A.

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

cowhow wrote: That's the meat of my question...and to also be clear I am not advocating breaking the law either. But, if I find myself beyond an enforceable 30.06 sign I am not necessarily at that point being handed a Class C and $200 fine. As I understand that portion of the bill it's only after oral notice is given that I either depart or suffer the consequences, Class A, loss of CHL, jail time, etc. Am I understanding correctly?

Most people won't even know you are carrying. Here would be a more realistic scenario: You walk into an establishment that is 30.06 posted. For whatever reason, your shirt rides up and the employee sees you are carrying. If they call the cops and you are confronted, LEO can write you up to a $200 ticket for violating 30.06 (assuming it's Jan 1, 2016 or later). If you refuse to leave the premises, then you are going to get charged with a Class A.
Since most won't even notice you are carrying, you will probably be on your way without any encounter.

If they had 30.07 posted also in this scenario, could you get charged with both?

Charged with both 30.06 & 30.07 violations? I doubt one could justify that. Unless you are asking 30.07 being charged with Class C & Class A. Of course, it all comes down to whether you were given oral notice and failed to depart to justify the Class A.

Well if you were concealed and violating 30.06, then you become exposed and are now violating 30.07 was my question.

It's great that the penalty for violating 30.06 will be reduced. But it really shouldn't change how we act. I plan on continuing to look for the dreaded big ugly sign and abide by the property owner's wishes. We shouldn't become lax because the violation is now classed differently. Remember that this site, 30.06.com, and others are used to refute the "CHL holders are the most law-abiding" argument. Besides, how many 30.06 violations have been actually prosecuted since it's been part of the penal code???

TexasCajun wrote:It's great that the penalty for violating 30.06 will be reduced. But it really shouldn't change how we act. I plan on continuing to look for the dreaded big ugly sign and abide by the property owner's wishes. We shouldn't become lax because the violation is now classed differently. Remember that this site, 30.06.com, and others are used to refute the "CHL holders are the most law-abiding" argument. Besides, how many 30.06 violations have been actually prosecuted since it's been part of the penal code???

It will change the way I act in one respect - signs will no longer be "close enough". If the wording isn't right, the words too small, it lacks a contrasting background, etc.. I'm walking right passed the noncompliant sign. This is not something I would have considered before because of the potential costs and consequences associated with defending myself in court. But, I'm sure I can find $200 if I had to.

jmra wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:It's great that the penalty for violating 30.06 will be reduced. But it really shouldn't change how we act. I plan on continuing to look for the dreaded big ugly sign and abide by the property owner's wishes. We shouldn't become lax because the violation is now classed differently. Remember that this site, 30.06.com, and others are used to refute the "CHL holders are the most law-abiding" argument. Besides, how many 30.06 violations haven actually prosecuted since it's been part of the penal code???

It will change the way I act in one respect - signs will no longer be "close enough". If the wording isn't right, the words too small, it lacks a contrasting background, etc.. I'm walking right passed the noncompliant sign. This is not something I would have considered before because of the potential costs and consequences associated with defending myself in court. But, I'm sure I can find $200 if I had to.

I personally will not spend any money in a business that is posted 30.06. By posting they are making a statement and I make one by not doing business there. If I see a sign, legal or not, they are not getting my money.

Roger Howard wrote:

jmra wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:It's great that the penalty for violating 30.06 will be reduced. But it really shouldn't change how we act. I plan on continuing to look for the dreaded big ugly sign and abide by the property owner's wishes. We shouldn't become lax because the violation is now classed differently. Remember that this site, 30.06.com, and others are used to refute the "CHL holders are the most law-abiding" argument. Besides, how many 30.06 violations haven actually prosecuted since it's been part of the penal code???

It will change the way I act in one respect - signs will no longer be "close enough". If the wording isn't right, the words too small, it lacks a contrasting background, etc.. I'm walking right passed the noncompliant sign. This is not something I would have considered before because of the potential costs and consequences associated with defending myself in court. But, I'm sure I can find $200 if I had to.

I personally will not spend any money in a business that is posted 30.06. By posting they are making a statement and I make one by not doing business there. If I see a sign, legal or not, they are not getting my money.

And that's fine when there is a choice to be made, sometimes there is not. If I have a family member in the hospital I don't have the luxury of leaving that hospital and going to one that isn't posted.
Not to mention the fact that if the sign is not compliant, then it is not post 30.06.

Roger Howard wrote:

jmra wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:It's great that the penalty for violating 30.06 will be reduced. But it really shouldn't change how we act. I plan on continuing to look for the dreaded big ugly sign and abide by the property owner's wishes. We shouldn't become lax because the violation is now classed differently. Remember that this site, 30.06.com, and others are used to refute the "CHL holders are the most law-abiding" argument. Besides, how many 30.06 violations haven actually prosecuted since it's been part of the penal code???

It will change the way I act in one respect - signs will no longer be "close enough". If the wording isn't right, the words too small, it lacks a contrasting background, etc.. I'm walking right passed the noncompliant sign. This is not something I would have considered before because of the potential costs and consequences associated with defending myself in court. But, I'm sure I can find $200 if I had to.

I personally will not spend any money in a business that is posted 30.06. By posting they are making a statement and I make one by not doing business there. If I see a sign, legal or not, they are not getting my money.

I love this concept, but are you going to stop seeing movies? With several small kids in the house that is not an option. Now, of course, most AMC Theatres and Grapevine Mills actually post their signs on clear glass with white letters, which is in flagrant violation of a contrasting background. Do you want to test that theory? Is clear glass contrasting enough for white letters? I say no, but it matters more about what an ADA/DA think.

I avoid Grapevine Mills mall like the black plague, but you have to venture out into infected territory from time to time.

cyphur wrote:

Roger Howard wrote:

jmra wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:It's great that the penalty for violating 30.06 will be reduced. But it really shouldn't change how we act. I plan on continuing to look for the dreaded big ugly sign and abide by the property owner's wishes. We shouldn't become lax because the violation is now classed differently. Remember that this site, 30.06.com, and others are used to refute the "CHL holders are the most law-abiding" argument. Besides, how many 30.06 violations haven actually prosecuted since it's been part of the penal code???

It will change the way I act in one respect - signs will no longer be "close enough". If the wording isn't right, the words too small, it lacks a contrasting background, etc.. I'm walking right passed the noncompliant sign. This is not something I would have considered before because of the potential costs and consequences associated with defending myself in court. But, I'm sure I can find $200 if I had to.

I personally will not spend any money in a business that is posted 30.06. By posting they are making a statement and I make one by not doing business there. If I see a sign, legal or not, they are not getting my money.

I love this concept, but are you going to stop seeing movies? With several small kids in the house that is not an option. Now, of course, most AMC Theatres and Grapevine Mills actually post their signs on clear glass with white letters, which is in flagrant violation of a contrasting background. Do you want to test that theory? Is clear glass contrasting enough for white letters? I say no, but it matters more about what an ADA/DA think.

I avoid Grapevine Mills mall like the black plague, but you have to venture out into infected territory from time to time.

I have managed not to spend one penny in a business posted 30.06 in over 10 years.