This would be great. I really dislike the idea that a 3006 sign could have a higher impact in some places than others. This came about because in these few instances (hospitals / nursing homes, amusement parks, and open government meetings) and a few others (institutions of higher education and places of worship), the law stipulates use of a PC §30.06 sign to enforce a completely different law: PC §46.035. Rather than removing them from PC §46.035, the sign clause got added in. When both PC §46.035 and PC §30.06 were Class A by default, then it was not much of an impact, but now that PC §30.06 is by default a Class C without oral notification, it causes the issue that 'not all 3006 signs are created equal'.Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:25 amhttps://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... ill=HB2352
Reduces the penalty of a 30.06/7 violation at hospitals, amusement parks and open governmental meetings from a Class A misdemeanor to a class C misdemeanor unless you fail to depart.
That's messed up. To put it in non-2A terms, it's the equivalent of saying, "stop signs mean stop, but in certain cases, the stop sign means stop and keep away, and you can get a restraining order violation instead of failure to stop". Yeah, it's that silly.
30.06 signs should enforce 30.06, and not other laws, if we really wanted to make sense. Or better yet, remove all off-limits locations and reduce 30.06 to oral notification only (i.e. removing the force of law from signs) would be best of all.
I understand why 30.06 came to be in the first place, as the compromise that allowed CHL to exist. I still believe in property owner's rights, but providing force of law to a sign for one particular subgroup seems to have outlived its lifecycle.