I am one the "adent supporters of open carry" so making the case against it was not my intent.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I guess you realize you just made an argument against passing open-carry.johnferg69 wrote:Thats one of my questions. I understand that people want 30.06 left alone and a different sign for open carry. The reason being that if not 30.06 signs will go up everywhere. But in peoples ignorance of the law, whats to stop them from putting up a 30.06 sign first? IF 30.06 doesn't cover CC and OC together do you think if they screw up and go to the expense of putting up a 30.06 they'll take it down in place of a 30.07 sign later? And if they do how long till the public gets educated in the difference?jimlongley wrote:
And very specifically the sign MUST be a minimum of 2 feet by 3 feet, EACH sign.
Although it would be interesting to see some place put up a 30.06 sign and not a 30.07.
If open-carry passes, there will be enough press coverage that property owners are going to know which sign they must post to prevent open-carry. This presumes the legislature will even consider passing a bill that requires two "big ugly signs." I promise you I'll be doing seminars, educational videos and other public appearances on the issue to 1) try to allay any fears people have about seeing people openly carrying guns to avoid what we saw from 1995 through 1997; and 2) make sure they know of the sign requirements so concealed-carry doesn't get banned unintentionally. There will be few if any mistakes.
(First, signs are cheap so posting one and removing it would hardly be a financial burden.) If, and that's a very big "if," the legislature does create a TPC §30.07 with a "big ugly sign," and if a property owner does post a TPC §30.06 sign by mistake, I think it is highly likely they will remove the 30.06 sign and post the 30.07 sign. The only reason we see so few 30.06-compliant signs is because they are ugly! Posting two of those things will make one's property look doubly bad and most owners won't do that unless they truly want to ban concealed-carry as well as open-carry.johnferg69 wrote:IF 30.06 doesn't cover CC and OC together do you think if they screw up and go to the expense of putting up a 30.06 they'll take it down in place of a 30.07 sign later?
Even the most ardent supporters of open-carry admit that very few people are likely to exercise that option. The few that do will probably be very well versed in the new law and know they would be able carry past a 30.06 and will do so. This will quickly educate the property owner and all of their customers.johnferg69 wrote:And if they do how long till the public gets educated in the difference?
I/we have said it from the beginning, if TPC §30.06 is amended even in the slightest, open-carry will not pass and you can take that to the bank. I keep repeating this because open-carry supporters need to make sure they communicate with their bill sponsors and let them know that in the event the legislature will not pass a 30.07-like sign for open-carry, then the fallback position cannot be to amend TPC §30.06. They will have to accept the fact that any "no guns" sign will apply to open-carry. I have a very real concern that people will try to get a 30.07 sign created (which is highly unlikely), but if that fails, they will demand that TPC §30.06 be amended rather than having any "no guns" signs apply to open-carry. If they take that position, then open-carry will fail.
Chas.
I was just questioning the fact that "2 big ugly signs" may be confusing in the eyes of people ignorant of the law and the wrong one may go up. And if it does how soon till it comes down.
Also, I remember during the 2011 session I commented 30.06 for CC and a gun-buster sign for OC. Repeatedly I was told by some that wouldn't work because 2 signs would be a financial burden on businesses.