TexasCHLforum.com

Require Valid Signs in Order to Enforce
There is a LOT of conversation here about what constitutes a valid sign. It would be nice if a section was added which said...oh! what's that legal wording? All I'm thinking of is "It's a defense to prosecution..." but I'm trying to remember the other wording which means they aren't to take you in for it in the first place. Well, whatever that other wording is, it would be nice if that was added saying that they can't take you in unless the 30.06 sign adheres to all the statutory specifications. No more "close enough" or "intent" or Russian roulette on which cop you get. Every one knows exactly what's required.

Streamline Excluded Places
There's also a lot of debate about which places are not allowed. Hospitals that are owned or affiliated with universities? How distant does the relationship have to be to still apply? What about those Education Service Centers? I can't remember any of the other gray areas, but this board is full of them with discussions about not wanting to be a test case. It would be nice if they would streamline those places and make it more clear cut and manageable therefore making the knowledge accessible to the everyday man without consulting tax records or property deeds.

All Excluded Places Posted
I'd also like to see every place that is restricted have to put up valid signage quoting under which section they are restricted and make it a defense to prosecution that the place/event was not properly posted. Are monster truck rallies a sporting event? How about hot dog eating? They have a governing federation. It shouldn't be up to the CHL holder to try to interpret the law in that way. If it is restricted, post it and post why. The whole courthouse thing mentioned above could apply here, too. Only the actual parts of buildings being currently and actively used for court or court offices should be posted.

Remove Invalid Signs
I'd also like to see some sort of fine, penalty, and requirement to promptly remove invalid signs and restrictions. I was at a city owned museum the other day which had a sign on the door saying it is "unlawful to carry a handgun on the premises," when they meant that it is unlawful to carry an unlawful handgun. While CHL holders know it isn't unlawful for them (and not all do since it isn't clear which places are covered under the current wording when we have so many threads consulting deed records), the average citizen could be scared and scandalized by the incorrect legal advice posted on the door if he found out someone was carrying a concealed handgun with a CHL. That didn't work so well at Costco and I wouldn't want to be Texas' Erik Scott. People post 30.06 signs at courthouses and water departments. They aren't illegal, just invalid. And there's the thread about the city building that has a security guard with metal detector at the entrance to keep out the guns that are allowed there under the statutes. I'd like to see them be illegal and, more importantly, to see a way of getting them to take down the incorrect legal notice/restriction so that the signs that are up can be trusted and taken at face value.

I agree with many of the other posters above and think these changes aren't all that important in a gaining rights kind of way, but are important in the day to day application of having a CHL. We know that it is confusing officers and citizens and it could be easily rectified.