I don't know how well a Red Cross CPR card is going to hold up, but the truth is even before this law. Practically speaking there haven't been hundreds of LTC holders being hauled off to prison, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.So does this mean my basic problem and complaints about 30.06 have just effectively been removed via HB435? Any opinions on this would be much appreciated.
Search found 2 matches
Search found 2 matches • Page 1 of 1
It wasn't an accident. Not at all. There are actually people in the legislature that know what they are doing as well as people who don't pay close attention.
Welcome to the group, We do encourage open and free discussion on LTC law and how it affects us. Most of us do finding it upsetting when we come accros a 30.0/ 30,07 sign. But the laws regarding these signs were built in as a means of protection as much as they were intended to protect property rights. The signs must be big and precise to be enforcable. Without the protection to property owners it is unlikely we would ever have our CHL/LTC program that we enjoy today. Just legislative reality.CZp10 wrote:Sorry, I am new here (and to concealed carry), but I have a question that has been bothering me for some time. I have read through a number of threads on this topic, but I honestly don’t understand the complacency. I apologize for bringing this up again, but I am really struggling with this. Since I am new to all this, please let me know if I am misunderstanding anything, or just being dumb in general (my wife seems to think that happens a lot for some strange reason ).
I suppose that every transgression before the court system is a "forever record criminal act". But the truth is a simple violation of entering premises with a 30.06/30.07 is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a $200.00 fine. A traffic violation will have more consequences than simple armed entry into a restricted 30.06 premise. The thing is we are a law abiding group and most of us take signage very seriously, we might not like the sign but we respect it.CZp10 wrote: Personally (and this is just my own opinion) I don’t have a problem with the requirements for a concealed carry permit, nor do I have a problem with people or businesses who do not want firearms on their private property. However, I can’t understand how the placing of a sign makes an otherwise completely law abiding citizen a forever recorded criminal for simply placing a foot inside a building open to all of the general public just they put up a discriminatory sign.
I am not sure where you live but, I can weeks without seeing a 30.06 sign. The major grocery stores around here, have none. (Randell's, Walmart, Krogers, Arlans, and HEB. (HEB has 30.07 signs) The last restaurant I saw with a 30.06 sign was Taco Cabana. It was too small to be enforceable and came down after a public outcry and email campaign (mostly from this forum). That was several years ago. I think you might be confusing the 30.07 sign with the 30.06 sign. I view the 30.07 sign without it's mean brother the 30.06 sign as a dress code. They just don't wanna see your gun. They might have a 'shirts required' sign too because they don't wanna see our ugly hairy chests.CZp10 wrote:
The other argument is that you should just choose not to go anywhere with the sign up. This might work in some cities, but frankly I find this quite literally impossible. That would mean NEVER going to the movies, a very large number of grocery stores, any houses of worship, any and all zoos, amusement parks, or the like, toy stores, auto dealers, many restaurants, etc. Looking at texas3006 there are a huge number of locations with signs. It is in no way some small number of locations, it is a very significant inconvenience and extremely dangerous to anyone who has to unholster and lock up their firearm in a car every single time they go to any of these places.
BTW: the signs at the zoos are probably unenforcible.
CZp10 wrote: TLDR: Take out the following four words from 30.06 (d): “a Class C misdemeanor”
Most of us view this a good thing.