grapevine mills mall 3006?

[PUCKER]

max - when my wife and I attempted to go to a movie at AMC 30 at GV Mills a few weeks ago I noticed the non-compliant 30.06 signs that AMC 30 had posted - they were waaaaaaay to small to be legal, didn't check the wording, either way though, non-compliant. Couple that with AMC's HIGH prices and we scooted on over to Tinseltown...better bargain.

BTW - the large 30.06 signs that GV Mills has posted are just window dressing, the verbage is not correct, they are non-compliant signs, at least this one is:

[marksiwel]

max - when my wife and I attempted to go to a movie at AMC 30 at GV Mills a few weeks ago I noticed the non-compliant 30.06 signs that AMC 30 had posted - they were waaaaaaay to small to be legal, didn't check the wording, either way though, non-compliant. Couple that with AMC's HIGH prices and we scooted on over to Tinseltown...better bargain.

BTW - the large 30.06 signs that GV Mills has posted are just window dressing, the verbage is not correct, they are non-compliant signs, at least this one is:

You want to fight that in court? I dont

[PUCKER]

Sure think, why not? Remember, concealed is concealed. Do I frequent this place? NO! Have I somewhat-unwillingly gone to a family gathering at a ridiculously overpriced theme restaurant there? Maybe.

I do think a test case would be a great thing - seriously - the law is the law. Either the sign is correct or it is NOT. It's NOT correct.

You want to fight that in court? I dont

[03Lightningrocks]

max - when my wife and I attempted to go to a movie at AMC 30 at GV Mills a few weeks ago I noticed the non-compliant 30.06 signs that AMC 30 had posted - they were waaaaaaay to small to be legal, didn't check the wording, either way though, non-compliant. Couple that with AMC's HIGH prices and we scooted on over to Tinseltown...better bargain.

BTW - the large 30.06 signs that GV Mills has posted are just window dressing, the verbage is not correct, they are non-compliant signs, at least this one is:

You want to fight that in court? I dont

Quite frankly. Not only yes...but heck yes!!!! I will gladly sue them for false arrest. What makes you fellers act like you live in Communist China? This is America folks...cops can't get away with arresting people for anything they choose!!! We have a legal system for a reason. Using the line of thought here...I should be paranoid about getting arrested for walking down the wrong side of the street.

Unless your acting stupid in some other way, no cop is going to arrest you for carrying past an illegal sign. They may arrest you for failure to conceal...since this would be the only way they would know you have a gun...they most likely would tell you to leave the premises. At this point...you are legally 30:06ed and must leave.

[Keith B]

You want to fight that in court? I dont

Quite frankly. Not only yes...but heck yes!!!! I will gladly sue them for false arrest.

You offering to be a test case??

[juggernaut]

Unless your acting stupid in some other way, no cop is going to arrest you for carrying past an illegal sign. They may arrest you for failure to conceal...since this would be the only way they would know you have a gun...they most likely would tell you to leave the premises. At this point...you are legally 30:06ed and must leave.

I boycott places with antigun signs on principle, even noncompliant signs like above, but I can't argue with your logic.

[PappaGun]

All of this is very intersting. And it is all speculative.
Until various circumstances are played out before bodies of 12, it is all just food for thought.
Any time any one of us go before a jury for any foreseen or unforeseen circumstance, it will play out very differently than imagined.
Just my opinion.

[Oldgringo]

Folk,

The intent of this sign and the Owner's message to any possible customers is patently obvious and it is patently clear. Splitting hairs about verbage or lettering size does not alter nor negate the Owner's stated declaration that he/she does not want any CHL guns on the premises. By extension, the Owner is declaring that any business CH licensees may bring to the establishment is of no consequence.

What's the big deal? Shop where your patronage and business is welcome and appreciated.

[jimlongley]

Quite frankly. Not only yes...but heck yes!!!! I will gladly sue them for false arrest. What makes you fellers act like you live in Communist China? This is America folks...cops can't get away with arresting people for anything they choose!!! We have a legal system for a reason. Using the line of thought here...I should be paranoid about getting arrested for walking down the wrong side of the street.

Unless your acting stupid in some other way, no cop is going to arrest you for carrying past an illegal sign. They may arrest you for failure to conceal...since this would be the only way they would know you have a gun...they most likely would tell you to leave the premises. At this point...you are legally 30:06ed and must leave.

I disagree with you. I called DPS a couple of years ago, and the lady attorney I eventually ended up talking to, stated that ANY sign would be considered a valid effort at posting and they would prosecute.

I have heard the same expressed by local officers in Plano and Grapevine, as well as anecdotally from others about officers they met or know.

Dallas Love Field is so non-compliant that their signage is actually confusing, and when I worked there for TSA several of the officers told me that they would surely arrest any CHL holder they caught carrying in the airport.

The same for DFW, except DFW is NOT posted at all, but that didn't bother the couple of officers that I spoke with during time with TSA there, their take was that the airport was a restricted area, so no carry was allowed.

None of them was talking about asking a CHLer to leave, they were talking about making an arrest. And there is every possibility that the only way to beat the charge would be to appear in front of a judge that was sympathetic. At that point
you would at least be out a couple of days in jail, or bail, and lawyer's fees, and false arrest would a slim possibility of recourse - all the offending officer would have to do would be present evidence that he considered his action to be proper enforcement of the law, maybe training, maybe other officers, and there goes the false arrest, along with more money.

[boomerang]

Folk,

The intent of this sign and the Owner's message to any possible customers is patently obvious and it is patently clear.

Same as this sign. The intent and message is clear.


The people who post the signs are cut from the same cloth, as are the cops who would enforce such signs, when the law says such signs have no legal weight.

[wgoforth]

Folk,

The intent of this sign and the Owner's message to any possible customers is patently obvious and it is patently clear. Splitting hairs about verbage or lettering size does not alter nor negate the Owner's stated declaration that he/she does not want any CHL guns on the premises. By extension, the Owner is declaring that any business CH licensees may bring to the establishment is of no consequence.

What's the big deal? Shop where your patronage and business is welcome and appreciated.

This is the part that gets confusing to me. If this is the case, then even the infamous "gun busters" sign would be obvious and clear as to intent, thus no need for the 30.06 ruling at all?

[03Lightningrocks]

Reading how afraid some of you fellers are of the government, specifically the police agencies, I am amazed we have any constitutional rights at all. I for one will carry past any and all no guns allowed signs that don't legally apply to me...every time. I will also keep my weapon concealed...every time. I refuse to allow my rights as a citizen of the United States be trampled by police officers or any other law enforcement agency. Quite frankly...I am not showing much bravery in doing so since there is no way in the world that some cop is going to randomly pick me out of a crowd for a strip search in the mall.

I do feel that the posting of signs, like the one being discussed on this thread, make the intentions of the property owners quite obvious and once I know a place is anti CHL, they no longer get my business.

[03Lightningrocks]

Folk,

The intent of this sign and the Owner's message to any possible customers is patently obvious and it is patently clear. Splitting hairs about verbage or lettering size does not alter nor negate the Owner's stated declaration that he/she does not want any CHL guns on the premises. By extension, the Owner is declaring that any business CH licensees may bring to the establishment is of no consequence.

What's the big deal? Shop where your patronage and business is welcome and appreciated.

This is the part that gets confusing to me. If this is the case, then even the infamous "gun busters" sign would be obvious and clear as to intent, thus no need for the 30.06 ruling at all?

In my mind the gun busters sign is a futile attempt at keeping illegal gun carrying off the premises, an attempt at making the masses feel the area is somehow safer. Obviously...Joe Thug is not going to care about the sign, but it allows the sheep to feel the area has no wolves. The business posting such signs is addressing UNLICENSED concealed carry.

I feel if the business were anti-CHL, they would post a sign such as the one at Grapevine Mills Mall in an attempt to directly address CHL holders.

[ScottDLS]

Quite frankly. Not only yes...but heck yes!!!! I will gladly sue them for false arrest. What makes you fellers act like you live in Communist China? This is America folks...cops can't get away with arresting people for anything they choose!!! We have a legal system for a reason. Using the line of thought here...I should be paranoid about getting arrested for walking down the wrong side of the street.

Unless your acting stupid in some other way, no cop is going to arrest you for carrying past an illegal sign. They may arrest you for failure to conceal...since this would be the only way they would know you have a gun...they most likely would tell you to leave the premises. At this point...you are legally 30:06ed and must leave.

I disagree with you. I called DPS a couple of years ago, and the lady attorney I eventually ended up talking to, stated that ANY sign would be considered a valid effort at posting and they would prosecute.

I have heard the same expressed by local officers in Plano and Grapevine, as well as anecdotally from others about officers they met or know.

Dallas Love Field is so non-compliant that their signage is actually confusing, and when I worked there for TSA several of the officers told me that they would surely arrest any CHL holder they caught carrying in the airport.

The same for DFW, except DFW is NOT posted at all, but that didn't bother the couple of officers that I spoke with during time with TSA there, their take was that the airport was a restricted area, so no carry was allowed.

None of them was talking about asking a CHLer to leave, they were talking about making an arrest. And there is every possibility that the only way to beat the charge would be to appear in front of a judge that was sympathetic. At that point
you would at least be out a couple of days in jail, or bail, and lawyer's fees, and false arrest would a slim possibility of recourse - all the offending officer would have to do would be present evidence that he considered his action to be proper enforcement of the law, maybe training, maybe other officers, and there goes the false arrest, along with more money.

Jim -

What precisely would the officers at DFW or Love Field submit as the charge when they arrested a CHL holder for carrying? The intent of the signs at Dallas Love or the invisible signs at DFW is irrelevant. There is no law that makes it illegal for a CHL holder to carry in the non-secure areas of these airports as they are property of Texas government entities. How would the officers, especially at DFW, submit that their actions were proper enforcement of the law?

Do Texas peace officers just get to make up a law, arrest you for it, end then say it was their training? I mean even if they had a sympathetic prosecuting attorney in Tarrant County, I bet they'd get sanctioned by the judge at arraignment for submitting such a bogus case. I don't think there would be any bail because the charges would get tossed at arraignment. If it was a weekend or something and they didn't get you promptly arraigned, I think you'd have an even better false arrest or even federal "official oppression" case. Personally, I've carried at both airports because I know it is completely legal.

On private property like Grapevine Mills, I still think someone could prevail as not having received effective notice because the law is quite clear on the sign (notice) requirements, and Grapevine Mills doesn't meet them. However, the cops/DA might be able to sustain a charge at least until trial.

-Scott

[Oldgringo]

ScottDLS wrote:

On private property like Grapevine Mills, I still think someone could prevail as not having received effective notice because the law is quite clear on the sign (notice) requirements, and Grapevine Mills doesn't meet them. However, the cops/DA might be able to sustain a charge at least until trial.

You must have pretty deep pockets in them overalls. You know what 'ahm sayin', Vern?