Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

[LSUTiger]

Grab a cup of coffee and get comfortable this might be a little long.

I know a lot of people hang their hopes and dreams on 30.06. I understand its importance in our current political reality and what it took to get that far.

But I have always said that 30.06 is a flimsy protection at best because of how easy it is for someone to post a sign and legally prohibit you from exercising your 2A rights.

We all know that criminals don’t obey signs or laws so I think signs and CHL licensing, NFA 1934, GCA 1968, etc. etc. and anything less that Nation Wide Constitutional Carry, OC or CC, long gun or handgun, full auto, suppressed, less than 16” barrel SBR,SBS, AOW is a 2A infringement and ludicrous. None of it makes us safer. It only restricts the law abiding citizen and is ignored by criminals. But I digress.

Improper 30.06 signage has been the inside joke amongst CHLers and an excuse to thumb our noses at the Antis. “Look at us and how we are fooling them”.
Little do we realize that maybe the joke could be on us if we are perceived as “those lawbreaking CHLers” and prompts any changes with 30.06.

images.png (5.98 KiB) Viewed 3696 times

Whether intentionally posting improper signs that don’t meet the letter of the law to appease the Antis but give the nod to CHLers or by ignorance, both the gunbuster and improper signs that actually contain 30.06 language or other 51% etc., but don’t meet the letter of the law go ignored. And lawfully so.

However IMHO, if the sign contains the proper 30.06 language, is conspicuously located where there is no way you can’t see it, is close to compliant, but is not exactly compliant due to color, size, etc. then it has the potential to become a beat the rap not the ride situation and if it’s close enough you might not beat the rap. I wish you luck trying to explain the finer points of 30.06 to the arresting officer should you somehow get noticed and good luck in court.

It's the improper 30.06 signs that are close that I think are at issue.

I was never one of those “lets not rock the boat so no one posts anymore 30.06 signs” kinda folks. I believe we should continue to advance gun rights until there are no 2A infringements left. Maintaining the status quo is a losing proposition as the Antis continue to chip away at the stone. If you aren’t gaining, your losing.

I don’t believe in censorship from the opposing side or censoring ourselves to appease the opposing side. Censorship may hide the truth but doesn’t make it go away.

I believe we should converse amongst ourselves and preach the word, when we are afraid to do that then the other side wins. However, we should do it in a tactful way.

I am happy to see SB11, SB17, SB273, HB308 and all the other pro-gun bills in the TX legislature. Even at the risk of 30.06. If you can never advance anything without jeopardizing it then it just goes to prove how fragile its protection is to begin with.

Now I came across this recent article about 30.06 and was surprised at both at what it did contain and not contain.
It did not contain any references of any current pending legislation.
It did contain much mention of TXCHLFORUM and of posts by its members. Caution, article contains language not suitable for all audiences.

http://tinyurl.com/Texas-Gunner-Disregard-Signs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the entire article. It may be much ado about nothing but the other side will take every opportunity to make us look bad and they are always trying in the never ending battle. What impact will it have? IDK.

Remember, not alerting others to the fact that a 30.06 sign is needed to keep CHLers out, or improper signs don’t have the force of law is one thing. To much public nose thumbing about the fact that they can be ignored is another. Relying solely on the ignorance of others to keep 30.06 effectively in our favor was never a good plan. Which is why we must keep on fighting to remove 2A infringements.

Support HB567.

[Rrash]

However IMHO, if the sign contains the proper 30.06 language, is conspicuously located where there is no way you can’t see it, is close to compliant, but is not exactly compliant due to color, size, etc. then it has the potential to become a beat the rap not the ride situation and if it’s close enough you might not beat the rap. I wish you luck trying to explain the finer points of 30.06 to the arresting officer should you somehow get noticed and good luck in court.

I agree with you concerning private businesses, provided there has been a really honest attempt at 30.06. These business owners have done their homework (or at least tried) and stated their case on the issue. Their attempt is enough for me to give my business to another company, and respect the intent of their sign and their rights. Their request is not in any way an infringement upon my 2A rights. I also see this as my own personal opinion and respect those who choose give anti-2A businesses their money, carrying past those signs. Either way, it is a judgement call, and I feel we can all be trusted to make them as we see fit. Besides, each sign/situation is unique.

The same can not be said, however, for publicly owned/leased areas, such as the AAC (non-sporting/non-scholastic events), DMA, Austin Convention Center, Fort Worth Zoo, etc. I'm optimistic about SB273/HB226.

[Jason K]

Wish I could read it.....your link doesn't seem to work.

When I see a 30.06 sign, I see a sign that says "WHITES ONLY"....or "NO HISPANICS"....or "JUDEN VERBOTEN". It's offensive to someone who has gone to a lot of time, trouble, and money to prove through the state of Texas and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that I am (according to Tom Gresham of GUN TALK) a state-certified good guy. Yet a printed sign is all that it takes to deprive me of my civil right to keep and bear arms as enumerated by the SCOTUS McDonald ruling. Most insulting of all, the 30.06 law provides a criminal penalty specifically directed toward the a state-certified good guy ....but does not apply to a criminal who chooses to carry a gun into a 30.06-posted area without a license.

So, yes.....I do support the efforts of this forum, Texas3006.com, and others to point out the ways where this law is invalid. And I also support any civil disobedience in regard to getting around 30.06....with the understanding that those acting in that way are cognizant of the legal consequences involved. And, most importantly.....I look forward to the day when the 30.06 sign can be cast upon the dustbin of history with all the other signs mentioned above.

[mojo84]

I don't give much credence or regard to articles such as that. I think when an author goes off on a rant like that, especially considering the title of the article, most reasonable people won't consider it very credible.

Apparently, Charles, this forum and the texas3006 database is effective. Otherwise, they wouldn't be singled out in such articles.

[mojo84]

When I see a valid 30.06 sign, I may be disappointed, frustrated or angered. However, I am never offended as if someone is discriminating against me because of my race, religion or ethnicity. Equating the banning of a gun carrier to racism does not help your argument. If anything, it detracts from it.

[Jason K]

When I see a valid 30.06 sign, I may be disappointed, frustrated or angered. However, I am never offended as if someone is discriminating against me because of my race, religion or ethnicity. Equating the banning of a gun carrier to racism does not help your argument. If anything, it detracts from it.

Guess some folks take civil rights more seriously than others....

[C-dub]

The link works fine for me. Wish I could say the same about the author and those that left comments. So many ignorant people, so little desire to waste time on them.

[baldeagle]

The article is beyond silly. The guy is upset because the legislators, responding to the wishes of their constituents, decided that for a business to deny a citizen the right to carry in their establishment, that business must make a positive declarative statement to that effect. The signs have zero effect on criminals. They could care less.

The writer also apparently is ignorant of the fact that CHL licensees are, by far, the most law-abiding citizens in the state. When I was working, I dutifully locked up my weapon in a safe in my car every day before I entered work, because the law said I couldn't carry my weapon in my office. The criminals could care less, and I knew that. So I developed plans for escape and to retrieve my weapon so I could defend myself if I needed to. It all seemed rather silly, because there was no difference between the outside and inside of the building, but that was the law, so I complied with it.

This guy wants to make it even harder on law-abiding citizens while ignoring the fact that it won't impact criminals at all. That's the definition of stupid.

[mojo84]

When I see a valid 30.06 sign, I may be disappointed, frustrated or angered. However, I am never offended as if someone is discriminating against me because of my race, religion or ethnicity. Equating the banning of a gun carrier to racism does not help your argument. If anything, it detracts from it.

Guess some folks take civil rights more seriously than others....

I'm just not easily offended. Plus I try to only get offended over offensive things. Hoplophobia is not equivalent to racism and bigotry. Some rely on hyperbole.

[TexasCajun]

When I see a valid 30.06 sign, I may be disappointed, frustrated or angered. However, I am never offended as if someone is discriminating against me because of my race, religion or ethnicity. Equating the banning of a gun carrier to racism does not help your argument. If anything, it detracts from it.

Guess some folks take civil rights more seriously than others....

Or some folks define civil rights correctly. Refusing service to someone because of who they are is wrong. Requesting that customers of a business behave in a certain way is not a violation of anyone's civil rights. Carrying a firearm is not who you are, it's what you do. It's the same as some restaurants requiring men to wear jackets or convenience stores requiring customers to wear shirts and shoes. A business that posts 30.06 is prohibiting an activity that they find objectionable.

[ScooterSissy]

As soon as someone creates a site about "gunXXXXery", they loose every bit of credibility on trying to establish reasonable, responsible dialog.

[FloMoAggie]

When I see a valid 30.06 sign, I may be disappointed, frustrated or angered. However, I am never offended as if someone is discriminating against me because of my race, religion or ethnicity. Equating the banning of a gun carrier to racism does not help your argument. If anything, it detracts from it.

Guess some folks take civil rights more seriously than others....

Or some folks define civil rights correctly. Refusing service to someone because of who they are is wrong. Requesting that customers of a business behave in a certain way is not a violation of anyone's civil rights. Carrying a firearm is not who you are, it's what you do. It's the same as some restaurants requiring men to wear jackets or convenience stores requiring customers to wear shirts and shoes. A business that posts 30.06 is prohibiting an activity that they find objectionable.

[TexasCajun]

Regarding the original post, the anti's have been using this forum, 3006.com, and other online forums as "evidence" of how CHLs are not as law abiding as we're made out to be. I'm with the camp that adheres to signs that are close enough. As far as those that want to disregard what the law says simply because they believe that they know better than anyone else, they can just go pound sand.

[steveincowtown]

Carrying a firearm is not who you are, it's what you do. It's the same as some restaurants requiring men to wear jackets or convenience stores requiring customers to wear shirts and shoes. A business that posts 30.06 is prohibiting an activity that they find objectionable.

Would you support legislation that made a instant criminal out of people who passed a sign that said "30.08...must have shirt and shoes under penalty of law?"

What people lose sight of is 30.06 has nothing to do with someone's property rights, just the manner in which they convey those rights. They have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS with or without the 30.06 sign. I have no problem with leaving someone's property because I am armed, I just think they should have to notify me to leave.

Carrying a gun is no different than any other tool. Just as I assume that "Chuck E Cheese" probably would ask me to leave if I tried to enter with a chainsaw, I suspect the same is true if they saw me with any other weapon, including a gun.

CHL folks have proven to be very, very law abiding folks and I imagine if they were asked to leave someone's property they would continue to be very law abiding folks on the way out the door.

If the many, many states where signs have no force of law I have yet to hear about a gun owner (licensed or other) being asked to leave someone's premises and then instantly turning into a Psychopath.

Also, although I think equating 2A rights with Racism is a bit silly, the fact remains that the legal definition of Civil Rights is....

The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution.

Sound like that covers the whole constitution, and amendments, not just those we typically consider first.

[mojo84]

Arguing whether there should be a criminal penalty or not is a completely different argument from whether hoplophobia is equivalent to racism and denying someone their rights based on race, color or religion.