Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

[stevie_d_64]

Well, like I've said in times past, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

Are we as individuals, and a group, being good ambassadors to your right to keep and bear arms...

If an improperly posted 30.06 sign is your personal "Great wall of China", and you refuse to violate that "intent", then you are following the law, on the books...

The intent of an owner of a business that posts it correctly or incorrectly IS simply that, they DO NOT want your business if you are carrying...

Just wait till OC passes...If you choose to do so, are you prepared to answer for your cause??? Or are you going to be a good ambassador and have at the ready a plethora of answers and reasoning behind your choice...

Concealed, or not, you should be prepared to be that person who provides a non-condescending, polite and encouraging message to those who ask you, "Why?"

Especially in this state...

In other states where some of us have carried, we either get the "I don't care.", or the most fun thing you can ever imagine, "Sir. let me see your hands!"

[Cedar Park Dad]

Interestingly, I've only ever seen one 30.06 sign. I've seen plenty of 51% and the one about no UNlicensed carry, but only one 30.06 sign that I can recollect.

[WildBill]

Interestingly, I've only ever seen one 30.06 sign. I've seen plenty of 51% and the one about no UNlicensed carry, but only one 30.06 sign that I can recollect.

I have seen only two, and one was on a city government building.

[Jason K]

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.

At one time, the signs I referred to also had criminal penalties attached to them.....

[ScooterSissy]

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...

That's what I think people loose sight of. The 30.06 actually places more burden on the CHL holder than not having that law. Here's how I view it.

If I ignore a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, and someone calls 911 and whispers "there's a guy here in my store, and he ignored my NSNSNS sign, please come and arrest him"; the 911 operator would (most likely) ask the caller if that I had been asked to leave. If I was asked to leave and didn't, then I would be trespassing.

That same concept applies to someone carrying a gun. If they are asked to leave and refuse, they are guilty of trespass. The difference for CHL holders though, is that there is a codified method of giving notice (the 30.06), and if we ignore a properly posted sign, we are guilty of a more serious class a misdemeanor, without someone having to tell us to leave.

There's no doubt in my mind that if someone tried to pass legislation that ignoring a NSNSNS sign would constitute a class A misdemeanor, that legislation would also specify how the sign had to be worded and the physical appearance in order to be valid.

[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.

At one time, the signs I referred to also had criminal penalties attached to them.....

Still two completely different issues.

[mojo84]

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...

That's what I think people loose sight of. The 30.06 actually places more burden on the CHL holder than not having that law. Here's how I view it.

If I ignore a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, and someone calls 911 and whispers "there's a guy here in my store, and he ignored my NSNSNS sign, please come and arrest him"; the 911 operator would (most likely) ask the caller if that I had been asked to leave. If I was asked to leave and didn't, then I would be trespassing.

That same concept applies to someone carrying a gun. If they are asked to leave and refuse, they are guilty of trespass. The difference for CHL holders though, is that there is a codified method of giving notice (the 30.06), and if we ignore a properly posted sign, we are guilty of a more serious class a misdemeanor, without someone having to tell us to leave.

There's no doubt in my mind that if someone tried to pass legislation that ignoring a NSNSNS sign would constitute a class A misdemeanor, that legislation would also specify how the sign had to be worded and the physical appearance in order to be valid.

So, you want to require a confrontation with someone with a gun? We talked a lot in my chl class about avoiding and deescalating conflicts and confrontations.

[mojo84]

@caroljsroth: Newsflash: being offended does not infringe on your civil liberties.

I tend to agree.

[steveincowtown]

So, you want to require a confrontation with someone with a gun? We talked a lot in my chl class about avoiding and deescalating conflicts and confrontations.

In Texas that would be a confrontation with a CHL holder, which the facts show to be the most law abiding amongst TX residents.

Also, in the many states where signs have no force of law, I can't find one story of a licensed (or "constitutional carrier") of a gun has done anything but leave peacefully when asked.

Find it quite odd that folks will say....

- "trust our CHLers they are good folks"
- "let's expand areas for carrying, trust our CHLers they are good folks"
- "we should allow our CHLers on College Campus', they are good folks"

Then when we propose that private property owners should have to ask folks to leave if they have a gun, all of the sudden CHLers go from law abiding citizens to gun crazed maniacs.

[mojo84]

I think the data is very clear about us being good law abiding folks. I also think there are some hotheads that just haven't had the right button pushed.

It all comes down to the owner of the property's right vs the right to carry a gun. It's been asked many times and nothing had changed since last discussion.

It still doesn't equal race, ethnicity or religion.

[jmra]

If you people really believe a 30.06 sign is violating your rights why don't you actually do something about it instead of beating your chest on an Internet forum. Go to court if you feel that strongly about it, or petition your legislator to get the law changed. Neither one of these options are going to get you anywhere but they are still more productive than all the ranting going on in this thread.

[mojo84]

If you people really believe a 30.06 sign is violating your rights why don't you actually do something about it instead of beating your chest on an Internet forum. Go to court if you feel that strongly about it, or petition your legislator to get the law changed. Neither one of these options are going to get you anywhere but they are still more productive than all the ranting going on in this thread.

Yep, .

Call the ACLU for help.

[jmra]

I think the data is very clear aboit us being good law abiding folks. I also think there are some hotheads that just haven't had the right button pushed.

It all comes down to the owner of the property's right vs the right to carry a gun. It's been asked many times and nothing had changed since last discussion.

It still doesn't equal race, ethnicity or religion.

If the Piggly Wiggly is posted go to HEB. Would it be nice for signs not to a the force of law? Sure. Is a privately owned business violating my rights by saying they don't want guns in their store? No. What they are saying though (even if they don't know it) is they don't want me in their store.

[Charles L. Cotton]

That's what I think people loose sight of. The 30.06 actually places more burden on the CHL holder than not having that law. Here's how I view it.

This can only come from someone who either was not in Texas from 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997, or was not involved with concealed-carry. TPC §30.06 saved the CHL program.

I realize you want the law changed such that no sign is enforceable and that a property owner must tell the person to leave. That will never happen in Texas and you will find only a very small fraction of Texas gun owners would support that concept. As I've said many times, I support not allowing private property used for business purposes to use TPC §30.06 and there's no support for even that limited application. Therefore we are not better off without TPC §30.06.

Chas.

[baldeagle]

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.

Silly me. I thought a 30.06 sign WAS notification.