TexasCHLforum.com

pbwalker wrote:I'm sorry if this comes across as callous, but I am thoroughly baffled on this one.

Every one of us (who has a CHL) took the class. You sat through hours of instruction, discussing the legal intricacies of carrying. Yet, there are threads / posts asking if this sign is legal (to carry by):


That's just one example.

There are threads asking if this sign or that sign is illegal. You attended class right? I honestly don't understand the confusion.

I'll see posts saying "I'm not sure, but just keep it concealed." - Well, isn't that what we ALWAYS do?

Please don't take this as an attack...it isn't. I just am trying to grasp my head around the confusion.

The sign you posted is Legal and Enforceable. It however, does not apply to those with CHL. See the word "Unlicensed". It is legal and someone without a CHL carrying a concealed firearm will be arrested and fined just like the sign indicates.

WildBill wrote:The terminology "illegal sign" is a result of the internet. In an effort to increase the speed of communication, abbreviations and acronyms have replaced conventional writing and grammar for emails and internet posts. Therefore, a "not legally enforceable" sign quickly evolved to an "illegal sign". This is just a sign of the times.

How about "invalid sign" instead? It has the same number of syllables and letters as "illegal sign" for speed. However, I agree that the op's sign is legal and valid and enforceable, but doesn't apply to a LEO, CHL, security guard, and some others.

I agree wholeheartedly with what has been posted here, by everyone.

I was not implying that anyone here was discouraging questions, but that it might be perceived that way.

It's like I tried to teach my kids... There are two sides to any communication. There is what you said and then there is what the other person heard. Guess which one is important? I just don't want anyone to get "turned off" because they perceive that their question will not be well received.

JJVP wrote: The sign you posted is Legal and Enforceable. It however, does not apply to those with CHL. See the word "Unlicensed". It is legal and someone without a CHL carrying a concealed firearm will be arrested and fined just like the sign indicates.

Correct...and I believe that was implied, being a CHL forum and all. And we've covered the "Illegal" vs. "Enforceable" a few posts down from that.

And we all know how well signs work for those who are going to break the law...

b322da wrote:I suspect you are absolutely correct, WildBill, but I would have to disagree if you are implying that for the reasons you give we should go merrily along this way, notwithstanding the presence of those who do not understand this "shortcut," and I do not think you are. Elmo

You are correct. I am not advocating the improper use of the term.

megs wrote:How about "invalid sign" instead? It has the same number of syllables and letters as "illegal sign" for speed. However, I agree that the op's sign is legal and valid and enforceable, but doesn't apply to a LEO, CHL, security guard, and some others.

I think this is correct terminology. Valid and invalid are easy to type and spell, too.

But that would keep those of us who are invalids from entering.

pbwalker wrote:There are threads asking if this sign or that sign is illegal. You attended class right? I honestly don't understand the confusion.

I'll see posts saying "I'm not sure, but just keep it concealed." - Well, isn't that what we ALWAYS do?

Please don't take this as an attack...it isn't. I just am trying to grasp my head around the confusion.

ETA: Correction to thread title

I'll take a stab at it.

I don't think the confusion comes from a lack of knowledge or from not having paid attention in class. I think you have to remember that most people who get a CHL have been law-abiding citizens all their life. They've gone about their lives avoiding activities that could put them in questionable positions or situations. The idea of having to worry about what they do, because it could get them arrested and jailed, is foreign to them. There are any number of ways that carrying a gun can get you in trouble with the law, not least missing a properly formatted sign or ignoring an improperly formatted sign only to be "outed" like Erik Scott was, to tragic consequences. They aren't used to having to examine everything they do to remain legal, to question every move they make. So, they err on the side of caution and ask when they're not comfortable that they are certain. They're looking for confirmation of what they know to be true in an attempt to feel more comfortable that they are making the right decisions and they aren't going to get in trouble with the law.

I think your poll should have another choice; I worry about being arrested

Mike1951 wrote:But that would keep those of us who are invalids from entering.

If a valid sign falls down and can't get up it becomes an invalid.

baldeagle wrote:I don't think the confusion comes from a lack of knowledge or from not having paid attention in class. They aren't used to having to examine everything they do to remain legal, to question every move they make. So, they err on the side of caution and ask when they're not comfortable that they are certain. They're looking for confirmation of what they know to be true in an attempt to feel more comfortable that they are making the right decisions and they aren't going to get in trouble with the law.

Good points.

baldeagle wrote:I think your poll should have another choice; I worry about being arrested

I don't want to be arrested, but I don't actively worry about it.

Good points about the risk of arrest. I know which signs are applicable, but I'm not sure which police do. Was it Grapevine or another city where the police department stated they would enforce a no-guns sign even though it didn't meet the 30.06 requirements?

baldeagle wrote:I don't think the confusion comes from a lack of knowledge or from not having paid attention in class. I think you have to remember that most people who get a CHL have been law-abiding citizens all their life. They've gone about their lives avoiding activities that could put them in questionable positions or situations. The idea of having to worry about what they do, because it could get them arrested and jailed, is foreign to them. There are any number of ways that carrying a gun can get you in trouble with the law, not least missing a properly formatted sign or ignoring an improperly formatted sign only to be "outed" like Erik Scott was, to tragic consequences. They aren't used to having to examine everything they do to remain legal, to question every move they make. So, they err on the side of caution and ask when they're not comfortable that they are certain. They're looking for confirmation of what they know to be true in an attempt to feel more comfortable that they are making the right decisions and they aren't going to get in trouble with the law.

WildBill wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:But that would keep those of us who are invalids from entering.

If a valid sign falls down and can't get up it becomes an invalid.

I think you are all being far too insensitive when you refer to the signs in question. I think we should respectfully refer to them as 'undocumented migrant signs'.

I bumped into a cute quote on the 'Net recently while I was searching for a brief but effective way to describe the difference between a clip and a magazine. Being gun-related, it may bear on the ultimate issue on this thread:

"A clip is not a magazine, a mag is not a clip;
Neither is a grip a stock, and "stock" does not mean grip.
I do not mean to nitpick, but improvement could be seen,
If we could bring ourselves to say exactly what we mean." *

* Author identified by Mark Moritz as Jeff Cooper
http://www.thegunzone.com/clips-mags.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

b322da wrote:I bumped into a cute quote on the 'Net recently while I was searching for a brief but effective way to describe the difference between a clip and a magazine. Being gun-related, it may bear on the ultimate issue on this thread:

"A clip is not a magazine, a mag is not a clip;
Neither is a grip a stock, and "stock" does not mean grip.
I do not mean to nitpick, but improvement could be seen,
If we could bring ourselves to say exactly what we mean." *

* Author identified by Mark Moritz as Jeff Cooper
http://www.thegunzone.com/clips-mags.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thread Hijack viewtopic.php?f=23&t=36673" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WildBill wrote:Thread Hijack viewtopic.php?f=23&t=36673" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I must concede, a "legal" hijack, WildBill.