TexasCHLforum.com

...I did read from the beginning...and still think it's a great idea to make THEM go to some effort and spend some money to forbid what WE went to great effort and spent quite a bit of money to accomplish...I don't think nearly so many of them would post their property if they had to put out that $$ and effort...

hirundo82 wrote:

jmra wrote:I am somewhat surprised that an elected official hasn't proposed that 30.06 signs must have a state seal in order to be valid. This way all valid 30.06 signs would have to be purchased from the state at $100 a pop. Would be a revenue source for the state and posting a non-compliant sign of course would result in a $10,000 dollar fine.

That makes it too easy to post a sign. I'm all for making it as inconvenient as possible to post a valid sign.

I disagree. If a business owner wants to prohibit CHLs from carrying in his business, he has the absolute right to do so without jumping through governmental hoops and complying with government regulations.

Too often, people disagree with burdensome government regulations except when said regulations prohibit or restrict actions they disagree with. For example, many people who believe government should stay out of our lives as much as possible and advocate individual freedom also think it's a good idea for government to ban smoking at restaurants. This, to me, is hypocritical. Either we want liberty in all things or we don't.

A shop owner has the perfect right to post his business 30.06. I then have the right to choose not to do business at that shop, just as I would also choose to not eat at a restaurant which allows smoking. I believe the free market, free of government regulations and rules, would properly and more efficiently decide which was more profitable - allowing smoking/30.06/anything else or not.

I believe anything which restricts the freedom of a business owner to conduct his business in whichever way he sees fit to conduct it goes against the principles of freedom and liberty which has served our country so well; up until the last 50 years or so, anyway.

Kythas wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

jmra wrote:I am somewhat surprised that an elected official hasn't proposed that 30.06 signs must have a state seal in order to be valid. This way all valid 30.06 signs would have to be purchased from the state at $100 a pop. Would be a revenue source for the state and posting a non-compliant sign of course would result in a $10,000 dollar fine.

That makes it too easy to post a sign. I'm all for making it as inconvenient as possible to post a valid sign.

I disagree. If a business owner wants to prohibit CHLs from carrying in his business, he has the absolute right to do so without jumping through governmental hoops and complying with government regulations.

Too often, people disagree with burdensome government regulations except when said regulations prohibit or restrict actions they disagree with. For example, many people who believe government should stay out of our lives as much as possible and advocate individual freedom also think it's a good idea for government to ban smoking at restaurants. This, to me, is hypocritical. Either we want liberty in all things or we don't.

A shop owner has the perfect right to post his business 30.06. I then have the right to choose not to do business at that shop, just as I would also choose to not eat at a restaurant which allows smoking. I believe the free market, free of government regulations and rules, would properly and more efficiently decide which was more profitable - allowing smoking/30.06/anything else or not.

I believe anything which restricts the freedom of a business owner to conduct his business in whichever way he sees fit to conduct it goes against the principles of freedom and liberty which has served our country so well; up until the last 50 years or so, anyway.

I would agree with you if the business owner's decisions were not enforced by the State via criminal sanction as they are with 30.06. If the business wants to use the power of the State to prohibit some behavior then they should have to jump through the hoops that the State legitimately sets.

I presume you are against the parking lot bill too, since it restricts the rights of employers to enforce behavior standards on their own property (or property of others) or in their employees' cars.

jmra wrote:...This way all valid 30.06 signs would have to be purchased from the state at $100 a pop. Would be a revenue source for the state and posting a non-compliant sign of course would result in a $10,000 dollar fine.

Never mind the ethics... I'm sure by the time the bureaucracy "me-toos" get done with it, it would cost the state (read: us taxpayers) $150 to print, enforce, license, etc.

The state could do the same thing with the 30.06 sign that they do with car registration. You have to pay for renewal every year.

The state could then maintain an online database to inform the CHL community what establishments where posted.

jmra wrote:The state could do the same thing with the 30.06 sign that they do with car registration. You have to pay for renewal every year.

The state could then maintain an online database to inform the CHL community what establishments where posted.

Now those are good ideas

It sounds similar to the Utah church database.

To have a sign made for me for a legal process I am going through and we need it for court reasons.... It cost me $40.05 cents to have made and it is on the corrugated plastic that yard signs are made of. IE: the political signs around election times.



It is basically 2 foot by 2 foot

ScottDLS wrote:My input after spending time reading the law is that maybe we should be focusing more on "receiving" notice. I think one could argue that the detailed specifications for signs and written notice in the law were put there to emphasize that you have to "receive" the proper notice before you are trespassing.

I agree. There's a common misconception that the sign has to be posted at every entrance to a building, but I don't see that in the law. On the other hand, if someone entered through a door that's not posted, and didn't see a 30.06 sign anywhere else on the property, it doesn't sound like they received notice.

The bottom line for me is there are very few people arrested violating the law, and even fewer who are charged. It's obviously a problem for those few who are caught trespassing with a gun, but it doesn't seem to be a significant problem for the CHL population as a whole.

Barbi Q wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:My input after spending time reading the law is that maybe we should be focusing more on "receiving" notice. I think one could argue that the detailed specifications for signs and written notice in the law were put there to emphasize that you have to "receive" the proper notice before you are trespassing.

I agree. There's a common misconception that the sign has to be posted at every entrance to a building, but I don't see that in the law. On the other hand, if someone entered through a door that's not posted, and didn't see a 30.06 sign anywhere else on the property, it doesn't sound like they received notice.

The bottom line for me is there are very few people arrested violating the law, and even fewer who are charged. It's obviously a problem for those few who are caught trespassing with a gun, but it doesn't seem to be a significant problem for the CHL population as a whole.

Another thing that I would like to point out is that once you receive notice, that it can not be undone. For example, if you saw that a particular business is posted at one entrance, and you enter through an unposted entrance, you couldn't claim that you didn't have proper notice. Or if a person told you that no guns are allowed, you couldn't come back the next day and claim that you didn't have proper notice. I guess you could claim that, but then you wouldn't be telling the truth and CHLers always tell the truth. At least that's my take on it, but of course IANAL.

Barbi Q wrote:...if someone entered through a door that's not posted, and didn't see a 30.06 sign anywhere else on the property, it doesn't sound like they received notice.

Notice is either properly given or it ain't. If there is any question, git in your vehicle and vámonos.