TexasCHLforum.com

AEA wrote:Anyway this will all be a mute point next year when all restrictions on CHL Holders will be removed!

Or moot, even. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist!)
- hi-power, former spelling bee participant

AEA wrote:I think all Businesses (and other locations such as the topic of this thread) should be fined for posting incorrect signs and forced by State Law to remove them!

Only problem with that is there are quite a few businesses that knowingly post that sign as a deterrent only and it is not meant for CHL holders. They are doing this to be on our side in the hopes of maybe making one bad guy turn around or maybe in the case of a lawsuit that could be brought against them. Even though the sign is leagally unenforceable, it could be used against a criminal in some cases. Just look at them and walk on in I say. It's the places that post 30.06 that I get ticked at. Such as banks, restraunts, etc. They're the ones that lose my business and respect.

hi-power wrote:

AEA wrote:Anyway this will all be a mute point next year when all restrictions on CHL Holders will be removed!

Or moot, even. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist!)
- hi-power, former spelling bee participant

Thanks....there are just some things that spell check cannot pick up!

AEA's been reading my mail!

If that does indeed get changed...I remember Charles stating that it might incurr a rash of postings (all proper, and correct), that some can surely pitch a fit about, but thems the breaks...

Although I like the concept of creating a finable jeopardy to those who wish to post a 30.06, if they do not post correctly...I believe it will backfire on us in a big way...

So people that are many paygrades above us will figure out some clever way to get businesses and entities acts together...

AEA wrote:I think all Businesses (and other locations such as the topic of this thread) should be fined for posting incorrect signs and forced by State Law to remove them!

Why on earth would you want that? anyone who takes the CHL class should know what signs are enforceable.

If Gov. Perry would sign a law on this and LEO's enforce it, then MAYBE we could get rid of all these crazy signs that serve no purpose other than to confuse law abiding Citizens.

Don't the cops have enough to do other than looking [abbreviated profanity deleted] and enforcing CHL signs?

Anyway this will all be a mute point next year when all restrictions on CHL Holders will be removed!

How do you imagine that will happen next year?

Sorry;



It is a "moot" point. Mute means unable to speak, or silent. MOOT means obsolete. ;)

1) 30.06 type limitations will not be removed next year. It will be 2009 at the earliest. Even then, it will be an uphill battle. Look at what happened with the parking lot bill this year. The business interests kept it off the calendar until the last minute and it died without a vote. Expect them to fight 10 times harder against repealing 30.06 provisions.

Even though they represent workplaces and public accommodations, expect them to scream "Private property rights!" from every rooftop.

2) There is even less of a chance that any bill would pass that would punish people for posting non-compliant signs, or for posting 30.06 signs in places where they are not enforceable (i.e. various government buildings). It is very rare that the government makes law that allows its own agents to be thrown in jail for failing to perform some duty (or improperly performing it).

Tossing in jail is something they do to you, not to themselves.

OK, since I can't spell, and no one appears to agree or is concerned about my thoughts, I will just lurk from now on!

ElGato wrote:Xander and Razoraggie gave you the right answer.

Well, I don't know about Xander, but I had a pretty good teacher, Tom.

Thanks again!

frankie_the_yankee wrote:1) 30.06 type limitations will not be removed next year. It will be 2009 at the earliest. Even then, it will be an uphill battle. Look at what happened with the parking lot bill this year. The business interests kept it off the calendar until the last minute and it died without a vote. Expect them to fight 10 times harder against repealing 30.06 provisions.

Even though they represent workplaces and public accommodations, expect them to scream "Private property rights!" from every rooftop.

Section 30.06 is the only part of the restrictions about where CHL holders cannot carry that I do not want to see repealed. I fully agree with the property rights argument, but it is also our right not to patronize those businesses where the signs are posted.

It is also within the rights of a business to post a non-30.06 compliant sign, and perfectly legal for us as CHL holders to ignore noncompliant signs.

2) There is even less of a chance that any bill would pass that would punish people for posting non-compliant signs, or for posting 30.06 signs in places where they are not enforceable (i.e. various government buildings). It is very rare that the government makes law that allows its own agents to be thrown in jail for failing to perform some duty (or improperly performing it).

Tossing in jail is something they do to you, not to themselves.

I do not want any punishment for posting non-compliant 30.06 signs, but I would like a punishment for failure to post a compliant 51% sign (I would also like to see posting requirements similar to 30.06 signs), or, barring that, a defense to UCW in a 51% establishment that a compliant sign was not posted.

hirundo82 wrote: I do not want any punishment for posting non-compliant 30.06 signs, but I would like a punishment for failure to post a compliant 51% sign (I would also like to see posting requirements similar to 30.06 signs), or, barring that, a defense to UCW in a 51% establishment that a compliant sign was not posted.

Abraham wrote:By "Gunbuster" sign are you referring to the pistol within a circle and a slash thru it?

If so, cautious as I am, this is one I too ignore if it's the sole sign regarding weapons.

The TSB has an office in the building I work in and their sign has the gunbuster sign and other language. I will have to look again and see exactly what it says but they are Federal and do have TSB court hearings there. Ok to carry in the building, just not inside their offices.

edit- double post ...

AEA,

Don't lurk just because so many disagreed this time. If we all agreed, no one be posting anything since we would have nothing to discuss or debate.

I would like to see something in the law to stop people from posting where they cannot legally do do (government buildings) but I do not ever expect to see it because, as was pointed out, governments go after us and not themselves.

I also agree with hirundo82 that there should be a change to the law on 51% signs. If they are not properly posted, that should be a defense to carrying in the licensed establishment. I can see leaving the law saying it is illegal to carry where TABC has made the determination, but with the defense that it was not posted. this would allow you to ignore improperly posted 51 signs, while giving the defense if they are not there.

And again, I will point out that there is a penalty for not posting the 51 signs properly IF they are licensed to sell alcohol. TABC can file an administrative case against the permittee for this violation. Of course, they cannot do anything to people who are not licensed and post it (such as Sherman's hospital was reported to do).

One of my first few post was locked. Srothestein is right do not stop posting because everyone can't agree if we did all agree there would be no interesting reading.

srothstein wrote:AEA,

Don't lurk just because so many disagreed this time.

Amen! This is a place of vigorous debate, and serious discussion of what the law is, isn't, and should or shouldn't be. We all have opinions, some more strongly held than others.

srothstein wrote: If we all agreed, no one be posting anything since we would have nothing to discuss or debate.

Wha'd I say?

Here's a great example, because there's no one on this forum with whom I am more closely aligned (both philosophically and politically) than Steve, and yet we disagree here:

srothstein wrote:I also agree with hirundo82 that there should be a change to the law on 51% signs. If they are not properly posted, that should be a defense to carrying in the licensed establishment. I can see leaving the law saying it is illegal to carry where TABC has made the determination, but with the defense that it was not posted. this would allow you to ignore improperly posted 51 signs, while giving the defense if they are not there.

My solution would be to eliminate all statutory restrictions on carrying in or on private property, even state-licensed places of public accommodation. If I own a bar, a church, a private high school, a major private university, or just a piddling little daycare that calls itself a "school", then it's my business, not that of the state of Texas, whether or not to allow guns on my property.

Kevin