TexasCHLforum.com

JKTex wrote: There's nothing odd about that, it's the normal sign they're required by TABC to post if they sell booze not for on premise consumption. It's just telling folks that are carrying illegally, that they go from misdemeanor to felony when they step in the door.

Whether they still have it posted doesn't mean much, it's still a felony for those illegally carrying.

Actually, this is the sign they are supposed to post.

I saw that sign when visiting someone at TMC. It's a good example of one that a CHL holder may legally ignore. However, a few miles up the road in Oklahoma the same exact sign would have the force of law.

S&Wgrl wrote:Hi, I'm new to the forum. I've been lurking for a few weeks though. Kudos for an awesome site.
I haven't gotten my CHL yet. I'm taking the class this weekend. Anyway this sign is posted where I work. It has the gun buster sign and says: Firearms are prohibited in this building. LAW (V.C.S ART 4413 29ee) I'm assuming that it's not considered legal notice. My company has a no firearms policy unless you have proper consent. I plan to ask for that as soon as I get my license. So what say ye? Legal notice or not? Thanks!

Hold up there S&WGrl.

Your employer currently has a sign that does not conform to 30.06. Is there anything in the employee handbook, if one exists, that says you cannot bring a gun inside? I suspect there might be since they did post a relevant sign from about 15 years ago. They probably posted it then and never updated it. I also assume since you said you are going to ask that no one has told you that you cannot bring a gun inside.

If there is no other written notice and you have not been given oral notice then even if you were discovered you could not be prosecuted for criminal trespassing, but you could and probably would loose your job. If you are close with your employer, and by that I mean the people that make the decisions, and you are already fairly sure what the answer will be or that simply asking the question will not place a target on you then I might go ahead and ask. Stranger things have happened and some have been given permission.

Another completely unselfish thing to consider is that if you ask them and point out their old non-compliant sign they may put up a new compliant one. Do you work in a place where the public comes in? Currently, non-employees can carry in your place of employment, but if they change the sign the law abiding CHL will be taking the walk of shame back to their vehicle talking to themselves all the way and wondering if they really need to go in there at all.

I have a question about a sign that cinemark has up in there ticket window it just says firearms prohibited it doesnt specify if its lisenced or unlisenced so I walked alllllll the way back to the car and put it in my trunk then walked allll the way back. lol however the mall doors did not have a 30.06 sign of any kind.

M1911A1-Lover wrote:I have a question about a sign that cinemark has up in there ticket window it just says firearms prohibited it doesnt specify if its lisenced or unlisenced so I walked alllllll the way back to the car and put it in my trunk then walked allll the way back. lol however the mall doors did not have a 30.06 sign of any kind.

If it's not a 30.06 or a 51% sign, they are not enforceable to CHL holders.

M1911A1-Lover wrote:I have a question about a sign that cinemark has up in there ticket window it just says firearms prohibited it doesnt specify if its lisenced or unlisenced so I walked alllllll the way back to the car and put it in my trunk then walked allll the way back. lol however the mall doors did not have a 30.06 sign of any kind.

I'm sorry you felt the need to put it away. Didn't your CHL instructor cover stuff like this?

I took my chl course just last month. The instructor told us that a 'gunbuster' sign serves as effective notice only to the employees of a business that posts such a sign. In other words, If your place of employment posts a gunbuster sign, you can't carry there. (giving notice in the employee manual or during new employee orientation is also sufficient notice regarding prohibition of guns in the workplace). However, any customers who enter your place of employment can legally carry, assuming they don't have a 30.06 sign posted as well.

nick77 wrote:I took my chl course just last month. The instructor told us that a 'gunbuster' sign serves as effective notice only to the employees of a business that posts such a sign. In other words, If your place of employment posts a gunbuster sign, you can't carry there. (giving notice in the employee manual or during new employee orientation is also sufficient notice regarding prohibition of guns in the workplace). However, any customers who enter your place of employment can legally carry, assuming they don't have a 30.06 sign posted as well.

If one has a CHL and are an employee of a business that posts a gunbuster sign it is effective notice that you could lose your job. It is not effective notice that you could be arrested and charged. For that to happen the notice would have to be a sign conforming to the requirements laid out in 30.06. For notice in the employee manual just the wording has to be exact. However, if you are given oral notice during a new employee orientation they got you there.

Found at Dell Children's Hospital in Austin; looks legit?

Does not seem to fit the contrasting background requirement very well but, overall, I think it would be hard to argue that it is not legit.

RJ

Valor wrote:Found at Dell Children's Hospital in Austin; looks legit?

It's hard to tell from the photo if the letters are the required one inch in height, but if they are, it looks valid to me.

Great post of the signs.. ive seen some hospitals that still have the old 30.06 signs.

My place of employment has a sign that shows a revolver crossed and and says no weapons allowed on premises. I was told by a CHLer that the sign is not valid you could carry BUT they have also put it in the employee handbook and when you sign it you then cant carry. Is this accurate? If so, is it constitutional for a company to restrict the Rights of the people?