TexasCHLforum.com

LedJedi wrote:

fratermus wrote: And I did order a chunk of those CHL business cards thingies with the "how much do you know about your other customers" language on it. I do not plan on any other forms of education, coercion, or confrontation with business owners.

umm, where did you get those?

Here, if I did it right.

Boy, talk about a split decision. As of this morning out of 60 poll votes, 50% comply in some form and 50% ignore it. Can't get any more even than that.

Keith B wrote:Boy, talk about a split decision. As of this morning out of 60 poll votes, 50% comply in some form and 50% ignore it. Can't get any more even than that.

I'm surprised myself. I would have expected the "ignore" side to be larger. Either way, it answers the question. An interesting follow-up would query if they based the decision on legal or ethical grounds...

Tom

I have to say i'm a bit surprised at the results myself.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of folks would sail past a 30.06 sign with letter that was say 1/4-1/8 of an inch too small as if it didn't exist, which is essentially the scenario I had in mind with the original thread.

I wonder if perhaps the results wouldn't be different with a more carefully worded survey with a tighter controlled scenario. I might ponder on that a bit and post something as I have time.

LedJedi wrote:I find it hard to believe that the majority of folks would sail past a 30.06 sign with letter that was say 1/4-1/8 of an inch too small as if it didn't exist, which is essentially the scenario I had in mind with the original thread.

Led,

I don't take time to measure the signs but I know that a letter-size sign is not complaint and therefore is not a valid 30.06. 1/4 inch too small is 75% of the required size. Most of the non-compliant signs are on letter-size paper and are not even close.

Based on this poll, I doubt that any poll would result in different results. I gave the "respect" the non-compliant signs three choices and the "ignore" the non-complaint signs only one. A better poll would only have two choices.

It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Tom

I have reacted different ways. I typically will not even enter the establishment I will leave. On two instances I have spoke with the owner and he removed the signs. As far as respecting the intent of the owner, that does not bother me as much as 15 years in LE and seeing how judges and juries look at the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. It would not be to far fetched to hear of a CHL'r get arrested for entering a business with a non-compliant sign. Then hear of the judge or jury state that while the sign was not compliant the intent of the owner supercedes the right of the CHL holder. I do not wish to be the test case, someone else that has $40,000 laying around for a defense fund can be that.

dac1842 wrote:It would not be to far fetched to hear of a CHL'r get arrested for entering a business with a non-compliant sign. Then hear of the judge or jury state that while the sign was not compliant the intent of the owner supercedes the right of the CHL holder.

Dac,

The law tries to balance the rights of the property owner with the rights of the CHL. I could see an arrest, I just don't see it going to trial. If this does happen, we're on the slippery slope to losing our abiity to carry in Texas.

Does anyone know of any case like this in the state?

Tom

tbranch wrote:

LedJedi wrote:I find it hard to believe that the majority of folks would sail past a 30.06 sign with letter that was say 1/4-1/8 of an inch too small as if it didn't exist, which is essentially the scenario I had in mind with the original thread.

Led,

I don't take time to measure the signs but I know that a letter-size sign is not complaint and therefore is not a valid 30.06. 1/4 inch too small is 75% of the required size. Most of the non-compliant signs are on letter-size paper and are not even close.

Based on this poll, I doubt that any poll would result in different results. I gave the "respect" the non-compliant signs three choices and the "ignore" the non-complaint signs only one. A better poll would only have two choices.

It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Tom

Tom
I agree it should never get that far, but lots of cases should not have and they do. My personal opinion is really simple, If an LEO can carry, so can a CHL'er, except for bars and secure areas of airports, there should be no restrictions on where we carry.

Seems the real solution to this is to have the state produce the signs. No question then.

Photoman wrote:Seems the real solution to this is to have the state produce the signs. No question then.

Now that's a solution I would support. If you want to post your property, you have to purchase a state-approved sign from an approved vender.

Tom

Photoman wrote:Seems the real solution to this is to have the state produce the signs. No question then.

Great Idea, maybe they can charge about $10k apiece for them suckers. Maybe they can put an expiration date on them of about 3 months. Disappearing ink?

They should at least have to pay as much for their second amendment reasonable restriction signs as we have to pay for our second amendment permission cards.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:They should at least have to pay as much for their second amendment reasonable restriction signs as we have to pay for our second amendment permission cards.

Anygun,

I don't often agree with your views on reasonable restriction, but I'm with you on this one!

Tom

Photoman wrote:Seems the real solution to this is to have the state produce the signs. No question then.

(almost) 100% agreement here.

Considering as business owners/employers we have to purchase and display "proper notice" signs for just about everything else , there should also be a notification from the state that business owners wishing to restrict concealed carry on their property should use the proper signage, and the source from which the proper signs can be obtained. But then, I wonder how many more fromerly uninformed businesses would then post the proper 30.06 sign and further limit the day to day lives of the chl holder?

just more to ponder