TexasCHLforum.com

Pacifist wrote:

Embalmo wrote:You may not like Chuck E. Cheese, but watch out, you might see a 30.06 sign posted at at places that you do like.

And that is the exact moment in which they stop receiving any monetary support from me.

I still simply cannot understand why it is you seem so desirous, nee compelled, to support a business, any business, that informs you, via whatever means that it has no respect for your right to defend yourself and/or your family.

And what what I simply can't understand why someone with a CHL would applaud an new "gun free" zone.

If a business owners allows me to carry on their premises, I honestly don't care if they like guns or the second amendment; I really don't care! Quite honestly I don't think it's any of my business until a valid 30.06 sign gets posted; only then would I write a letter because a 30.06 actually means something to a CHL. I eat their pizza and I play their games, I don't have them over for Sunday dinner.

It wasn't that long ago that the entire state of Texas had one big 30.06 sign stretched over it. Can we please not help the antis by causing more "anti gun zones".

Embalmo

I don't see anyone here applauding new 30.06 notices. I do see people saying they would spend their money somewhere else, because they don't like 30.06 signs and antigun signs in general.

Embalmo wrote: ...I honestly don't care if they like guns or the second amendment; I really don't care! Quite honestly I don't think it's any of my business until a valid 30.06 sign gets posted; only then would I write a letter because a 30.06 actually means something to a CHL. I eat their pizza and I play their games, I don't have them over for Sunday dinner...

Embalmo

That says it all and says it well...about anti-gun postings everywhere in Texas. Good Job!

Why can't we mind our own business? If it's not a valid 30.06 sign, it is of no concern to a Texas CH licensee.

snorri wrote:I don't see anyone here applauding new 30.06 notices. I do see people saying they would spend their money somewhere else, because they don't like 30.06 signs and antigun signs in general.

Well...Look at the bright side...Chuck E Cheese is a breeding ground for all sorts of nasty colds, viruses, etc....(ask me how I know)..One less likely place to get sick ! Also, there have been quite a few fights breaking out at Chucky across the country between some idiot parents...Just a place to avoid and I don't go where my 2a rights are not honored...

Looks like a to me. This whole disagreement is whether it is a good idea to rattle the cage of a business that has a non-compliant sign, and what I'm seeing by some is an attitude that if the letter causes a compliant sign to be posted, then so be it, they didn't like guns anyway.

What about the rest of us who applaud the statute in the law that requires exact wording? What about us who still like to carry past non-compliant signs. Universities are most likely going to continue to be staunchly anti-gun, so when campus carry passes, should we still avoid them just because they don't like guns? I have no doubt in my mind that many Chuck E. Cheeses with non-compliant signs would correct that if one of us sent an angry, threatening letter. To be honest, the ignorance of those ridiculous Toys R Us signs and Hospital signs that quote what they think the law is always makes me giggle every time I walk past them.

Embalmo

Would it be a “defense to prosecution” to carry past a non-compliant sign and if the person in “authority” did not ask you to leave, but instead call the police?
Se’Maj

Se'Maj wrote:Would it be a “defense to prosecution” to carry past a non-compliant sign and if the person in “authority” did not ask you to leave, but instead call the police?
Se’Maj

It's not a defense...it's simply not a crime. You're not trespassing if you weren't notified that you weren't allowed to remain on the property. The notification has to meet the definition in the statute, and a non-compliant sign doesn't do that. Neither does calling the police. What would the person in authority be calling the police for?

ScottDLS wrote:

Se'Maj wrote:Would it be a “defense to prosecution” to carry past a non-compliant sign and if the person in “authority” did not ask you to leave, but instead call the police?
Se’Maj

It's not a defense...it's simply not a crime. You're not trespassing if you weren't notified that you weren't allowed to remain on the property. The notification has to meet the definition in the statute, and a non-compliant sign doesn't do that. Neither does calling the police. What would the person in authority be calling the police for?

I have been led to believe that the Grapevine PD will give you a 'ride' if you carry past the non-compliant signs at the Grapevine Mills Mall. Defense to prosecution or not, there can be ramifications for carrying past a non-compliant sign.

i8godzilla wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Se'Maj wrote:Would it be a “defense to prosecution” to carry past a non-compliant sign and if the person in “authority” did not ask you to leave, but instead call the police?
Se’Maj

It's not a defense...it's simply not a crime. You're not trespassing if you weren't notified that you weren't allowed to remain on the property. The notification has to meet the definition in the statute, and a non-compliant sign doesn't do that. Neither does calling the police. What would the person in authority be calling the police for?

I have been led to believe that the Grapevine PD will give you a 'ride' if you carry past the non-compliant signs at the Grapevine Mills Mall. Defense to prosecution or not, there can be ramifications for carrying past a non-compliant sign.

As there are ramifications for arresting someone for something that is not a crime. So I'm kind of surprised that the Grapevine PD is publicly stating that they will violate people's civil rights, as this would be actionable in Federal court. Then again, I've heard the Dallas PD makes the same claims vis-a-vis Dallas Love Field. And Plano ISD...

Apparently the signs at Grapevine Mills are pretty close, but not the exact wording. You won't take the "ride" if no one knows you're carrying...which is my guess as to why we haven't heard of anyone being busted. Maybe somebody should write a letter to the Mills management telling them that their sign is not compliant and explaining in detail how to correct the deficiencies. That'll teach em!

i8godzilla wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Se'Maj wrote:Would it be a “defense to prosecution” to carry past a non-compliant sign and if the person in “authority” did not ask you to leave, but instead call the police?
Se’Maj

It's not a defense...it's simply not a crime. You're not trespassing if you weren't notified that you weren't allowed to remain on the property. The notification has to meet the definition in the statute, and a non-compliant sign doesn't do that. Neither does calling the police. What would the person in authority be calling the police for?

I have been led to believe that the Grapevine PD will give you a 'ride' if you carry past the non-compliant signs at the Grapevine Mills Mall. Defense to prosecution or not, there can be ramifications for carrying past a non-compliant sign.

The signs at Grapevine Mills are now compliant. They've made them into plaques at all of the mall entrances. The letters are the correct size and the wording is contrasting. Of course, you can still get into the mall through any of the stores and none (that I've seen) have similar signs. You would almost certainly be treated the Grapevine PD's hospitality if they see you. In the one time that I was there during the Christmas rush, there was no evidence of security, Grapevine's finest or otherwise.

chasfm11 wrote:
The signs at Grapevine Mills are now compliant. They've made them into plaques at all of the mall entrances. The letters are the correct size and the wording is contrasting. Of course, you can still get into the mall through any of the stores and none (that I've seen) have similar signs. You would almost certainly be treated the Grapevine PD's hospitality if they see you. In the one time that I was there during the Christmas rush, there was no evidence of security, Grapevine's finest or otherwise.

Imagine that. I wonder who told them that their original signs weren't proper?

Oldgringo wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:
The signs at Grapevine Mills are now compliant. They've made them into plaques at all of the mall entrances. The letters are the correct size and the wording is contrasting. Of course, you can still get into the mall through any of the stores and none (that I've seen) have similar signs. You would almost certainly be treated the Grapevine PD's hospitality if they see you. In the one time that I was there during the Christmas rush, there was no evidence of security, Grapevine's finest or otherwise.

Imagine that. I wonder who told them that their original signs weren't proper?

The same people own the Katy Mall. The Katy signs have been compliant. I suspect that they figured things out all on their own. I'm not sure who put the original Grapevine Mills signs up but I'll wager a large pile of bills that it wasn't the current owners. I'm not aware of any letter writing blitz from the local CHLs here but then I don't know very may of them. It turns out that Denton County was one of the 6th most active in new CHLs in 2010 and Tarrant wasn't too far behind. If I had been going to address the non-compliant signs, I would have done so with the Grapevine PD or DA. I never did anything about it, however.

chasfm11 wrote:

i8godzilla wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Se'Maj wrote:Would it be a “defense to prosecution” to carry past a non-compliant sign and if the person in “authority” did not ask you to leave, but instead call the police?
Se’Maj

It's not a defense...it's simply not a crime. You're not trespassing if you weren't notified that you weren't allowed to remain on the property. The notification has to meet the definition in the statute, and a non-compliant sign doesn't do that. Neither does calling the police. What would the person in authority be calling the police for?

I have been led to believe that the Grapevine PD will give you a 'ride' if you carry past the non-compliant signs at the Grapevine Mills Mall. Defense to prosecution or not, there can be ramifications for carrying past a non-compliant sign.

The signs at Grapevine Mills are now compliant. They've made them into plaques at all of the mall entrances. The letters are the correct size and the wording is contrasting. Of course, you can still get into the mall through any of the stores and none (that I've seen) have similar signs. You would almost certainly be treated the Grapevine PD's hospitality if they see you. In the one time that I was there during the Christmas rush, there was no evidence of security, Grapevine's finest or otherwise.

This picture is from one of the entrances of GV Mills from a year (or two??) ago, you can see the wording is *close* but NOT compliant. GV Mills has had these plaques up from the beginning from what I recall. I don't think that they have been updated to being 100% compliant, but I could be wrong, it's not worth the effort to go by there and verify it.



If you happen to go by there and see that they are 100% compliant feel free to snap a pic and post it up.

OK. I might learn something valuable today. I went to the Texas Penal Code Website and looked up the Paragraph A working.

Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but that looks exactly what is posted in the sign. What am I missing?

The other qualifications: contracting colors, block letters, 1" high, English and Spanish, posted in a conspicuous location all seem to be met, too.

What specifically makes this a non-compliant sign?

chasfm11 wrote:OK. I might learn something valuable today. I went to the Texas Penal Code Website and looked up the Paragraph A working.

Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but that looks exactly what is posted in the sign. What am I missing?

The other qualifications: contracting colors, block letters, 1" high, English and Spanish, posted in a conspicuous location all seem to be met, too.

What specifically makes this a non-compliant sign?

It's pretty close and I probably wouldn't carry past it, but.... Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes <> (not equal to) Subchapter H, Chapter 411...

From TXPC 30.06.

(A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun"; or

chasfm11 wrote:What specifically makes this a non-compliant sign?

Scott nailed it, the GV Mills sign has the old wording **Article 4413(29ee)**, not the correct wording of: Subchapter H, Chapter 411.