TexasCHLforum.com

android wrote:

AlaskanInTexas wrote:

Ultra_Solo_Sig_0904 wrote: if i happen upon private property and OC'ing and the property owner wants me to leave. that is his/her right because my rights don't violate theirs..... take that same situation but instead of OC i happen to be CC'ing. the same as my rights don't violate theirs, their rights don't violate mine.... it's not reasonable for them to know what i have under my clothes weither it be my sig or my underwear. Now if discovered the owner has the same right to ask me to leave as if i were OC'ing.

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to prohibit a certain type of item on their private property unless they can see the item? If that is what you are saying, I disagree.

A concealed weapon is no different than a religious belief or purple underwear.
Why should a business that OPENS ITS DOORS TO INVITE IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC be able to deny one but not the other?

"Private property" isn't private if its open to the general public IMO.

EDIT: Forgot to say, as to the OP, I personally have only had to do the "walk back to the car" 3 times since getting my CHL. Baylor Hospital (should have known better), Grandma's nursing home and UPS center in Mesquite.

I suggest that the legislature consider a new bill that if the 30.06 sign is posted the business by doing so takes on the responsibility to protect its customers from violence and is strictly liable for damages if violence occurs on its property. A companion measure would be that if no 30.06 sign is posted. The business is strictly not liable for damages for the actions of a CHL licensee while on their premises.

Some of you may remember I got my CHL after I was in my bank while it was robbed. This is sort of a life altering experience. The bank since then has been similarity robbed about 6 more times. About a year ago they installed a push button lock on the door so now you must be buzzed in. They also have installed a 30.06 sign.

They were robbed again last week.

I know change banks. But other banks in the area have the plexiglass barriers, this is where the employees are protected so the robber must put a gun to the head of a customer to get the money.

Ok move to an area with no crime. So tell me where that is. Besides the bank in Chappell Hill, I don't know a place.

philip964 wrote:Some of you may remember I got my CHL after I was in my bank while it was robbed. This is sort of a life altering experience. The bank since then has been similarity robbed about 6 more times. About a year ago they installed a push button lock on the door so now you must be buzzed in. They also have installed a 30.06 sign.

They were robbed again last week.

I know change banks. But other banks in the area have the plexiglass barriers, this is where the employees are protected so the robber must put a gun to the head of a customer to get the money.

Ok move to an area with no crime. So tell me where that is. Besides the bank in Chappell Hill, I don't know a place.

Or move to an area with banks that don't post 30.06. ;)

philip964 wrote:I suggest that the legislature consider a new bill that if the 30.06 sign is posted the business by doing so takes on the responsibility to protect its customers from violence and is strictly liable for damages if violence occurs on its property. A companion measure would be that if no 30.06 sign is posted. The business is strictly not liable for damages for the actions of a CHL licensee while on their premises.

This has been my position for business property for years, but it gets absolutely no traction. Democrats don't want it because they are anti-gun, Republicans and business lobbies don't want it because it's perceived as anti-business, and ardent property rights supporters don't want it because they want business owners to be able to do anything and everything they like without any legal ramifications.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

philip964 wrote:I suggest that the legislature consider a new bill that if the 30.06 sign is posted the business by doing so takes on the responsibility to protect its customers from violence and is strictly liable for damages if violence occurs on its property. A companion measure would be that if no 30.06 sign is posted. The business is strictly not liable for damages for the actions of a CHL licensee while on their premises.

This has been my position for business property for years, but it gets absolutely no traction. Democrats don't want it because they are anti-gun, Republicans and business lobbies don't want it because it's perceived as anti-business, and ardent property rights supporters don't want it because they want business owners to be able to do anything and everything they like without any legal ramifications.

Chas.

i would agree with phillip that if places were liable if posting 30.06 edited to add afterthought, but i don't agree with them being forced to add security measures. that is the same thing the "govt" tries to do after they create the problem and it hasn't worked yet. it only further errodes our liberties more.... and it's ashame that it doesn't get traction because most everybody ultimately wants to be able to do anything they want...

I don't live in Austin but I travel there a lot. I've seen a total of one 3006 sign. I've never encountered one any place in the entire state where I wanted to go except a hospital. I see these signs as saying, we don't want your money, and I appreciate the notice so I won't be foolishly spending my money in their place of business.

Law makers should remove the teeth from 30.06. I am sorry, business owners rights in this regard shouldn't trump anyone's right to protect themselves. De-criminalize 30.06 and only make it an offense if you fail to leave when asked to do so.

VMI77 wrote:I don't live in Austin but I travel there a lot. I've seen a total of one 3006 sign. I've never encountered one any place in the entire state where I wanted to go except a hospital. I see these signs as saying, we don't want your money, and I appreciate the notice so I won't be foolishly spending my money in their place of business.

We've disagreed on several things, but 100% agreement here.

rogersinsel wrote:Law makers should remove the teeth from 30.06. I am sorry, business owners rights in this regard shouldn't trump anyone's right to protect themselves. De-criminalize 30.06 and only make it an offense if you fail to leave when asked to do so.

You're under no requirement to do business with them.

The only 30.06 signs I saw in the past two years were at petrochemical companies and gun shows.

C-dub wrote:

JSThane wrote:I see a 30-06 sign every time I drive in to work. It's posted on the front gate of my station.

In too-small letters.

In New Mexico.

Yes, we have a TPC 30-06 sign, in New Mexico, AND it's printed wrong!

With the jester smiley I can't be sure about this. If there really is one and in NM and were worded properly, it can't possibly be valid or enforceable. Am I missing something or is this just a joke?

Unfortunately, it is not a joke. It's posted on the front gate of (law enforcement agency) where I work, and is completely and utterly unenforceable, even if it were the right size and posted in the right state. Anyone entering the premises has to have a keycard, meaning they either work there and are therefore "exempt," or they are there as a "guest" of someone who does work there. In fact, it's actually (law enforcement agency) policy that if you carry your issue weapon off-duty, it HAS to be concealed, even in the agency's own compound.

I've brought this sign to the attention of my supervisors, but the decision to post it was made way up high, at the advice of some lawyer who didn't know any better. But since it was "legally advisable" that they put it up, the only way to get rid of it will be to tear down the compound and rebuild it somewhere else.

Again, until the issue of 30.06 and OC are resolved, the problem of businesses posting 30.06 signs is just going go up, not down.

Again, the strategy is simple:

FIRST, under cover of the Americans with Disabilities Act, change the wording of the law to require 86 point type for sign to be compliant. This renders ALL existing signs non-compliant.

Then, 4-5 years down the road, add a third language requirement: Vietnamese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... #Languages). This will invalidate all 30.06 signs put up in the previous 2-3 years.

4-5 years after that, change the signage color requirements from "contrasting" to "red text on white background" (or any combination you care to name). Again, all existing signs will be invalidated.

4-5 years later, change some of the required wording of the signage.

Rinse and repeat.

Just keep doing that. I've just laid out a plan which will minimize 30.06 signage over the next 16-20 years in the 10 minutes it took me to type this. Be creative! Government is full of people who inventively play mischief upon the taxpayers. SURELY some of their energy could be spent on more constructive things like this. It just wouldn't be that hard to keep kicking the can down the road, invalidating 30.06 signs through legislative tricks until the day that people in businesses wake up and realize that they've been without valid signage for a couple of decades, and the sky did not fall. Maybe then they'll just drop it.

Do to THEM what they have done to us for the last 225 years: WEAR. THEM. DOWN.

How about just changing the penalty for walking past a 30.06 sign to a class C misdemeanor, like a traffic ticket. A $20.00 fine should be enough.

They put them up because some people (like me) may choose to abide by them, even if we know that the law says that they're invalid. There is no penalty for putting up them up and they maybe accomplish the desired goal, so why not?

And you say they're not enforceable, but the CHL community as a whole has had documented interactions with branches of LE that will enforce them. Sometimes due to ignorance and sometimes due to blatant ignoring of the law in favor of internal policy.
I agree with you that the chances of successful prosecution are low, but their enforceability varies.

I don't want walking past it to be a Class-C. I'll still have to list it on most employment applications, which often ask for all convictions other than those that are traffic related.

I've made the following argument consistently for years, but it's been a while, so please bear with me, and maybe I can influence at least one person on this board.

As long as we're talking about concealed handguns, property rights don't enter into it. Well, they shouldn't. A business can have any policy they want regarding:
- the color of my underwear
- how many coins I can have in my pocket
- how long my chest hair can be
. . . but unless they have a legal way to detect it, or I carelessly fail to conceal it, the government should have no role in enforcing their policy.

To say it another way, property rights are already protected with the current trespassing law APART from any 30.06 signs. If a business owner somehow determines or suspects that I am carrying a firearm, he is free to ask me to leave his premises. He can do so for any reason, really, that isn't prohibited by law. I then have to comply or I'm guilty of trespassing.

This argument only applies to concealed carry, not to open carry.

I know it doesn't hold much water with the ardent property rights people, but it should.