TexasCHLforum.com

pistola wrote:

Bladed wrote:https://www.facebook.com/CoalitiontoSto ... 78/?type=1

I clicked the link and didnt see them attacking the 30.06 law. I saw them attacking people barracks lawyering what the definition of is is.

Read the caption below the photo they copied from the Forum. Also read the comments. They have been attacking TPC §30.06 since the open-carry long gun demonstrations began.

Chas.

pistola wrote:

Bladed wrote:https://www.facebook.com/CoalitiontoSto ... 78/?type=1

I clicked the link and didnt see them attacking the 30.06 law. I saw them attacking people barracks lawyering what the definition of is is.

In following the link I came away with three things:

1. Not one post conveyed an informed argument.
2. The coalition is comprise of hysterics & ankle biters who harbor a lot of anger.
3. The posters are irrational. They rage against law abiding citizens choosing to defend themselves while ignoring the criminal element that necessitate such defense.

It seems we have two very similar threads running: this one and /viewtopic.php?f=94&t=73605

VoiceofReason wrote:As I stated in another post, I haven’t seen a comment yet that seems to come from someone above a high school level. If this is typical of the people we are up against, I don’t think we need to worry.

And one little fire ant won't do too much damage...

They are fools, no two ways about it. The graphic that says that "..signs that do not meet the requirement are considered in valid by gun extremists." Really, I thought it was considered invalid by the nature of the law. Oh well, shows how stoopid I am.

Now Moms Demand Action is going after PC Sec. 30.06:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busines ... 905.735595" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EXCERPT:

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America isn’t the first group to suspect that a lawmaker wrote a law to be more cumbersome than it has to be.

They argue that the Legislature intentionally crafted an ugly, eye-glazing, space-zapping warning sign that Texas business owners must post at every entrance if they don’t want their customers legally packing a concealed handgun on the premises.

....

The Moms Demand Action members say some gun owners are “gaming” the system by ignoring a property owner’s wishes if the sign doesn’t fit literally the one-inch letter of the law or violates other specifics.

They showed me numerous screen shots listing establishments with allegedly illegal signs. The assumption, at least based on the Internet conversations, is that an armed customer can’t be convicted of criminal trespass if the sign isn’t technically correct.

....

Volunteers with Moms Demand Action have quietly begun warning businesses with signs that might not comply with the law.

Bladed wrote:Now Moms Demand Action is going after PC Sec. 30.06:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busines ... 905.735595" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Austin American-Statesman is a bit over seven months behind the curve with this "news":

http://www.click2houston.com/news/group ... s/26083696

http://cw39.com/2014/05/20/moms-demand- ... sign-laws/

Bladed wrote:[ Image ]

We all know that's patently false. So you're point is...

Skiprr wrote:

Bladed wrote:[ Image ]

We all know that's patently false. So you're point is...

My point is that this is one of the tactics employed by gun-control activists in the run-up to the 2015 Texas Legislative Session and that our side benefits a good deal more from being aware of what tactics and arguments our opponents are utilizing than from debating what Chief Acevedo meant when he warned about "gun enthusiasts" or what might happen if Muslims embrace open carry.

What is your point in being so antagonistic toward me and my attempts to make others aware that MDA is making an issue of this and that the Austin American-Statesman ran a story on it? Am I distracting from more-pressing issues?

Bladed wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

Bladed wrote:[ Image ]

We all know that's patently false. So you're point is...

My point is that this is one of the tactics employed by gun-control activists in the run-up to the 2015 Texas Legislative Session and that our side benefits a good deal more from being aware of what tactics and arguments our opponents are utilizing than from debating what Chief Acevedo meant when he warned about "gun enthusiasts" or what might happen if Muslims embrace open carry.

What is your point in being so antagonistic toward me and my attempts to make others aware that MDA is making an issue of this and that the Austin American-Statesman ran a story on it? Am I distracting from more-pressing issues?

Whoa. My friend, you need to calm down.

We're on the same side.

I noted the information was seven-months old--with links provided--and you responded with only a dated MDA poster; no text. Context is important.

From everything I have seen, public opinion is changing, and it’s not good for “them”.

No anti-gun organization had given any thought to 30.06 signage until the open-carry with long gun demonstrations made TPC §30.06 part of the discussion. This wasn't because people carried rifles and shotguns on the street; it's because they carried them into stores and restaurants. Even Jerry Patterson was quoted in a recent article saying he would not oppose a change in the wording and signage requirement now that so many years have passed.

I've considered Jerry Patterson a very good friend for over 20 years, but he's dead wrong on this issue. Yes, the 30.06 sign is a big sign, but apparently Jerry and some other folks have forgotten the fact that small "no guns" decals that were all over the place were very easy to miss when walking into a store. This was/is especially true when the door has other decals and signs. Trespassing with a handgun was and is a Class A misdemeanor and we wanted to make sure that no CHL accidentally violated the law because they didn't see a small decal. Yes, I like the fact that a big sign is required, but the Legislature didn't, indeed wouldn't, pass a bill solely to place an undue burden on private property owners. The overriding goal was to make sure that CHLs are fully aware that they cannot enter the property with a handgun and the statutorily required language and sign size was created to achieve that goal.

Thanks to OCT/OCTC we will have to expend political capital to defeat the repeal or watering down of TPC §30.06. We will win, but it will be a battle we should not have had to fight. However, nothing can be done to stop MDA and other anti-gun people from continuing to "educate" business owners on the requirements of TPC §30.06.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Thanks to OCT/OCTC we will have to expend political capital to defeat the repeal or watering down of TPC §30.06. We will win, but it will be a battle we should not have had to fight. However, nothing can be done to stop MDA and other anti-gun people from continuing to "educate" business owners on the requirements of TPC §30.06.

Thank you, Charles.

"Mothers Against Everything" is rubbing all of us the wrong way.

Just sayin'.

Bladed wrote:[ Image ]

Denying small business more income (by asking CHLers to stay out) is counter productive to the interest of the small businesses who deserve better!

Gun control groups are also leading businesses and the media to believe that a 30.06 sign is the only way to prohibit the lawful open carry of long guns on private property. This article from The Wall Street Journal states:

Current Texas law doesn't contain any prohibitions on publicly carrying long guns unless they are displayed in a manner "calculated to alarm," or brought into an establishment displaying a "30.06" sign, a reference to the statute that allows Texas private-property owners to ban firearms on their premises.

In reality, a 30.06 sign is not required to prohibit the carrying of long guns on private property and, in fact, does not prohibit the carrying of long guns on private property. Unfortunately, many business owners now believe that a 30.06 sign is the only way to keep out open carry activists.