Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

[ScottDLS]

How about " No Trespassing", "No Hunting" or "No Dumping" signs? Should those not have the force of law? Or, are those just conveying the owner's wishes and should the property owner have to confront them visit prior to them being in violation?

I don't know about "no hunting" and "no dumping", but "no trespassing" is covered by statues (the others may be as well). Trust me, if you don't properly post (according to the law) a no trespassing sign, or have your property properly marked, someone caught on your property has not violated the law until you confront them and tell them to leave.

That's the important thing here. Go past a 30.06, and you are violating the law (even if you're not caught). The "no guns" and "no shirt no shoes no service" do not have the force of law behind them. It's as simple as that.

This is interesting in that it is not what the Texas AG at the time CHL was passed (1995) said. This was an anti-gun Democrat AG, but his direction was that any indication by the property owners that they didn't want guns... "No shirt, no shoes, or a gun...no service" made a class A for the CHL and (presumably) a class B for the shirtless or barefoot. This was with 30.05 in most respects reading as it does today.

In 1997 the 30.06 was added, but interestingly the 30.05 read the same (no exception for CHL). So theoretically, under AG Morales' reasoning you could have still caught a class A criminal trespass for walking past a "non-compliant" sign. Later (2001) Defenses were added (to 30.05) for CHL, and interestingly exception for LEO too (had no exemption previously in 30.05). 30.05 wasn't even included in the 1995-1996 CHL guide as I guess the authors didn't even consider it relevant.

[dac1842]

Let me enlighten you to another reason you see the gun buster signs and improper use of 30.06 signs. In some instances it is intentional in order to comply with an insurance company's demand to post a no weapons sign in order to get a cheaper commercial liability policy. The policy does not stipulate what the exact signage must be, it just says that the insured must display a sign that says no weapons.

[mojo84]

Let me enlighten you to another reason you see the gun buster signs and improper use of 30.06 signs. In some instances it is intentional in order to comply with an insurance company's demand to post a no weapons sign in order to get a cheaper commercial liability policy. The policy does not stipulate what the exact signage must be, it just says that the insured must display a sign that says no weapons.

Can you provide documemtation of insurance companies making such a demand? I've been in the business for almost twenty years and have never seen or heard of this happening.

[sjfcontrol]

Let me enlighten you to another reason you see the gun buster signs and improper use of 30.06 signs. In some instances it is intentional in order to comply with an insurance company's demand to post a no weapons sign in order to get a cheaper commercial liability policy. The policy does not stipulate what the exact signage must be, it just says that the insured must display a sign that says no weapons.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? It is my opinion that THAT is gun "urban legend". Oft repeated, but never documented. (Sorry, I'm in a real mood tonight.)

Edit, MOJO beat me by a minute.

[Deltaboy]

If it meets the code I follow it if not I just carry on.