TexasCHLforum.com

PUCKER wrote:Jim, I'm curious, since you claim they consider it valid - what other signs do they consider valid? What about the "Buffalo Wild Wings Bans Guns" sign at BWW in Grapevine? Seriously. And, do you have some official documentation that says they consider it valid...like I mentioned before, and was never answered - it's all hearsay until I see something official from the Grapevine PD.

Which they are you talking about now?

The Simon company considers their signs to be valid and "like all of the other area malls are posted . . ." which is from an email response from them. A reply to that email stating that the other malls are not posted was not replied to.

I didn't get a letter from DPS, but I did ask for one, when they told me on the phone that as long as the attempt was made they would consider it valid. The young lady I was talking to at the time didn't like it much when I suggested that the same logic should mean that doing 49 in a 40 zone was making an effort to stay within the posted limit.

I don't think that a "gunbusters" sign would fall under a valid attempt to post, if that's what you mean. I haven't seen BWW's sign, it doesn't seem to exist in the Plano store, but they do have a blue TABC sign. Is BWW's sign posted?

The Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, the last time I was there, was posted with a 5x8 sign, but you have to pass through a metal detector to get in, so you are going to get verbal notice, which doesn't have to meet any standards.

The Allen Police Department has a sign, which doesn't meet any standards, and they consider it valid. Plano has similar signs.

The problem is that the law is not clear, not in the least, and all of this debate is merely a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing. If a police officer thinks he has the right to arrest you, he can do so, if a prosecutor wants to prosecute you, he can do so, just look at last year's flap about the State Fair in Dallas, with DPS stating that a private security company working for a private company that runs the fair on city property could legally record your name and information or ban you from the grounds if carrying. That is just wrong on so many levels, but they did it, and got away with it.

I think we are all upset that they are keeping Legal Responsible gun owners unarmed, and turning those of us who choose to ignore their signs into criminals.

joe817 wrote: We've into the ground....now and back in August.

I'm with you.

It seems nobody here is going to change their mind on this issue in either direction. My heart tells me it is fear that keeps us down. Describe the fear in any way you want...but in the end...it is still fear. Fear of financial loss...fear of jail...fear of getting rousted by a bad cop...fear of "the man"....but it is all fear of something. There is no reason to be ashamed of fear. I fear some things to. I just don't fear the police or courts.

03Lightningrocks wrote: I fear some things to. I just don't fear the police or courts.

You must have a lot more free time and money than I do!

Keith B wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: I fear some things to. I just don't fear the police or courts.

You must have a lot more free time and money than I do!

LOL...probably not...I just know I can't take it with me.

Jim, the "they" I'm talking about is the police - where do they draw the line on what signs are valid/not valid? That's the point I'm trying to get across. The law is pretty clear regarding 30.06 signs but maybe we/you/I have better reading comprehension skills? I could care less about Simon corporation...and what they consider valid.

The BWW in Grapevine is posted with this joke of a sign:

jimlongley wrote:

PUCKER wrote:Jim, I'm curious, since you claim they consider it valid - what other signs do they consider valid? What about the "Buffalo Wild Wings Bans Guns" sign at BWW in Grapevine? Seriously. And, do you have some official documentation that says they consider it valid...like I mentioned before, and was never answered - it's all hearsay until I see something official from the Grapevine PD.

Which they are you talking about now?

The Simon company considers their signs to be valid and "like all of the other area malls are posted . . ." which is from an email response from them. A reply to that email stating that the other malls are not posted was not replied to.

I didn't get a letter from DPS, but I did ask for one, when they told me on the phone that as long as the attempt was made they would consider it valid. The young lady I was talking to at the time didn't like it much when I suggested that the same logic should mean that doing 49 in a 40 zone was making an effort to stay within the posted limit.

I don't think that a "gunbusters" sign would fall under a valid attempt to post, if that's what you mean. I haven't seen BWW's sign, it doesn't seem to exist in the Plano store, but they do have a blue TABC sign. Is BWW's sign posted?

The Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, the last time I was there, was posted with a 5x8 sign, but you have to pass through a metal detector to get in, so you are going to get verbal notice, which doesn't have to meet any standards.

The Allen Police Department has a sign, which doesn't meet any standards, and they consider it valid. Plano has similar signs.

The problem is that the law is not clear, not in the least, and all of this debate is merely a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing. If a police officer thinks he has the right to arrest you, he can do so, if a prosecutor wants to prosecute you, he can do so, just look at last year's flap about the State Fair in Dallas, with DPS stating that a private security company working for a private company that runs the fair on city property could legally record your name and information or ban you from the grounds if carrying. That is just wrong on so many levels, but they did it, and got away with it.

jimlongley wrote: ... just look at last year's flap about the State Fair in Dallas, with DPS stating that a private security company working for a private company that runs the fair on city property could legally record your name and information or ban you from the grounds if carrying. That is just wrong on so many levels, but they did it, and got away with it.

<hijack>Jim, I posted a copy of the letter I got from DPS concerning the State Fair and Platinum security. In part they said that the issue and Platinum were the center point of a "massive investigation" and the particulars, information gathering and restriction of CHL access, were now added and are part of that investigation.</hijack>

PUCKER wrote:Jim, the "they" I'm talking about is the police - where do they draw the line on what signs are valid/not valid? That's the point I'm trying to get across. The law is pretty clear regarding 30.06 signs but maybe we/you/I have better reading comprehension skills? I could care less about Simon corporation...and what they consider valid.

The BWW in Grapevine is posted with this joke of a sign:

I don't see the law about signs as being clear, there are multiple segments to the law, only one of which pertains to the sign, which everyone seems to concentrate on. There is nothing there that says you have to have seen the sign, just that it be posted "on the property" "in a conspicuous manner learly visible to the public"

Nothing about every entrance, nothing about effective notice requiring seeing the sign, and while the 4413 (29ee) section is archaic, it used to be the effective sign, and if the cops haven't told them that the sign is in need of an update, and the cops are willing to arrest under the authority of that sign, then it's quite likely that the arrest is going to happen. And the cops' reaction when you point out that there is a defect, their response is likely to be "Explain it to the judge."

And considering the mall's intent, well, "they just didn't have the sign exactly right, but it should have been clear what it meant." says their attorney, "thus the Simon Corporation considers it valid."

The BWW sign looks to me like they are communicating that CORPORATE bans guns on those premises, but since they are not properly posted, you can carry if you are a CHL.

Dragonfighter wrote:<hijack>Jim, I posted a copy of the letter I got from DPS concerning the State Fair and Platinum security. In part they said that the issue and Platinum were the center point of a "massive investigation" and the particulars, information gathering and restriction of CHL access, were now added and are part of that investigation.</hijack>

Yeah, but the situation was allowed to exist for weeks and still hasn't really been resolved.

jimlongley wrote:And the cops' reaction when you point out that there is a defect, their response is likely to be "Explain it to the judge."

And this is where I have greater concern than the police of district attorneys.

I fear there are too many ignorant or arrogant judges that would consider any signage adequate.

So consider the likely need for appeals.

PUCKER wrote:

If two Grapevine police walked into that BWW, would they arrest each other? The intent of this sign and the Owner's message to any possible customers is patently obvious and it is patently clear there's no exemption for police in the sign.

You can post what ever, if it has no basis in the law, it is meaningless. 30.06 or I do not care ( private property). Now, I do not mess with Allen PD even though they have an outdated sign on the entrance.

03Lightningrocks wrote:It seems nobody here is going to change their mind on this issue in either direction. My heart tells me it is fear that keeps us down. Describe the fear in any way you want...but in the end...it is still fear. Fear of financial loss...fear of jail...fear of getting rousted by a bad cop...fear of "the man"....but it is all fear of something. There is no reason to be ashamed of fear. I fear some things to. I just don't fear the police or courts.

I am not afraid of rattlesnakes, but I know that they can hurt me if I do not exercise caution around them. You can call it what you want. I call it common sense. FEAR is when I see a rattlesnake and run away, screaming like a little girl.

I do not run away, screaming like a little girl when confronted with the arrogance of government, but the government can hurt me if I do not exercise caution around them. You can call it what you want. I call it common sense.

You said there was no shame in being afraid, but then you also said:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Reading how afraid some of you fellers are of the government, specifically the police agencies, I am amazed we have any constitutional rights at all.

You imply that we have diminished constitutional rights because the rest of us are afraid, but not you, by golly. That is an accusation which is dismissive and does not stand up to the sniff test... ...and it conflicts with your quote at the top of this post. That is why I'm not letting go of it. Could you please clarify your meaning so that I can understand how you can label sober caution as fear and be contemptuous of it in one post, and then graciously allow as how it is nothing to be ashamed of in another post?

Thank you.

OK guys, keep it civil in discussions and not personal or this thread will be locked.