TexasCHLforum.com

"Had" to go this weekend to see the oceanscapes (boss made me) and I notice the woefully non-compliant sinage on the front doors (no where near 1"). I was also aware that the 30.06 is non-enforceable because it's owned by the city, but it just made me angry to think that they even post it in the first place. They even checked my wifes purse for contraband I guess I would have left and spent my money elsewhere if it wasn't for the wife.

Those signs must be fairly new. I've been there a couple of times and I've never seen them. The last time was in March or April.

They were stenciled on the front doors (left and right) bottom near the walls. They weren't 1" but they were larger than most I've seen. Sad really.

7075-T7 wrote: I was also aware that the 30.06 is non-enforceable because it's owned by the city,

Are you sure that it's owned by the city? If it is, I'm going to have my lawyer write a letter for us. Thanks.

Im sorry to even ask this but the laws get confusing . If the city owns a building you can in regards to CHL? I think im correct in my thinking just checking. Thanks for the help.

drjoker wrote:

7075-T7 wrote: I was also aware that the 30.06 is non-enforceable because it's owned by the city,

Are you sure that it's owned by the city? If it is, I'm going to have my lawyer write a letter for us. Thanks.

Yes-indeed-ily do!

http://www.dallascityhall.com/html/dall ... f_art.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/onli ... /kld1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Since its inception, the museum's facilities and most of its collections have been owned by the city of Dallas and operated and overseen by the board of trustees of the museum."

Keith wrote:Im sorry to even ask this but the laws get confusing . If the city owns a building you can in regards to CHL? I think im correct in my thinking just checking. Thanks for the help.

If a city government owns a building, then they can not legally enforce a 30.06 and you can carry (except the prisons, courthouse when in session, etc, etc) Since our CHL's are state issued, a city can not override that authority regardless of sineage. Now, if the owner came up and asked you to leave with your CHL, then you would have to do so. But concealed is concealed.

IANAL

These places that post "non compliant" signs, are they simply not aware of the laws or does it cost money to get a 30.06 sign?

Bird of Prey wrote:These places that post "non compliant" signs, are they simply not aware of the laws or does it cost money to get a 30.06 sign?

All things being equal (same size of lettering, same number of characters), I'm unaware of any reason why it would cost any more to get a compliant sign. They don't have to buy it from the state, just get one made that complies with the legal requirements.

Some have speculated there is a secret cabal of CHL holders who post noncompliant signs when asked by their employer to post a sign but asking questions about that is likely to get you whacked.

hirundo82 wrote: Some have speculated there is a secret cabal of CHL holders who post noncompliant signs when asked by their employer to post a sign but asking questions about that is likely to get you whacked.

Mums the word! Don't say anything but I'd do the same thing if given the chance!

7075-T7 wrote:If a city government owns a building, then they can not legally enforce a 30.06 and you can carry (except the prisons, courthouse when in session, etc, etc) Since our CHL's are state issued, a city can not override that authority regardless of sineage. Now, if the owner came up and asked you to leave with your CHL, then you would have to do so. But concealed is concealed.

IANAL

From a legal standpoint, I do not think the statement I highlighted is correct in this situation. (I also am not a lawyer--just talking here.) If a city representative told you to leave and cited 30.06 as the reason, I don't think there is any legal power of force behind that request as the sign is not enforceable on TX governmental property (again from my understanding of the legal standpoint). However, it would be highly imprudent of a person to force the issue over carrying a gun and to remain, waiting to be arrested and to have his say in court. I don't recommend that avenue. I just think the statement above is slightly inaccurate.