TexasCHLforum.com

It has been awhile, but I remember back when the whole Texas CHL thing started, an issue quickly developed, where CHL holders were constantly encountering all kinds of home-made "gunbuster" signs, to the extent that it was almost pointless to even have a CHL. As a result, the 30-06 requirement emerged, where we recognized that any private property owner had the right to decide who could and couldn't come onto his property. That did relieve the situation considerably, at least at first.

Now, however, it seems like we're heading back to where we were before, as more and more businesses learn about posting proper 30-06 signage, more than anyone could possibly remember. They can buy them anywhere (e.g. http://www.compliancesigns.com/NHB-16362.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and stick them in their windows. What are CHL holders supposed to do, carry a list around or something? It's getting silly. Still, the fact remains that private property owners (which includes business owners) have a right to decide who can and can't enter that property. Within that, can anyone suggest a legislative approach that might be proposed to address this situation? It's only going to get worse.

While I can't say I agree with most 30.06 postings, I will say that it's the property owners right. I think we have enough laws telling people what they can and cannot do with their private property.

I think I have seen only one valid 30-06 sign in the last two years. I don't see a huge problem here.

AlaskanInTexas wrote:I think I have seen only one valid 30-06 sign in the last two years. I don't see a huge problem here.

Agreed.

Aside from going into a doctor's office that is located inside a posted hospital, I can't remember the last time I saw one.

Then again, Abilene may still be a bit more 'western minded' than some of the major metro areas in Texas.

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!

FWIW, I'm referring to Austin and the metro area. I wouldn't say it's reached the crisis point yet, but the number of 3006 signs is steadily increasing. I think it's inevitable that it will reach that point eventually.

Ruark wrote:FWIW, I'm referring to Austin and the metro area. I wouldn't say it's reached the crisis point yet, but the number of 3006 signs is steadily increasing. I think it's inevitable that it will reach that point eventually.

Well there's your problem... You live in Austin! haha just kidding man. I'm in Houston and see one every now and then, usually at AMC theaters... But their lettering is too small to be compliant

AlaskanInTexas wrote:I think I have seen only one valid 30-06 sign in the last two years. I don't see a huge problem here.

Not counting 51 signs I've only seen one as well in 6+ years.

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!

Send us a picture.

now before i start let me say that I like everyone else here does my best to follow the law as it is.....do i agree with it? Not hardly.....why did i get a CHL? refer back to the first sentence.

I believe first and foremost that the constituition allows me to carry to defend myself regardless if it's OC or CC. My ONLY qualms with absolute OC is private property rights.

the private property issues IMO are the only constraints on my ability to carry, because it is also laid out in the constitution. that being said 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.

now the consensus would say well shop elsewhere....that's fine for now and this is exactly what i do. i will not enter and give one dime to someone who openly denies my rights. well what's going to happen when our gun laws become as ridiculous as chicago, or NY???? Trust me the adament effort to Texas blue will be followed by the same idiocy which HAS FAILED many states in this once great nation. why do you think everyone keeps coming to texas? then there will be nowhere to go and then our rights are effectively denied...

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.

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.

that's exactly what i'm saying.....IMO the bill of rights was intended to lay out god given rights that basically say that people are free until they violate others..... obviously i'm on the smaller side of this or the law would be alot different... agree to disagree

Ultra_Solo_Sig_0904 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.

that's exactly what i'm saying.....IMO the bill of rights was intended to lay out god given rights that basically say that people are free until they violate others..... obviously i'm on the smaller side of this or the law would be alot different... agree to disagree

I agree with with your first statement. But I disagree with what I presume is your position that carrying a concealed weapon on someone else's property against their wishes does not violate their rights. I have the right to free speech, but if I show up at someone else's house or business and start swearing or talking about stuff they don't want to hear, I can expect to be shown the door so that I can exercise my right somewhere else.

You seem to be saying that as long as they don't know their wishes for no guns is being violated they don't have any rights to exclude the guns. I can't get on that page.

OK..... just trying to get this thread back on track... all I'm saying is that the number of places with 06 signs is steadily increasing, and before long it will reach the point where it was in the beginning: there will be so many of them it will be impossible to keep up with them all. In fact, there have been THREE additions to the Austin page of Texas3006.com since yesterday.

I am somewhat familiar with the process of speaking with legislators and have done so many times before, and I am wondering if there is some idea out there for some legislation addressing this, to protect the rights of CHL holders AND at the same time respect the rights of private property owners to do what they want with their property. I'd like to put something together and take it to the Capitol. Any suggestions?