TexasCHLforum.com

Good try tho....

I wouldn't carry past that 30.06. YMMV.

....from PC 30.06

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06.

Me, either. The legislature's precise wording, size, and placement rules protect us from small, obscurely placed, and ambiguously worded signs. The signs here are worded clearly enough and the size seems big enough to see easily. Assuming they're reasonably well placed, I would respect them. If licensees establish a pattern of trying to exploit inconsequential defects, we run the risk of the pressure on the legislature to water down the rules. We don't want that.

In all things, be reasonable. Pendulums swing. Right now, it's our way, but it will not ever be thus.

KLB wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06.

Me, either. The legislature's precise wording, size, and placement rules protect us from small, obscurely placed, and ambiguously worded signs. The signs here are worded clearly enough and the size seems big enough to see easily. Assuming they're reasonably well placed, I would respect them. If licensees establish a pattern of trying to exploit inconsequential defects, we run the risk of the pressure on the legislature to water down the rules. We don't want that.

In all things, be reasonable. Pendulums swing. Right now, it's our way, but it will not ever be thus.

This is good sentiment. I think that the above sign is a good faith effort, IMO.

I do appreciate the joke though.

KLB wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06.

Me, either. The legislature's precise wording, size, and placement rules protect us from small, obscurely placed, and ambiguously worded signs. The signs here are worded clearly enough and the size seems big enough to see easily. Assuming they're reasonably well placed, I would respect them. If licensees establish a pattern of trying to exploit inconsequential defects, we run the risk of the pressure on the legislature to water down the rules. We don't want that.

In all things, be reasonable. Pendulums swing. Right now, it's our way, but it will not ever be thus.

As far as I am concerned a sign is either legal or not; I'm not going to get out a tape measure for every sign I see, but the wording they MUST include is VERY specific. I am more than happy to follow the law, but I'm not willing to give up my rights without just cause. This is no more valid than if they had written it as:

"No guns allowed on the premises pursuant to section 30.06 Penal Code."

TexasTornado wrote:

KLB wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06.

Me, either. The legislature's precise wording, size, and placement rules protect us from small, obscurely placed, and ambiguously worded signs. The signs here are worded clearly enough and the size seems big enough to see easily. Assuming they're reasonably well placed, I would respect them. If licensees establish a pattern of trying to exploit inconsequential defects, we run the risk of the pressure on the legislature to water down the rules. We don't want that.

In all things, be reasonable. Pendulums swing. Right now, it's our way, but it will not ever be thus.

As far as I am concerned a sign is either legal or not; I'm not going to get out a tape measure for every sign I see, but the wording they MUST include is VERY specific. I am more than happy to follow the law, but I'm not willing to give up my rights without just cause. This is no more valid than if they had written it as:

"No guns allowed on the premises pursuant to section 30.06 Penal Code."

If I was on your jury, I would vote to acquit. The sign is not compliant.
However, it's close enough for me to salute it and move on. YMMV, of course.

Old 30.06 language. Carry on.

Concealed means concealed.

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06. YMMV.

....from PC 30.06

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

Same here. Even though the sign might be invalid, you always open yourself up to being arrested for violating 30.06 if you choose to walk past it. You will probably be able to get the charges dismissed, thrown out of court, AFTER you have paid a defense attorney a few thousand dollars to defend you when you have your day in court.

I'd rather spend those few thousand dollars on some new guns, ammo, tactical knives, flashlights, holsters, etc, etc, etc, than to "prove" I was right.

joe817 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06. YMMV.

....from PC 30.06

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

Same here. Even though the sign might be invalid, you always open yourself up to being arrested for violating 30.06 if you choose to walk past it. You will probably be able to get the charges dismissed, thrown out of court, AFTER you have paid a defense attorney a few thousand dollars to defend you when you have your day in court.

I'd rather spend those few thousand dollars on some new guns, ammo, tactical knives, flashlights, holsters, etc, etc, etc, than to "prove" I was right.

That is always the rub. You might beat the rap, but is the ride worth it?

As said above, concealed means concealed.

joe817 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06. YMMV.

....from PC 30.06

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

Same here. Even though the sign might be invalid, you always open yourself up to being arrested for violating 30.06 if you choose to walk past it. You will probably be able to get the charges dismissed, thrown out of court, AFTER you have paid a defense attorney a few thousand dollars to defend you when you have your day in court.

I'd rather spend those few thousand dollars on some new guns, ammo, tactical knives, flashlights, holsters, etc, etc, etc, than to "prove" I was right.

I didn't think you would generally be arrested for a Class C misdemeanor. Isn't that like a traffic ticket?

oohrah wrote:

joe817 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06. YMMV.

....from PC 30.06

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

Same here. Even though the sign might be invalid, you always open yourself up to being arrested for violating 30.06 if you choose to walk past it. You will probably be able to get the charges dismissed, thrown out of court, AFTER you have paid a defense attorney a few thousand dollars to defend you when you have your day in court.

I'd rather spend those few thousand dollars on some new guns, ammo, tactical knives, flashlights, holsters, etc, etc, etc, than to "prove" I was right.

I didn't think you would generally be arrested for a Class C misdemeanor. Isn't that like a traffic ticket?

It is indeed. I don't think it being a Class C has quite sunk in yet; although, in this case it's not even a Class C. No rule 4 violation, no violation at all. May have to take a ticket to court to let them read....but that's about it.

joe817 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06. YMMV.

....from PC 30.06

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

Same here. Even though the sign might be invalid, you always open yourself up to being arrested for violating 30.06 if you choose to walk past it. You will probably be able to get the charges dismissed, thrown out of court, AFTER you have paid a defense attorney a few thousand dollars to defend you when you have your day in court.

I'd rather spend those few thousand dollars on some new guns, ammo, tactical knives, flashlights, holsters, etc, etc, etc, than to "prove" I was right.

Exactly!

I agree, the old 30.06 wording is equivalent to a gun-buster sign now. Carry on!

I might CC past that sign...because it would not be against the law (NO FORUM RULE 4 VIOLATION). Especially because if I was WRONGLY charged, it would be a class C. And when I get to JP court or municipal court on it, I am comfortable representing myself.

ETA: You can ALWAYS "take the ride". I might even take the ride for killing Kennedy, but since I didn't do it (wasn't born), I probably wouldn't need F. LEE BAILEY to defend me...

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06. YMMV.

....from PC 30.06

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

Neither would I. That sign says they don't want my business. I'll respect their wishes.