Penalties for illegal or improper signage...

[stevie_d_64]

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... php?t=4282

Either post it correctly per the law, or apply proper corrective measures...

If not...Fines and or imprisonment...

I believe that is a fair application of the law...

[nitrogen]

Now i'm not sure about that.

I'd argue that their First Amendment rights allow to post what ever kind of sign they want.

[txinvestigator]

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/viewtopic.php?t=4282

Either post it correctly per the law, or apply proper corrective measures...

If not...Fines and or imprisonment...

I believe that is a fair application of the law...

It is not fair, nor appropriate. The law is simple enough. If it is a valid sign, stay out. If the colors appear to contrast, stay out. If the letters are only 1 7/8 inches tall, stay out.

Why should a private business owner who is not subject to the CHL laws be have a penalty attached if he posts a sign that does not affect a CHL holder?

In kind, you will never be able to require a private business to have lockers available for you to secure your weapon if they decide to post 30.06.

I teach these CHL holders, and I can tell you I don't want them handling their weapons in and out of a locker in public places.

[GrillKing]

Now i'm not sure about that.

I'd argue that their First Amendment rights allow to post what ever kind of sign they want.

I agree, post what you want, it is compliant and binding or not compliant and not binding, but not illegal. I see a lot of posts regarding 'illegal' signs. There is no such thing. They are non-binding signs.

[seamusTX]

I'd argue that their First Amendment rights allow to post what ever kind of sign they want.

Just for the sake of argument, I don't think they can post a sign that says, "No Colored or Chinese."

The remedy is civil injunction, though, not fines or jail time.

I'd also like to point out that most of the invalid postings are on government property. The state isn't in the habit of prosecuting itself or cities.

- Jim

[nitrogen]

Just for the sake of argument, I don't think they can post a sign that says, "No Colored or Chinese."

The remedy is civil injunction, though, not fines or jail time.

I'd also like to point out that most of the invalid postings are on government property. The state isn't in the habit of prosecuting itself or cities.

- Jim

Sure you could.
It'd be death for your business, but you could post one. I don't think you could enforce such a sign, but you can post one, but i'm splitting hairs here.

[seamusTX]

Check this out. Note the author.

- Jim

[stevie_d_64]

It is not fair, nor appropriate. The law is simple enough. If it is a valid sign, stay out. If the colors appear to contrast, stay out. If the letters are only 1 7/8 inches tall, stay out.

No argument at all...I'm with you on that...We all pretty much know thats what you are supposed to do...

Why should a private business owner who is not subject to the CHL laws be have a penalty attached if he posts a sign that does not affect a CHL holder?

Because if your going to dance, you should wear the right shoes...Otherwise you will get blisters...

We wear the right shoes...

(this is a horrible analogy, but I figure it may somewhat illustrate the parity between the CHL community and the other side of the coin)

In kind, you will never be able to require a private business to have lockers available for you to secure your weapon if they decide to post 30.06.

Why not??? It works in other states???

And if Texas passed this amendment, would you still think it to be wrong???

I just don't see it as a violation of a person, business or other facilities First Amendment right, that if in this case, you wish to restrict an activity per the law, that allows you to do so, you must follow the law in restricting that activity entirely, or not have that restriction be binding...

I teach these CHL holders, and I can tell you I don't want them handling their weapons in and out of a locker in public places.

I know you do, and I have heard nothing but fantastic things about your methods and reasonings, they are well founded...

I really do understand what you and Nitrogen say in regards to First Amendment rights and private business rights...

But, in the example of the other thread I posted as a reference, there just doesn't appear to me from that example that after all these years, that businesses and other institutions cannot either get it right, or be compelled to do so, or not post (restrict) at all...

If we are required to follow the law, they should follow the guidelines and format that the law gives them the right to do so...

Not dance around the parsing of words and phrases, and post something they know is incorrect, just to cause a little hiccup every now and then when someone in our community correctly questions this...

I am of course (for years) part of the crowd that says to not stir up the hornets nest when you see an incorrect sign...But in this case, I think it was allowed to fester, till someone questioned it...FWIW...

Maybe I value and trust your judgement over entities that push as hard as we do in cases like this...Yet, we still see someone who does something like this, and we tell people to "ignore it"...

I say lets get it all out on the table, get it cleared up, and move on...Those that comply properly, we bypass in our lives...Those that choose to not restrict, well we have the freedom to choose that path as well...


No...I'm no wearing my tin-foil cap, thank you very much...

[GrillKing]

Because if your going to dance, you should wear the right shoes...Otherwise you will get blisters...

We wear the right shoes...

(this is a horrible analogy, but I figure it may somewhat illustrate the parity between the CHL community and the other side of the coin)

I don't think we want to force them to 'wear the right shoes'. This will let the 'cat out of the bag' and the vast majority of signs that are non-compliant will be swapped out for signs that are compliant. The law clearly states the requirement for effective notice. If someone chooses to not give effective notice, either deliberately or because they choose not to investigate the legal requirements for what they do, why should we educate them?

They are still in the game, just not calling the best plays....

[nitrogen]

I don't think we want to force them to 'wear the right shoes'. This will let the 'cat out of the bag' and the vast majority of signs that are non-compliant will be swapped out for signs that are compliant.

Thats the other reason.

Also, I have this theory. Sometimes some business want to have it both ways. They want to appease the Antis, but not annoy the rest of us.

Putting up a non-compliant sign lets them have it both ways.
And is that a bad thing?

[40FIVER]

I don't think we want to force them to 'wear the right shoes'. This will let the 'cat out of the bag' and the vast majority of signs that are non-compliant will be swapped out for signs that are compliant.

Thats the other reason.

Also, I have this theory. Sometimes some business want to have it both ways. They want to appease the Antis, but not annoy the rest of us.

Putting up a non-compliant sign lets them have it both ways.
And is that a bad thing?

I agree with GrillKing and Nitrogen on this one. If the fence sitters have to choose between the antis and the CHLers, I believe they will do the math and figure out there are a lot more non-CHLers than CHLers.

The non-binding signs will be replaced with the proper ones and we will loose.

40FIVER

[Venus Pax]

I've been to many places where they had the following notice:

The unlicensed possession of a firearm is prohibited on these premises.
(my italics)

I like that sign. It says that a person licensed to carry a firearm is welcome, but the common thug is not. (Not that the thug is going to understand or obey the sign, but it's a nice gesture.)

Many places have the ghostbuster sign. I think that's just to make the sheeple feel better.

[nitrogen]

I've been to many places where they had the following notice:

The unlicensed possession of a firearm is prohibited on these premises.
(my italics)

I think that sign is required by the TABC in places where alcohol is served, but arent 51% establishments.

Still, I like that sign too. I wouldn't mind seeing it in non-tabc regulated places.

[KD5NRH]

Now i'm not sure about that.

I'd argue that their First Amendment rights allow to post what ever kind of sign they want.

So, it should be perfectly legal to post a "No Jews allowed by order of the Fire Marshal" sign, simply because it would be unenforceable? IMO, any sign that purports to give information about an issue of legality should be subject to certain standards of civil and criminal liability.

What would happen to someone who posted a sign that said "Under Federal law, murder is unconditionally permitted in this area," if someone else took it at its word?

[GrillKing]

So, it should be perfectly legal to post a "No Jews allowed by order of the Fire Marshal" sign, simply because it would be unenforceable? IMO, any sign that purports to give information about an issue of legality should be subject to certain standards of civil and criminal liability.

What would happen to someone who posted a sign that said "Under Federal law, murder is unconditionally permitted in this area," if someone else took it at its word?

The difference is that your scenarios have signs that advocate acts that are illegal. The non-compliant sign is simply that, non-compliant. It is not advocating an illegal act, but stating an opinion or desire in a way that is not binding. There is clear method in the law we have today that allows private entities to prohibit concealed carry on their property (they should be allowed to exercise that right, IMHO) if they choose to follow it. By not following it, they shouldn't be law breakers, they are simply choosing, deliberately or ignorantly, not to use a binding method to have their desires made enforecable.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like it when private entities use 30.06, but private property rights trump 2nd amendment in my opinion. If someone doesn't like my rules, they can stay off my property. I am not obligated to let people do whatever they want on my property. Although on my property, feel free to carry.

Public property is a different story. I own it, I have a right to carry....