Penalties for illegal or improper signage...

[kw5kw]

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???

It seems to have worked quite well in Arizona. If the businesses truly want to keep your gun out, then they must provide a locker in which to store your weapon. No locker, then they can't force your weapon to remain outside. (And you with it.)

[KD5NRH]

The difference is that your scenarios have signs that advocate acts that are illegal.

It's illegal for a Jew to fail to enter my property? How often does he/she have to be here? I suppose it could be useful if Rabbi Walker had to drop by on a regular basis, but I hope I don't have to feed him.

The non-compliant sign is simply that, non-compliant.

I would have to disagree when it purports to state a nonexistent law, or claims falsely to have force of a law.

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 posted properly and clearly, and in places that I am not forced to go, (such as the local hospital, which has an absolute monopoly over emergency room services for nearly 40 miles) I don't have a propblem with it either, as it gives me a clear indication of where I will not deign to spend money

.

[carlson1]

It is a lot more simple to change the CHL law to be able carry everywhere except court houses period. If you do not want law abiding citizens in your hamburger stand then don't open it up for business.

[txinvestigator]

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???

It seems to have worked quite well in Arizona. If the businesses truly want to keep your gun out, then they must provide a locker in which to store your weapon. No locker, then they can't force your weapon to remain outside. (And you with it.)

I can't comment on other states. IMO, it is a bad idea to have people handling their firearms IN PUBLIC as would be done if this were a requirement.

[carlson1]

I can't comment on other states. IMO, it is a bad idea to have people handling their firearms IN PUBLIC as would be done if this were a requirement.

I wonder how many AD there are because people are handling their guns? I wonder how many times the muzzle would be pointed at others? ETC. . .
Just carry concealed every where makes since.

[GrillKing]

I would have to disagree when it purports to state a nonexistent law, or claims falsely to have force of a law.

When it purports to state a nonexistant law or claims falsely to have the force of law, that is what makes it non-compliant.

Again, if we push the issue and 'force' either compliant signs or no signs, a LOT more places will be off limits. Let people post what they want, whether firerms related or not. Either they are enforceable by law or they are not...

In my opinion, pushing this is a bad strategy.

[jimlongley]

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....

I think they should be made to wear the right shoes. I don't much care if they swap out a non-compliant sign for a compliant one, if they have a non-compliant one up then there is a chance that I will ignore it, as non-compliant, and they might discover that I am carrying, and then I have to go through all of the legal hassle and the "property owner's intent" (which isn't part of the law.

In short, if they are going to say it, they should be made to say it right.

Then I will leave them a card and take my business elsewhere knowing that I will not have to put up with harassment just because the owner couldn't bother to comply with the law. No loss to me.

And if I make them change the sign, beside my not ever spending any money there, it will have cost them to make the change.

And as KD5NRH said "any sign that purports to give information about an issue of legality should be subject to certain standards of civil and criminal liability. "

[KD5NRH]

Again, if we push the issue and 'force' either compliant signs or no signs, a LOT more places will be off limits. Let people post what they want, whether firerms related or not. Either they are enforceable by law or they are not...

The biggest problem arises when one does not, or in some cases cannot know that a sign is unenforceable or misleading. For example, I was in a city a few days ago that has some restrictions on smoking areas in businesses. The first place I stopped for breakfast had a sign posted stating that smoking was prohibited by city ordinance; had I not know that the law only required special ventilation for smoking areas, I would have been disappointed but spent my money there anyway, since I would have felt that the merchant was not permitted to provide what I wanted. Since I knew the sign to be misleading, I went a couple more blocks until I found a place with the proper ventilation system to spend my money with a merchant who provided what I wanted.

The same can happen with someone from out of state who hasn't memorized the exact 30.06 requirement and sees a "No handguns allowed under state law" posting: they will assume that it is not the merchant's choice, but a requirement placed on them by the state. (Granted, 30.06 still sounds like it's not the property owner's choice to post it, but that's a separate issue and should be taken up with the legislature at some point.)

[TxFire]

Unfortunately the burden is on us to know the laws regarding posting of signs and what is and is not enforceable. The same is true is we travel out of state. We would need to know the laws and enforcement in that state. I feel we should leave well enough alone. Those that do not know what is or is not enforceable might look into reading that portion of the law. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Thats my .02 worth.

[stevie_d_64]

Unfortunately the burden is on us to know the laws regarding posting of signs and what is and is not enforceable. The same is true is we travel out of state. We would need to know the laws and enforcement in that state. I feel we should leave well enough alone. Those that do not know what is or is not enforceable might look into reading that portion of the law. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Thats my .02 worth.

Yep, you are absolutely correct...The burden IS on us...And I think we all do a very good job in honoring and complying with the law...Sometimes it rubs some of us wrong when we see a business or entity post incorrect signage...And we discuss those issues in a productive and mature manner...And for the most part we honor the intent of the posting...

But your last sentence there speaks volumes...Ignorance of the law is not a defense...

Nor should in that regard should it be penalized if you are found to be carrying in some place that is posted incorrectly in the first place...

Like I've said before, I do not often see incorrect postings, nor many places that get it right...My routine is always on the alert for proper signage...And I will reluctantly respect anyone who posts properly, and be glad that at least they are following the law from their perspective...

Those that do not, or worse, purposefully post something that is a play on the wording in the law, with the intent to restrict, should be given lawful notice to post properly, or remove the signage...If they do not comply...Well, I believe penalties or punishment is proper...

[TxFire]

Nor should in that regard should it be penalized if you are found to be carrying in some place that is posted incorrectly in the first place...

Is there any record of someone being penalized for carrying in a place that was posted non-compliant or are we thinking that this COULD happen somewhere sometime?

Those that do not, or worse, purposefully post something that is a play on the wording in the law, with the intent to restrict, should be given lawful notice to post properly, or remove the signage...If they do not comply...Well, I believe penalties or punishment is proper...

I guess we'll just have to disagree here. Businesses or others have a legal way to restrict our ability to carry, if they through ignorance or malice post a non 30.06 sign it is unenforceable and should not stop you unless you choose it to. I feel that is sufficient. No need for MORE laws and government intervention here.

[stevie_d_64]

Nor should in that regard should it be penalized if you are found to be carrying in some place that is posted incorrectly in the first place...

Is there any record of someone being penalized for carrying in a place that was posted non-compliant or are we thinking that this COULD happen somewhere sometime?

No I do not think so...Never someone that has not done something else illegal and it was discovered they were carrying CHL or not...Its like you say COULD happen...Thats what mine (and maybe a few others), big rub in this...

Those that do not, or worse, purposefully post something that is a play on the wording in the law, with the intent to restrict, should be given lawful notice to post properly, or remove the signage...If they do not comply...Well, I believe penalties or punishment is proper...

I guess we'll just have to disagree here. Businesses or others have a legal way to restrict our ability to carry, if they through ignorance or malice post a non 30.06 sign it is unenforceable and should not stop you unless you choose it to. I feel that is sufficient. No need for MORE laws and government intervention here.

And for the most part we do not dissagree there...I honor the intent...Do I like having to accept the stupidity of some business or other entity posting incorrectly, yet knowing that was their intent...

And the legal jeopardy is still overwhelmingly against us??? No...I believe the playing field should in this case be leveled...And no completely new law needs to be passed...If it needs to be amended, so be it...

[cxm]

Jeff,

Lockers self locked by the CHL holder would work just fine... and I deeply believe this should be our first priority in the next legislations session immediately after imposing strict liability for any harm a disarmed CHL holder suffers in a posted business.

FWIW

Chuck

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.

[stevie_d_64]

I actually learned something...(I know, strange...)

When some of us took the Utah CFP class from "llwatson", a side bar discussion about this issue came up...

She informed me that yes Utah did have a temporary provision during the Salt Lake Olympics to secure their citizens who carried at the venues to secure them while in the facility...

But after the Olympics were over...Bingo...They were gone...

I'm just glad to have that confirmed that it was only a temporary provision for its CFP folks...Since I don't talk much to many credible sources in Utah, I was erroneously under the impresssion that a few facilities carried on this activity...

I still believe it would be good to explore the concept in Texas though...