Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Topic author
APynckel
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:36 am
Location: N Houston

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#16

Post by APynckel »

AlaskanInTexas wrote:
APynckel wrote:If they choose to arrest you, when they were at fault, why are they not subject to the same result if they didn't follow the law?

If the "gunbusters" sign isn't legally binding to a CHL, how is an improper 30.06 binding?
A non-compliant 30.06 sign has no legal effect on a CHL holder. Are you suggesting that if a business owner posts a non-compliant 30.06 sign they should be arrested? I think you might be getting a little worked up over a non-issue.
Well, if they are under the assumption that it is legally binding, they can order a police officer to arrest you for not respecting their wishes. Subsequently, there would be criminal charges brought against you, correct?

I'm not worked up, I'm just enjoying the argument.
NRA Lifetime Member
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 18494
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#17

Post by Keith B »

APynckel wrote:If they choose to arrest you, when they were at fault, why are they not subject to the same result if they didn't follow the law?

If the "gunbusters" sign isn't legally binding to a CHL, how is an improper 30.06 binding?
It isn't. However, if you are arrested and charged, then you will have a legal battle. If found the sign was improper, then you would have to sue the agency that arrested you for false arrest, and possibly the business that called the police on you.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4

RKirkwood
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#18

Post by RKirkwood »

If the 30.06 sign is improper you can just carry past it. IMO, there could be reasons for it or other issues by carrying past it. This has been discussed before.

1. The owner knowingly post an incorrect sign keeping the anti happy and allowing legally licensed CHL into his business because they know the sign have no bearing.
2. Carry past it and being discovered may get you the ride but no charges. As said before concealed means concealed!

As for the 51% sign it might be that the manger don't know which sign to put out. Example - Specs on Mason road has a BLUE gun sign but the new Specs off of I10 in Katy has the RED 51% sign. On the TABC site it listed as BLUE gun sign.
User avatar

Topic author
APynckel
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:36 am
Location: N Houston

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#19

Post by APynckel »

RKirkwood wrote:If the 30.06 sign is improper you can just carry past it. IMO, there could be reasons for it or other issues by carrying past it. This has been discussed before.

1. The owner knowingly post an incorrect sign keeping the anti happy and allowing legally licensed CHL into his business because they know the sign have no bearing.
2. Carry past it and being discovered may get you the ride but no charges. As said before concealed means concealed!

As for the 51% sign it might be that the manger don't know which sign to put out. Example - Specs on Mason road has a BLUE gun sign but the new Specs off of I10 in Katy has the RED 51% sign. On the TABC site it listed as BLUE gun sign.
Well, from the private businesses point of view (assuming he didn't know the sign was posted in fallacy), If you carry past it then you are disrespecting the wishes of the establishments owner, as if he had asked you not to carry even if it's incorrect, and you are now trespassing and should be arrested.

So here is where my mind faces a dichotomy. If the Gunbusters sign isn't a restriction to carry, then how or why is a 30.06, in legally required print or not? I know the law says it is, but why? Concealed carry is concealed so that people don't know you're carrying.

If he wanted to "respect" the anti's, but still allow concealed carry, why post it at all? No one who respects concealed carry can respect the anti's point of view.
NRA Lifetime Member
User avatar

Topic author
APynckel
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:36 am
Location: N Houston

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#20

Post by APynckel »

edit
Last edited by APynckel on Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NRA Lifetime Member
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 18494
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#21

Post by Keith B »

APynckel wrote:
So here is where my mind faces a dichotomy. If the Gunbusters sign isn't a restriction to carry, then how or why is a 30.06, in legally required print or not? I know the law says it is, but why? Concealed carry is concealed so that people don't know you're carrying.
The 30.06 sign is a good thing. It was put into the statutes in 1997. Prior to that (1995 - 1997) a gunbusters or any other 'No Guns' sign was valid to keep a concealed carry holder from entering legally. The verbiage and requirements were specifically made the way they are to make sure the sign was visible as well as make it a little bit of an annoyance for the business to post due to the size. If a business goes about posting the right way, then they are serious about keeping concealed carry out of their location, and I will abide by their wishes and take my business elsewhere if at all possible.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
User avatar

Topic author
APynckel
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:36 am
Location: N Houston

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#22

Post by APynckel »

Keith B wrote:
APynckel wrote:
So here is where my mind faces a dichotomy. If the Gunbusters sign isn't a restriction to carry, then how or why is a 30.06, in legally required print or not? I know the law says it is, but why? Concealed carry is concealed so that people don't know you're carrying.
The 30.06 sign is a good thing. It was put into the statutes in 1997. Prior to that (1995 - 1997) a gunbusters or any other 'No Guns' sign was valid to keep a concealed carry holder from entering legally. The verbiage and requirements were specifically made the way they are to make sure the sign was visible as well as make it a little bit of an annoyance for the business to post due to the size. If a business goes about posting the right way, then they are serious about keeping concealed carry out of their location, and I will abide by their wishes and take my business elsewhere if at all possible.
I agree it has a good side, that it allows you to not disrespect the wishes of the owner of the property before stepping foot inside, but concealed carry is concealed, and no one should know you have a firearm on you in the first place, so why is it even necessary?
NRA Lifetime Member
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 18494
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#23

Post by Keith B »

APynckel wrote:
Keith B wrote:
APynckel wrote:
So here is where my mind faces a dichotomy. If the Gunbusters sign isn't a restriction to carry, then how or why is a 30.06, in legally required print or not? I know the law says it is, but why? Concealed carry is concealed so that people don't know you're carrying.
The 30.06 sign is a good thing. It was put into the statutes in 1997. Prior to that (1995 - 1997) a gunbusters or any other 'No Guns' sign was valid to keep a concealed carry holder from entering legally. The verbiage and requirements were specifically made the way they are to make sure the sign was visible as well as make it a little bit of an annoyance for the business to post due to the size. If a business goes about posting the right way, then they are serious about keeping concealed carry out of their location, and I will abide by their wishes and take my business elsewhere if at all possible.
I agree it has a good side, that it allows you to not disrespect the wishes of the owner of the property before stepping foot inside, but concealed carry is concealed, and no one should know you have a firearm on you in the first place, so why is it even necessary?
We are in a circle. Property owners rights, known or not. Period.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
User avatar

Topic author
APynckel
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:36 am
Location: N Houston

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#24

Post by APynckel »

Keith B wrote:We are in a circle. Property owners rights, known or not. Period.
Indeed. But that's why we have these discussions, because they have no clear winner.
NRA Lifetime Member
User avatar

airbornecpa
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 12:06 pm

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#25

Post by airbornecpa »

RKirkwood wrote:If the 30.06 sign is improper you can just carry past it. IMO, there could be reasons for it or other issues by carrying past it. This has been discussed before.

1. The owner knowingly post an incorrect sign keeping the anti happy and allowing legally licensed CHL into his business because they know the sign have no bearing.
2. Carry past it and being discovered may get you the ride but no charges. As said before concealed means concealed!
:iagree:
It is my belief that a considerable portion of the gunbuster and incorrect 30.06 signs are posted with full knowledge by whomsoever posted the signs that they do NOT carry the force of law. These signs are posted to pacify the holophobics, In these instances the sign poster expects that Texas CHL holders are better versed in this area of the law than are the anti-gunners.

Starbucks says that they are "gun-free", but they knowingly have not posted 30.06 signs in their Texas stores. They look good to the holiphobes and law abiding CHL holders can still sip their triple skinny grande latte frapachinos,

Concealed means CONCEALED!!!

cb1000rider
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2505
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:27 pm

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#26

Post by cb1000rider »

AlaskanInTexas wrote: A non-compliant 30.06 sign has no legal effect on a CHL holder. Are you suggesting that if a business owner posts a non-compliant 30.06 sign they should be arrested? I think you might be getting a little worked up over a non-issue.
To me, there should be a penalty for a government entity posting a compliant 30.06 sign where such a sign can't be enforced. They're effectively barring CHLs where the law says they are allowed by "confusing" law enforcement and creating an incidental risk of arrest....

Law against non-compliant signs for private parties? Nah.

RKirkwood
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#27

Post by RKirkwood »

APynckel wrote:
RKirkwood wrote:If the 30.06 sign is improper you can just carry past it. IMO, there could be reasons for it or other issues by carrying past it. This has been discussed before.

1. The owner knowingly post an incorrect sign keeping the anti happy and allowing legally licensed CHL into his business because they know the sign have no bearing.
2. Carry past it and being discovered may get you the ride but no charges. As said before concealed means concealed!

As for the 51% sign it might be that the manger don't know which sign to put out. Example - Specs on Mason road has a BLUE gun sign but the new Specs off of I10 in Katy has the RED 51% sign. On the TABC site it listed as BLUE gun sign.
Well, from the private businesses point of view (assuming he didn't know the sign was posted in fallacy), If you carry past it then you are disrespecting the wishes of the establishments owner, as if he had asked you not to carry even if it's incorrect, and you are now trespassing and should be arrested.

So here is where my mind faces a dichotomy. If the Gunbusters sign isn't a restriction to carry, then how or why is a 30.06, in legally required print or not? I know the law says it is, but why? Concealed carry is concealed so that people don't know you're carrying.

If he wanted to "respect" the anti's, but still allow concealed carry, why post it at all? No one who respects concealed carry can respect the anti's point of view.
Why is the 30.06 sign the law, I assume someone said how are people going to know and came up with it. :headscratch I don't really know but its the law, I follow it until the politicians come up with something different. In some ways I like the 30.06 because when I'm in other states its not always clear where I can or can not carry. :confused5

In another discussion someone had pointed out that the 30.06 sign was invalid and after speaking with the store owner about found out that it was intentional. The owner knew that people with CHL would knowing it was not valid and still do business there. Since I do not know what a person's intention are I have to go by the law as I know it. I have to be notified by a valid 30.06 sign or verbally told no guns. Non-valid 30.06 allow me to carry on and I know the owner/manager could call the police. Hopefully the police who show up know the law, escort me out the door and send me on my way. If not I take a ride and have to get it dismissed in court.

There really isn't any place that I have to go that I can't find another one like it. If they don't want guns I go to another place that likes gun or has no opinion.

As for penalty for improper signage, I don't think so. I would rather see better education for the officers in the field so when called they can look at the sign say it don't meet the requirement, tell the CHL holder to go on his way and have a nice day.

Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 8400
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: Legalities of Improper 30.06 Signage?

#28

Post by Abraham »

holophobics?

They's a lotta phobicing going on round heah.
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”