Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


remington79
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: a little bit of everywhere

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#31

Post by remington79 »

Jason K wrote:Wish I could read it.....your link doesn't seem to work.

When I see a 30.06 sign, I see a sign that says "WHITES ONLY"....or "NO HISPANICS"....or "JUDEN VERBOTEN". It's offensive to someone who has gone to a lot of time, trouble, and money to prove through the state of Texas and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that I am (according to Tom Gresham of GUN TALK) a state-certified good guy. Yet a printed sign is all that it takes to deprive me of my civil right to keep and bear arms as enumerated by the SCOTUS McDonald ruling. Most insulting of all, the 30.06 law provides a criminal penalty specifically directed toward the a state-certified good guy ....but does not apply to a criminal who chooses to carry a gun into a 30.06-posted area without a license.

So, yes.....I do support the efforts of this forum, Texas3006.com, and others to point out the ways where this law is invalid. And I also support any civil disobedience in regard to getting around 30.06....with the understanding that those acting in that way are cognizant of the legal consequences involved. And, most importantly.....I look forward to the day when the 30.06 sign can be cast upon the dustbin of history with all the other signs mentioned above.
:iagree:
Sent to you from Galt's Gulch.

gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#32

Post by gljjt »

My response to those like the owner of the mentioned website: Per the DPS, a Texan w/o a CHL is 16 times more likely to be arrested than a Texan with a CHL. You, my friend, are actually the greater threat. If you don't want guns on your property, post the correct sign. It's pretty simple.

gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#33

Post by gljjt »

LSUTiger wrote: Now I came across this recent article about 30.06 and was surprised at both at what it did contain and not contain.
It did not contain any references of any current pending legislation.
It did contain much mention of TXCHLFORUM and of posts by its members. Caution, article contains language not suitable for all audiences.

http://tinyurl.com/Texas-Gunner-Disregard-Signs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the entire article. It may be much ado about nothing but the other side will take every opportunity to make us look bad and they are always trying in the never ending battle. What impact will it have? IDK.

Remember, not alerting others to the fact that a 30.06 sign is needed to keep CHLers out, or improper signs don’t have the force of law is one thing. To much public nose thumbing about the fact that they can be ignored is another. Relying solely on the ignorance of others to keep 30.06 effectively in our favor was never a good plan. Which is why we must keep on fighting to remove 2A infringements.

Support HB567.

Every group must have its own Kory Watkins. LSUTiger just found the anti-gunners.

ScooterSissy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#34

Post by ScooterSissy »

mojo84 wrote:
ScooterSissy wrote:
steveincowtown wrote:
TexasCajun wrote: Carrying a firearm is not who you are, it's what you do. It's the same as some restaurants requiring men to wear jackets or convenience stores requiring customers to wear shirts and shoes. A business that posts 30.06 is prohibiting an activity that they find objectionable.
Would you support legislation that made a instant criminal out of people who passed a sign that said "30.08...must have shirt and shoes under penalty of law?"

What people lose sight of is 30.06 has nothing to do with someone's property rights, just the manner in which they convey those rights. They have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS with or without the 30.06 sign. I have no problem with leaving someone's property because I am armed, I just think they should have to notify me to leave...
That's what I think people loose sight of. The 30.06 actually places more burden on the CHL holder than not having that law. Here's how I view it.

If I ignore a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, and someone calls 911 and whispers "there's a guy here in my store, and he ignored my NSNSNS sign, please come and arrest him"; the 911 operator would (most likely) ask the caller if that I had been asked to leave. If I was asked to leave and didn't, then I would be trespassing.

That same concept applies to someone carrying a gun. If they are asked to leave and refuse, they are guilty of trespass. The difference for CHL holders though, is that there is a codified method of giving notice (the 30.06), and if we ignore a properly posted sign, we are guilty of a more serious class a misdemeanor, without someone having to tell us to leave.

There's no doubt in my mind that if someone tried to pass legislation that ignoring a NSNSNS sign would constitute a class A misdemeanor, that legislation would also specify how the sign had to be worded and the physical appearance in order to be valid.

So, you want to require a confrontation with someone with a gun? We talked a lot in my chl class about avoiding and deescalating conflicts and confrontations.
Not quite sure how you got that out of what I was saying, but maybe I should explain further. I'm comfortable with the 30.06 and upcoming 30.07 as they are. I say those that are complaining that they are too onerous are the ones that may be campaigning (albeit unknowingly) for forcing people to have to confront someone with a gun.

In my example given, a person with no shirt who ignored the NSNSNS sign has to be confronted before he's trespassing. The sign merely conveyed the owner's "wishes". Unlike a NSNSNS sign (and a gunbuster sign), a 30.06 has the force of law behind it. If we ignore those, we are committing a serious crime, one step below a felony.

Do away with the "onerous" specifics, and we're back making gunbuster signs the equivalent of NSNSNS.
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 9043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#35

Post by mojo84 »

How about " No Trespassing", "No Hunting" or "No Dumping" signs? Should those not have the force of law? Or, are those just conveying the owner's wishes and should the property owner have to confront them visit prior to them being in violation?
Last edited by mojo84 on Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
User avatar

Topic author
LSUTiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:36 pm

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#36

Post by LSUTiger »

gljjt wrote:
LSUTiger wrote: Now I came across this recent article about 30.06 and was surprised at both at what it did contain and not contain.
It did not contain any references of any current pending legislation.
It did contain much mention of TXCHLFORUM and of posts by its members. Caution, article contains language not suitable for all audiences.

http://tinyurl.com/Texas-Gunner-Disregard-Signs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the entire article. It may be much ado about nothing but the other side will take every opportunity to make us look bad and they are always trying in the never ending battle. What impact will it have? IDK.

Remember, not alerting others to the fact that a 30.06 sign is needed to keep CHLers out, or improper signs don’t have the force of law is one thing. To much public nose thumbing about the fact that they can be ignored is another. Relying solely on the ignorance of others to keep 30.06 effectively in our favor was never a good plan. Which is why we must keep on fighting to remove 2A infringements.

Support HB567.

Every group must have its own Kory Watkins. LSUTiger just found the anti-gunners.
Well Gidget,I take serious offense to being compared to Kory Watkins, I am for OC but we are not the same.

As far as anti gunners, we all know they are out there. What is surprising is the negative attention txchlforum is getting lately. That I havent seen or been aware of before. There are one or two more stories out there that involve txchlforum if you care to look.
Chance favors the prepared. Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.
There is no safety in denial. When seconds count the Police are only minutes away.
Sometimes I really wish a lawyer would chime in and clear things up. Do we have any lawyers on this forum?
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 9043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#37

Post by mojo84 »

LSUTiger wrote:
gljjt wrote:
LSUTiger wrote: Now I came across this recent article about 30.06 and was surprised at both at what it did contain and not contain.
It did not contain any references of any current pending legislation.
It did contain much mention of TXCHLFORUM and of posts by its members. Caution, article contains language not suitable for all audiences.

http://tinyurl.com/Texas-Gunner-Disregard-Signs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the entire article. It may be much ado about nothing but the other side will take every opportunity to make us look bad and they are always trying in the never ending battle. What impact will it have? IDK.

Remember, not alerting others to the fact that a 30.06 sign is needed to keep CHLers out, or improper signs don’t have the force of law is one thing. To much public nose thumbing about the fact that they can be ignored is another. Relying solely on the ignorance of others to keep 30.06 effectively in our favor was never a good plan. Which is why we must keep on fighting to remove 2A infringements.

Support HB567.

Every group must have its own Kory Watkins. LSUTiger just found the anti-gunners.
Well Gidget,I take serious offense to being compared to Kory Watkins, I am for OC but we are not the same.

As far as anti gunners, we all know they are out there. What is surprising is the negative attention txchlforum is getting lately. That I havent seen or been aware of before. There are one or two more stories out there that involve txchlforum if you care to look.
I don't think you were being compared to Watkins. I think the author of the article was the one being compared to him unless you are the author of the.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#38

Post by gljjt »

mojo84 wrote:
LSUTiger wrote:
gljjt wrote:
LSUTiger wrote: Now I came across this recent article about 30.06 and was surprised at both at what it did contain and not contain.
It did not contain any references of any current pending legislation.
It did contain much mention of TXCHLFORUM and of posts by its members. Caution, article contains language not suitable for all audiences.

http://tinyurl.com/Texas-Gunner-Disregard-Signs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the entire article. It may be much ado about nothing but the other side will take every opportunity to make us look bad and they are always trying in the never ending battle. What impact will it have? IDK.

Remember, not alerting others to the fact that a 30.06 sign is needed to keep CHLers out, or improper signs don’t have the force of law is one thing. To much public nose thumbing about the fact that they can be ignored is another. Relying solely on the ignorance of others to keep 30.06 effectively in our favor was never a good plan. Which is why we must keep on fighting to remove 2A infringements.

Support HB567.

Every group must have its own Kory Watkins. LSUTiger just found the anti-gunners.
Well Gidget,I take serious offense to being compared to Kory Watkins, I am for OC but we are not the same.

As far as anti gunners, we all know they are out there. What is surprising is the negative attention txchlforum is getting lately. That I havent seen or been aware of before. There are one or two more stories out there that involve txchlforum if you care to look.
I don't think you were being compared to Watkins. I think the author of the article was the one being compared to him unless you are the author of the.
Correct. I was referring the author of the article. And I take serious offense being called Gidget.
;-)
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 9043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#39

Post by mojo84 »

gljjt wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
LSUTiger wrote:
gljjt wrote:
LSUTiger wrote: Now I came across this recent article about 30.06 and was surprised at both at what it did contain and not contain.
It did not contain any references of any current pending legislation.
It did contain much mention of TXCHLFORUM and of posts by its members. Caution, article contains language not suitable for all audiences.

http://tinyurl.com/Texas-Gunner-Disregard-Signs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the entire article. It may be much ado about nothing but the other side will take every opportunity to make us look bad and they are always trying in the never ending battle. What impact will it have? IDK.

Remember, not alerting others to the fact that a 30.06 sign is needed to keep CHLers out, or improper signs don’t have the force of law is one thing. To much public nose thumbing about the fact that they can be ignored is another. Relying solely on the ignorance of others to keep 30.06 effectively in our favor was never a good plan. Which is why we must keep on fighting to remove 2A infringements.

Support HB567.

Every group must have its own Kory Watkins. LSUTiger just found the anti-gunners.
Well Gidget,I take serious offense to being compared to Kory Watkins, I am for OC but we are not the same.

As far as anti gunners, we all know they are out there. What is surprising is the negative attention txchlforum is getting lately. That I havent seen or been aware of before. There are one or two more stories out there that involve txchlforum if you care to look.
I don't think you were being compared to Watkins. I think the author of the article was the one being compared to him unless you are the author of the.
Correct. I was referring the author of the article. And I take serious offense being called Gidget.
;-)
Unfortunately, I do believe he was referring to you as Gidget. :lol:
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#40

Post by gljjt »

mojo84 wrote:
gljjt wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
LSUTiger wrote:
gljjt wrote:
LSUTiger wrote: Now I came across this recent article about 30.06 and was surprised at both at what it did contain and not contain.
It did not contain any references of any current pending legislation.
It did contain much mention of TXCHLFORUM and of posts by its members. Caution, article contains language not suitable for all audiences.

http://tinyurl.com/Texas-Gunner-Disregard-Signs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the entire article. It may be much ado about nothing but the other side will take every opportunity to make us look bad and they are always trying in the never ending battle. What impact will it have? IDK.

Remember, not alerting others to the fact that a 30.06 sign is needed to keep CHLers out, or improper signs don’t have the force of law is one thing. To much public nose thumbing about the fact that they can be ignored is another. Relying solely on the ignorance of others to keep 30.06 effectively in our favor was never a good plan. Which is why we must keep on fighting to remove 2A infringements.

Support HB567.

Every group must have its own Kory Watkins. LSUTiger just found the anti-gunners.
Well Gidget,I take serious offense to being compared to Kory Watkins, I am for OC but we are not the same.

As far as anti gunners, we all know they are out there. What is surprising is the negative attention txchlforum is getting lately. That I havent seen or been aware of before. There are one or two more stories out there that involve txchlforum if you care to look.
I don't think you were being compared to Watkins. I think the author of the article was the one being compared to him unless you are the author of the.
Correct. I was referring the author of the article. And I take serious offense being called Gidget.
;-)
Unfortunately, I do believe he was referring to you as Gidget. :lol:
I have been called worse! I would done the same if I thought i was being compared to Kory Watkins. Except my preferred term endearment is Scooter!

casp625
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:24 pm

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#41

Post by casp625 »

mojo84 wrote:How about " No Trespassing", "No Hunting" or "No Dumping" signs? Should those not have the force of law? Or, are those just conveying the owner's wishes and should the property owner have to confront them visit prior to them being in violation?
That's not quite the same though. According to the Texas TPWD:
It is unlawful to:
Fish on privately owned waters, fish in public water from private land, or hunt on privately owned lands without the permission of the owner or the owner's agent.
  • Under the Texas Penal Code (§30.05) it is an offense for any person to enter property that is fenced, posted with a sign(s), or marked (purple paint) without the express permission of the owner. Posts or trees bearing purple paint marking of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width at not less than three or more than five feet from the ground constitute notice that the property is posted.
  • A person who hunts without landowner consent and kills a desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, white-tailed deer, or mule deer commits an offense that is a Parks and Wildlife Code state jail felony. Upon conviction, your hunting and fishing license is automatically revoked.
Where Texas 30.05 CRIMINAL TRESPASS states:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C)a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land; or
(E) the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry.
So if you don't have consent and received notice (written or oral) from the owner, then you are trespassing as they even give methods to convey such notice. However, the TPWD specifically states you cannot hunt on private property without consent and is a state felony for killing specified animals! Posting a gun-buster sign does not constitute trespassing unless you are asked to leave and refused to do so. And just as 30.05 requires notice against trespassing, with specific requirements, so does 30.06.

That would be akin to posting a "No Trespassing" sign on your business door and calling the cops on certain customers just because you don't like the way they look. You could argue you posted the sign and they entered the store anyways but is that really enforceable?
User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 13534
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#42

Post by C-dub »

The anti's that don't like the 30.06 or proposed 30.07 want a simple gunbuster sign to have the force of law. That is if they have to put up with us lawless people carrying guns around in public at all.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider

ScooterSissy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#43

Post by ScooterSissy »

mojo84 wrote:How about " No Trespassing", "No Hunting" or "No Dumping" signs? Should those not have the force of law? Or, are those just conveying the owner's wishes and should the property owner have to confront them visit prior to them being in violation?
I don't know about "no hunting" and "no dumping", but "no trespassing" is covered by statues (the others may be as well). Trust me, if you don't properly post (according to the law) a no trespassing sign, or have your property properly marked, someone caught on your property has not violated the law until you confront them and tell them to leave.

That's the important thing here. Go past a 30.06, and you are violating the law (even if you're not caught). The "no guns" and "no shirt no shoes no service" do not have the force of law behind them. It's as simple as that.

steveincowtown
Banned
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1374
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#44

Post by steveincowtown »

jmra wrote:If you people really believe a 30.06 sign is violating your rights why don't you actually do something about it instead of beating your chest on an Internet forum. Go to court if you feel that strongly about it, or petition your legislator to get the law changed. Neither one of these options are going to get you anywhere but they are still more productive than all the ranting going on in this thread.

There was a bill presented this session to change the wording of 30.06 from "or" to "and." In other words it would require the sign be posted AND you receive oral notification to leave. It does not have the support of the NRA or TSRA and will not see the light of day. I believe Mr. Cotton had written an article about it ("What were they thinking") on TFC but I don't see that it is on the site any longer.
The Time is Now...
NRA Lifetime Member

Jason K
Banned
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:57 am
Location: Close to Waco....but not too close.

Re: Is the cat out of the bag on 30.06?

#45

Post by Jason K »

jmra wrote:If you people really believe a 30.06 sign is violating your rights why don't you actually do something about it instead of beating your chest on an Internet forum. Go to court if you feel that strongly about it, or petition your legislator to get the law changed. Neither one of these options are going to get you anywhere but they are still more productive than all the ranting going on in this thread.
I am....why do you think I'm contacting my reps about supporting HB308?

Are you doing the same?
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”