chasfm11 wrote:This.Russell wrote:mr1337 wrote:The question comes when the private entity refuses entry or asks the license holder to leave based on the fact that the license holder is carrying.
Bingo.
For all purposes anybody here wants to describe or argue, they are enforceable until we get law in place to stop it.
Nobody here is going to win an argument with private security nor a police officer over 30.06 signage not being technically enforceable.
I challenged a private security firm who was manning a wanding station at a City of Lewisville event a couple of years ago. I told them that I didn't want to be wanded and asked to speak to a supervisor. Instead, I got to speak with two of Lewsiville's finest. I showed the officer my then CHL and he asked if I had showed that the private security person. I told him no because I didn't want to get into a he said-she said about whether the private security firm had the authority to give me verbal notice. In the end, the officer escorted me through the wanding process (and of course the wand barked at both my gun and my spare mag) and we talked for a couple of minutes after I was inside. The officers knew that CHL could not be rejected on a city sponsored event It turned out that the same private security had tried to reject one an off duty officer who was carrying earlier that day.
BTW, Lewisville now posts the entire downtown area as 51%. Our problem is not just 30.06 signs.
That is funny. 51% only applies to premises, not property, so 51% signs do not apply to outdoor areas. But nonetheless I bet it is enforced (and they would try to charge you for the felony instead of misdemeanor).