TexasCHLforum.com

cyphur wrote:

Roger Howard wrote:

jmra wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:It's great that the penalty for violating 30.06 will be reduced. But it really shouldn't change how we act. I plan on continuing to look for the dreaded big ugly sign and abide by the property owner's wishes. We shouldn't become lax because the violation is now classed differently. Remember that this site, 30.06.com, and others are used to refute the "CHL holders are the most law-abiding" argument. Besides, how many 30.06 violations haven actually prosecuted since it's been part of the penal code???

It will change the way I act in one respect - signs will no longer be "close enough". If the wording isn't right, the words too small, it lacks a contrasting background, etc.. I'm walking right passed the noncompliant sign. This is not something I would have considered before because of the potential costs and consequences associated with defending myself in court. But, I'm sure I can find $200 if I had to.

I personally will not spend any money in a business that is posted 30.06. By posting they are making a statement and I make one by not doing business there. If I see a sign, legal or not, they are not getting my money.

I love this concept, but are you going to stop seeing movies? With several small kids in the house that is not an option. Now, of course, most AMC Theatres and Grapevine Mills actually post their signs on clear glass with white letters, which is in flagrant violation of a contrasting background. Do you want to test that theory? Is clear glass contrasting enough for white letters? I say no, but it matters more about what an ADA/DA think.

I avoid Grapevine Mills mall like the black plague, but you have to venture out into infected territory from time to time.

jmra wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:It's great that the penalty for violating 30.06 will be reduced. But it really shouldn't change how we act. I plan on continuing to look for the dreaded big ugly sign and abide by the property owner's wishes. We shouldn't become lax because the violation is now classed differently. Remember that this site, 30.06.com, and others are used to refute the "CHL holders are the most law-abiding" argument. Besides, how many 30.06 violations haven actually prosecuted since it's been part of the penal code???

It will change the way I act in one respect - signs will no longer be "close enough". If the wording isn't right, the words too small, it lacks a contrasting background, etc.. I'm walking right passed the noncompliant sign. This is not something I would have considered before because of the potential costs and consequences associated with defending myself in court. But, I'm sure I can find $200 if I had to.