TexasCHLforum.com

I don't think getting rid of 30.06/7 is politically possible. However, it would be beneficial if Texas did what Illinois requires.

Illinois has a prescribed legal no-guns sign. In addition to private entities, Illinois requires all statutorily off-limits places (such as schools, courts, public transportation) to also post the legal no-gun sign, or it is a defense to prosecution if you carry there.

IOW, a CCLer is not expected to know all the off-limits places as we are in Texas, and would help identify those "ambiguous" areas.

I’d prefer no new sign legislation of any type. Any time a light shines on the concept of signage, it tends to create collateral damage that is not positive for those of us who carry.


EDIT: the only signage legislation I’d support is to remove the concept all-together!

Scott in Houston wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:27 pm I’d prefer no new sign legislation of any type. Any time a light shines on the concept of signage, it tends to create collateral damage that is not positive for those of us who carry.

EDIT: the only signage legislation I’d support is to remove the concept all-together!

This. And make "gun-buster" signs only apply to unlicensed carry (assuming we get constitutional carry soon) once someone is asked to leave.
All the regs for courts, schools, etc can remain for unlicensed/constitutional carry.

But more signage laws aren't going to help. We already have municipalities posting signs in areas where there are specifically not permitted to do so.

oohrah wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:03 am I don't think getting rid of 30.06/7 is politically possible. However, it would be beneficial if Texas did what Illinois requires.

Illinois has a prescribed legal no-guns sign. In addition to private entities, Illinois requires all statutorily off-limits places (such as schools, courts, public transportation) to also post the legal no-gun sign, or it is a defense to prosecution if you carry there.

IOW, a CCLer is not expected to know all the off-limits places as we are in Texas, and would help identify those "ambiguous" areas.

Be careful what you wish for. When OC started, a lot of places that didn't want OC ended up posting 30.06 signs too. That is not good news. I've seen a lot of those signs come back down and the only places around my area that seem to have stuck with 30.07 signs are restaurants.

I've been part of two different churches that didn't end up posting 30.07 signs. In the first, I was reasonably convinced that if 30.07 signs had gone up, there were enough in the congregation who might have started a movement to put up 30.06 once the reasoning for the signs was explained. In the second, the head user is prepared to escort any OCer out of the building and let them know that they are welcomed only with CC. If either of them was forced to up 30.07 signs, it might not end well, even after Sutherland Springs.

Scott in Houston wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:27 pm I’d prefer no new sign legislation of any type. Any time a light shines on the concept of signage, it tends to create collateral damage that is not positive for those of us who carry.


EDIT: the only signage legislation I’d support is to remove the concept all-together!

I would really like to see the prohibited places removed except for courts, etc... Then no signs needed.

I second Carlson's idea, but if that's not in our near future, no new sign laws are needed.

We don't need no stinking new laws, pppffffttt!

P.S. I don't give a flying squat what they do in Illinoiss. (I spelled it like that on purpose)

P.P.S. I really don't like it when californians come hear and tell us how much better things of all sorts are done there, therefore being told how superior things are done in Ill. doesn't impress me either.

We're in Texas, not some other state.

Perhaps, consider moving if things aren't to one's liking in Texas.

Abraham wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:13 pm I second Carlson's idea, but if that's not in our near future, no new sign laws are needed.

We don't need no stinking new laws, pppffffttt!

P.S. I don't give a flying squat what they do in Illannoy

P.P.S. I really don't like it when Commiefornians come hear and tell us how much better things of all sorts are done there, therefore being told how superior things are done in Illannoy doesn't impress me either.

We're in Texas, not some other state.

Perhaps, consider moving if things aren't to one's liking in Texas.

Spell Checked It For You

Boy, that went south in a hurry. Since the lege is always changing things, perhaps you should consider moving instead.

I'm just making a reasonable suggestion like everyone else this session. And for the record, I'm a life long Texan and support constitutional carry, but we're never going to get that and you know it.

oohrah,

Suggesting how other states do their business, what ever it may be, is for many of us, not welcome.

Why?

Because so very many out of stater's like to boast how much better they do (fill in the blank) in say cal. It's insulting. Generally, they're libs who helped screw up their state and now plan to do so here with their dopey ideas.

Thus, hearing how signage in this instance is done in Illanoy is not only annoying, but far from welcome by some of us...

Tsk, tsk, tsk, oohrah.

Don't you know some people want to cling to the fantasy that Texas is one of the most pro gun states when, in reality, we're somewhere in the middle of the pack among shall issue states. How dare you dash their illusions with facts about gun laws in other states.

Abraham, I made the suggestion because I thought it was a good idea. Just because I happen to be familiar with other states' laws, or get an idea from somewhere does not mean it is not a good idea just because of the source. (I happen to be one of the few Texans who has an Illinois non-resident CCL.). A "not-invented-here" attitude is not productive IMHO.

I would be happy to debate on the merits of the issue. How many threads have you seen here with questions about whether a place was off-limits or was carry prohibited? We're going to have signs. I think this suggestion would simplify things for LTCers.

PS - Thank you, Gator Guy.

carlson1 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:34 pm I would really like to see the prohibited places removed except for courts, etc... Then no signs needed.

Looks like that's starting to happen in the typical fashion of defenses and exceptions being added. 46.02, 46.03, and the prohibited places in 46.035 now seem to have an exception for "volunteer emergency services personnel" engaged in providing emergency services. I've been meaning to ask more about that from people who will know better than me. But "engaged in providing emergency services" seems a little vague - I think everyone would agree that an EMT responding to a call meets that, but what about a volunteer firefighter carrying a pager and ready to answer a call? Is ready standby not providing an emergency service?

Conveniently, 30.06 and 30.07 defenses for being volunteer emergency services personnel, with no requirement to be providing emergency services. I suppose you'd meet that qualification if you signed up with https://texasdisastervolunteerregistry.org/ (and, probably, staying "active" in the program).

I'm not going to recommend anyone go and test that because I'm rambling about it though.

I would oppose any legislation that made these signs more commonplace. IMHO it would result in signs going up in non-restricted areas.

Scott in Houston wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:27 pm I’d prefer no new sign legislation of any type. Any time a light shines on the concept of signage, it tends to create collateral damage that is not positive for those of us who carry.

This is true. I visited Senator Huffman's office a couple of years ago after the big open carry law foofooraw and spent an hour chatting with her assistant. He said the posting of 06/07 signs had skyrocketed since the OC legislation debate, simply because it brought so much publicity and public awareness. Before then, most people had never heard of a "30.06 sign." Subsequently, there was an explosion of commercial sign producers selling them online and in stores, with marketing hype like, "Be sure your business is in full compliance with the new laws!!!" So businesses snatched them up so they could "be in full compliance," including dingbats like the convenience store owner who posted one "so he wouldn't get robbed." Many business owners have seen the light since then, but still, the damage was done. Now we have signs all over the place, and nobody is open carrying.

It's probably a foregone conclusion that an attempt to eliminate the signs completely, which has utterly no chance of passing, would generate another wave of such "collateral damage."