Anyone Seen a 3005 Sign?

[cyphertext]

I might be in the minority here, but I am fine with a no guns "ghostbuster" sign applying to unlicensed carriers. If you take the approach that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right without any requirements of a government permit or training, then the same logic should apply to the property owner that he can restrict firearms without specific, government regulated signs. No guns allowed with a pictograph is pretty clear in what the intent is. Seems a lot more intuitive than wading through the myriad of signs we have today.

The only thing government regulated specific signs are for is to legally enlist the State in enforcing one's personal biases re: guns via criminal prosecution. No guns allowed with a pictograph is moderately clear as a statement of whomever put the sign up personal biases. However it is not at all clear that it references the wishes of the owners of the property that you not enter under penalty of criminal law. I am the (part) owner of WalMart, ExxonMobil, and Albertsons as well as 497 other companies through my ownership of ETF's. I want everyone to carry regardless of signage on all these properties. I, as the owner, have made my intent quite clear (I posted a happy face and a gun emoji on this post ). Just as this post is not a Defense to Prosecution under 30.05, a sticker with a slash through it and a Beretta squirt gun pictograph is not a legal notification under TXPX 30.05 that you can't enter a particular location open to the public.

You might be a stockholder, but you are not responsible for the day to day operations and policies made. Certainly you can make your position known but the CEO has a lot of latitude in making policies for the company. I think you are being intellectually dishonest if you are trying to make a case that the ghostbuster style no gun sign is not clear on intent. Do you feel the same about no smoking pictographs? Do you struggle to understand the intent?

I understand the law requires the 30.05 sign, but honestly from what I have seen, most who are going to carry unlicensed are ignorant of the laws and what the signs mean anyway. Heck, even licensed carriers argue about 30.07... folks get in a twist because they are asked to either cover up their firearm or return it to the vehicle and they want to cry that there was no sign, totally ignoring that verbal notice is also perfectly acceptable.

[ScottDLS]

I might be in the minority here, but I am fine with a no guns "ghostbuster" sign applying to unlicensed carriers. If you take the approach that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right without any requirements of a government permit or training, then the same logic should apply to the property owner that he can restrict firearms without specific, government regulated signs. No guns allowed with a pictograph is pretty clear in what the intent is. Seems a lot more intuitive than wading through the myriad of signs we have today.

The only thing government regulated specific signs are for is to legally enlist the State in enforcing one's personal biases re: guns via criminal prosecution. No guns allowed with a pictograph is moderately clear as a statement of whomever put the sign up personal biases. However it is not at all clear that it references the wishes of the owners of the property that you not enter under penalty of criminal law. I am the (part) owner of WalMart, ExxonMobil, and Albertsons as well as 497 other companies through my ownership of ETF's. I want everyone to carry regardless of signage on all these properties. I, as the owner, have made my intent quite clear (I posted a happy face and a gun emoji on this post ). Just as this post is not a Defense to Prosecution under 30.05, a sticker with a slash through it and a Beretta squirt gun pictograph is not a legal notification under TXPX 30.05 that you can't enter a particular location open to the public.

You might be a stockholder, but you are not responsible for the day to day operations and policies made. Certainly you can make your position known but the CEO has a lot of latitude in making policies for the company. I think you are being intellectually dishonest if you are trying to make a case that the ghostbuster style no gun sign is not clear on intent. Do you feel the same about no smoking pictographs? Do you struggle to understand the intent?

I understand the law requires the 30.05 sign, but honestly from what I have seen, most who are going to carry unlicensed are ignorant of the laws and what the signs mean anyway. Heck, even licensed carriers argue about 30.07... folks get in a twist because they are asked to either cover up their firearm or return it to the vehicle and they want to cry that there was no sign, totally ignoring that verbal notice is also perfectly acceptable.

You miss the point. I don't care what the "intent" of a sign is, even for a sole proprietorship. The CEO of a company has only the legal authority granted to him by the owners (shareholders). Directing that a sticker be placed on a publicly open retail location in Texas tells me nothing more than what the CEO or his agents think about guns. And I don't care. If they want to legally block me they may post 30.05/6/7 compliant signs, and even then they can't, because I am a volunteer emergency responder. A visitor owes no legal duty to determine the wishes of the owner(s) absent proper legal notice, nor to comply with them. I don't want Democrats in my stores, but 30.05 doesn't (arguably) allow me to put up a circle slash donkey sign and have police arrest Democrats entering for a class B.

[Flightmare]

Again, does a circle/slash with a pistol imply notice given to JUST unlicensed? or are you suggesting that it applies to licensed and unlicensed? Without the "identical or substantially similar language", it is vague and arguably impossible to discern the difference. Hence the specific language requirement in HB 1927.

[chasfm11]

Just saw a Facebook post from Shannon Watts crowing that HEB had put up signs "prohibiting permit-less carry" in Texas. There was no evidence of the actual sign provided. Now I'm curious if it IS a 30.05 sign. Anyone?

[ScottDLS]

Just saw a Facebook post from Shannon Watts crowing that HEB had put up signs "prohibiting permit-less carry" in Texas. There was no evidence of the actual sign provided. Now I'm curious if it IS a 30.05 sign. Anyone?

I have heard numerous posts re: HEB saying that they have posted the permitless carry signs prescribed in the new law, in addition to 30.07. Another reason to get and/or keep LTC.

From what I've heard the signs at HEB are thus:

includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following:

"Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

[cyphertext]

I might be in the minority here, but I am fine with a no guns "ghostbuster" sign applying to unlicensed carriers. If you take the approach that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right without any requirements of a government permit or training, then the same logic should apply to the property owner that he can restrict firearms without specific, government regulated signs. No guns allowed with a pictograph is pretty clear in what the intent is. Seems a lot more intuitive than wading through the myriad of signs we have today.

The only thing government regulated specific signs are for is to legally enlist the State in enforcing one's personal biases re: guns via criminal prosecution. No guns allowed with a pictograph is moderately clear as a statement of whomever put the sign up personal biases. However it is not at all clear that it references the wishes of the owners of the property that you not enter under penalty of criminal law. I am the (part) owner of WalMart, ExxonMobil, and Albertsons as well as 497 other companies through my ownership of ETF's. I want everyone to carry regardless of signage on all these properties. I, as the owner, have made my intent quite clear (I posted a happy face and a gun emoji on this post ). Just as this post is not a Defense to Prosecution under 30.05, a sticker with a slash through it and a Beretta squirt gun pictograph is not a legal notification under TXPX 30.05 that you can't enter a particular location open to the public.

You might be a stockholder, but you are not responsible for the day to day operations and policies made. Certainly you can make your position known but the CEO has a lot of latitude in making policies for the company. I think you are being intellectually dishonest if you are trying to make a case that the ghostbuster style no gun sign is not clear on intent. Do you feel the same about no smoking pictographs? Do you struggle to understand the intent?

I understand the law requires the 30.05 sign, but honestly from what I have seen, most who are going to carry unlicensed are ignorant of the laws and what the signs mean anyway. Heck, even licensed carriers argue about 30.07... folks get in a twist because they are asked to either cover up their firearm or return it to the vehicle and they want to cry that there was no sign, totally ignoring that verbal notice is also perfectly acceptable.

You miss the point. I don't care what the "intent" of a sign is, even for a sole proprietorship. The CEO of a company has only the legal authority granted to him by the owners (shareholders). Directing that a sticker be placed on a publicly open retail location in Texas tells me nothing more than what the CEO or his agents think about guns. And I don't care. If they want to legally block me they may post 30.05/6/7 compliant signs, and even then they can't, because I am a volunteer emergency responder. A visitor owes no legal duty to determine the wishes of the owner(s) absent proper legal notice, nor to comply with them. I don't want Democrats in my stores, but 30.05 doesn't (arguably) allow me to put up a circle slash donkey sign and have police arrest Democrats entering for a class B.

I think you are missing my point. The CEO or owner who says to post a legally compliant sign is the same person who has the authority to post a gun buster sign. I get that the law states the specifications of a 30.05 sign. Not arguing that. It is my OPINION that it is overkill, that a gun buster sign or a no guns allowed sign should suffice, but my opinion is not what the law states. Really seems to be making a mountain out of a mole hill because the only folks that this is going to affect is those who open carry anyway.

[ScottDLS]

...

You miss the point. I don't care what the "intent" of a sign is, even for a sole proprietorship. The CEO of a company has only the legal authority granted to him by the owners (shareholders). Directing that a sticker be placed on a publicly open retail location in Texas tells me nothing more than what the CEO or his agents think about guns. And I don't care. If they want to legally block me they may post 30.05/6/7 compliant signs, and even then they can't, because I am a volunteer emergency responder. A visitor owes no legal duty to determine the wishes of the owner(s) absent proper legal notice, nor to comply with them. I don't want Democrats in my stores, but 30.05 doesn't (arguably) allow me to put up a circle slash donkey sign and have police arrest Democrats entering for a class B.

I think you are missing my point. The CEO or owner who says to post a legally compliant sign is the same person who has the authority to post a gun buster sign. I get that the law states the specifications of a 30.05 sign. Not arguing that. It is my OPINION that it is overkill, that a gun buster sign or a no guns allowed sign should suffice, but my opinion is not what the law states. Really seems to be making a mountain out of a mole hill because the only folks that this is going to affect is those who open carry anyway.

I agree mostly. Any random store manager can post a legally compliant or deficient sign. Or the CEO can tell them all to do it. My point is that the posting of sticker or even a compliant sign tells me nothing of the wishes of the owner(s). I own (part of) Exxon and I want everyone to carry. More importantly, I don't care what the owners are signaling with their sticker. For all I know they could not want anyone licensed or not, or even cops carrying in their stores. Legally it doesn't matter, they can't do anything about it (using the force of State law), and therefore I will carry (concealed) and unless someone approaches me and askes me to leave, I will go about my business...legally.

[Tex1961]

...

You miss the point. I don't care what the "intent" of a sign is, even for a sole proprietorship. The CEO of a company has only the legal authority granted to him by the owners (shareholders). Directing that a sticker be placed on a publicly open retail location in Texas tells me nothing more than what the CEO or his agents think about guns. And I don't care. If they want to legally block me they may post 30.05/6/7 compliant signs, and even then they can't, because I am a volunteer emergency responder. A visitor owes no legal duty to determine the wishes of the owner(s) absent proper legal notice, nor to comply with them. I don't want Democrats in my stores, but 30.05 doesn't (arguably) allow me to put up a circle slash donkey sign and have police arrest Democrats entering for a class B.

I think you are missing my point. The CEO or owner who says to post a legally compliant sign is the same person who has the authority to post a gun buster sign. I get that the law states the specifications of a 30.05 sign. Not arguing that. It is my OPINION that it is overkill, that a gun buster sign or a no guns allowed sign should suffice, but my opinion is not what the law states. Really seems to be making a mountain out of a mole hill because the only folks that this is going to affect is those who open carry anyway.

I agree mostly. Any random store manager can post a legally compliant or deficient sign. Or the CEO can tell them all to do it. My point is that the posting of sticker or even a compliant sign tells me nothing of the wishes of the owner(s). I own (part of) Exxon and I want everyone to carry. More importantly, I don't care what the owners are signaling with their sticker. For all I know they could not want anyone licensed or not, or even cops carrying in their stores. Legally it doesn't matter, they can't do anything about it (using the force of State law), and therefore I will carry (concealed) and unless someone approaches me and askes me to leave, I will go about my business...legally.

Wait... What ?? Are you saying that you walk past 30.06 signs while still carrying ? And if so actually believe that you are doing so legally because you don't think that was the owners intent?

[ScottDLS]

...

You miss the point. I don't care what the "intent" of a sign is, even for a sole proprietorship. The CEO of a company has only the legal authority granted to him by the owners (shareholders). Directing that a sticker be placed on a publicly open retail location in Texas tells me nothing more than what the CEO or his agents think about guns. And I don't care. If they want to legally block me they may post 30.05/6/7 compliant signs, and even then they can't, because I am a volunteer emergency responder. A visitor owes no legal duty to determine the wishes of the owner(s) absent proper legal notice, nor to comply with them. I don't want Democrats in my stores, but 30.05 doesn't (arguably) allow me to put up a circle slash donkey sign and have police arrest Democrats entering for a class B.

I think you are missing my point. The CEO or owner who says to post a legally compliant sign is the same person who has the authority to post a gun buster sign. I get that the law states the specifications of a 30.05 sign. Not arguing that. It is my OPINION that it is overkill, that a gun buster sign or a no guns allowed sign should suffice, but my opinion is not what the law states. Really seems to be making a mountain out of a mole hill because the only folks that this is going to affect is those who open carry anyway.

I agree mostly. Any random store manager can post a legally compliant or deficient sign. Or the CEO can tell them all to do it. My point is that the posting of sticker or even a compliant sign tells me nothing of the wishes of the owner(s). I own (part of) Exxon and I want everyone to carry. More importantly, I don't care what the owners are signaling with their sticker. For all I know they could not want anyone licensed or not, or even cops carrying in their stores. Legally it doesn't matter, they can't do anything about it (using the force of State law), and therefore I will carry (concealed) and unless someone approaches me and askes me to leave, I will go about my business...legally.

Wait... What ?? Are you saying that you walk past 30.06 signs while still carrying ? And if so actually believe that you are doing so legally because you don't think that was the owners intent?

No, I'm saying I walk past notifications that are not legally applicable to me, like a sticker with a circle slash Beretta silhouette, or a 30.05 sign, which doesn't apply to me since I have a LTC.

I also walk past 30.06 signs that are posted improperly on government owned or leased property.

I am also saying that I don't care what the owner's "intent" is, I care if they posted a sign that is legally applicable to me.

[NotRPB]

Again, does a circle/slash with a pistol imply notice given to JUST unlicensed? or are you suggesting that it applies to licensed and unlicensed? Without the "identical or substantially similar language", it is vague and arguably impossible to discern the difference. Hence the specific language requirement in HB 1927.

Most of those you describe I interpret to mean to inform UNLICENSED people that Taurus & Berretta PT 92 PT 99 type 9mm models are prohibited
possibly the Taurus & Beretta .380 acp models which resemble those models too.

30.05 doesn't (arguably) allow me to put up a circle slash donkey sign and have police arrest Democrats

IT DOESN'T ?

[Tex1961]

...

You miss the point. I don't care what the "intent" of a sign is, even for a sole proprietorship. The CEO of a company has only the legal authority granted to him by the owners (shareholders). Directing that a sticker be placed on a publicly open retail location in Texas tells me nothing more than what the CEO or his agents think about guns. And I don't care. If they want to legally block me they may post 30.05/6/7 compliant signs, and even then they can't, because I am a volunteer emergency responder. A visitor owes no legal duty to determine the wishes of the owner(s) absent proper legal notice, nor to comply with them. I don't want Democrats in my stores, but 30.05 doesn't (arguably) allow me to put up a circle slash donkey sign and have police arrest Democrats entering for a class B.

I think you are missing my point. The CEO or owner who says to post a legally compliant sign is the same person who has the authority to post a gun buster sign. I get that the law states the specifications of a 30.05 sign. Not arguing that. It is my OPINION that it is overkill, that a gun buster sign or a no guns allowed sign should suffice, but my opinion is not what the law states. Really seems to be making a mountain out of a mole hill because the only folks that this is going to affect is those who open carry anyway.

I agree mostly. Any random store manager can post a legally compliant or deficient sign. Or the CEO can tell them all to do it. My point is that the posting of sticker or even a compliant sign tells me nothing of the wishes of the owner(s). I own (part of) Exxon and I want everyone to carry. More importantly, I don't care what the owners are signaling with their sticker. For all I know they could not want anyone licensed or not, or even cops carrying in their stores. Legally it doesn't matter, they can't do anything about it (using the force of State law), and therefore I will carry (concealed) and unless someone approaches me and askes me to leave, I will go about my business...legally.

Wait... What ?? Are you saying that you walk past 30.06 signs while still carrying ? And if so actually believe that you are doing so legally because you don't think that was the owners intent?

No, I'm saying I walk past notifications that are not legally applicable to me, like a sticker with a circle slash Beretta silhouette, or a 30.05 sign, which doesn't apply to me since I have a LTC.

I also walk past 30.06 signs that are posted improperly on government owned or leased property.

I am also saying that I don't care what the owner's "intent" is, I care if they posted a sign that is legally applicable to me.

Ahh. Ok... I was like WHUUUT.... But I understand your meaning now... LOL

[Tex1961]

Again, does a circle/slash with a pistol imply notice given to JUST unlicensed? or are you suggesting that it applies to licensed and unlicensed? Without the "identical or substantially similar language", it is vague and arguably impossible to discern the difference. Hence the specific language requirement in HB 1927.

Most of those you describe I interpret to mean to inform UNLICENSED people that Taurus & Berretta PT 92 PT 99 type 9mm models are prohibited
possibly the Taurus & Beretta .380 acp models which resemble those models too.

I would love to see something like that go down.. Some guy gets called out and has a Glock and he is like.. Hey your sign says no Beretta's... So I came on in.... I would probably just loose it right there and buy him a drink....

[NotRPB]

Again, does a circle/slash with a pistol imply notice given to JUST unlicensed? or are you suggesting that it applies to licensed and unlicensed? Without the "identical or substantially similar language", it is vague and arguably impossible to discern the difference. Hence the specific language requirement in HB 1927.

Most of those you describe I interpret to mean to inform UNLICENSED people that Taurus & Berretta PT 92 PT 99 type 9mm models are prohibited
possibly the Taurus & Beretta .380 acp models which resemble those models too.

I would love to see something like that go down.. Some guy gets called out and has a Glock and he is like.. Hey your sign says no Beretta's... So I came on in.... I would probably just loose it right there and buy him a drink....

seriously I saw one once with a picture of an AR on it red circle slash ...I had the AK with me that day so all was good.

[ScottDLS]

Again, does a circle/slash with a pistol imply notice given to JUST unlicensed? or are you suggesting that it applies to licensed and unlicensed? Without the "identical or substantially similar language", it is vague and arguably impossible to discern the difference. Hence the specific language requirement in HB 1927.

Most of those you describe I interpret to mean to inform UNLICENSED people that Taurus & Berretta PT 92 PT 99 type 9mm models are prohibited
possibly the Taurus & Beretta .380 acp models which resemble those models too.

I would love to see something like that go down.. Some guy gets called out and has a Glock and he is like.. Hey your sign says no Beretta's... So I came on in.... I would probably just loose it right there and buy him a drink....

[ScottDLS]

Again, does a circle/slash with a pistol imply notice given to JUST unlicensed? or are you suggesting that it applies to licensed and unlicensed? Without the "identical or substantially similar language", it is vague and arguably impossible to discern the difference. Hence the specific language requirement in HB 1927.

Most of those you describe I interpret to mean to inform UNLICENSED people that Taurus & Berretta PT 92 PT 99 type 9mm models are prohibited
possibly the Taurus & Beretta .380 acp models which resemble those models too.

30.05 doesn't (arguably) allow me to put up a circle slash donkey sign and have police arrest Democrats

IT DOESN'T ?

Only if they refuse to be present for a quorum of the Legislature, then I can go to DC and arrest them with authority of my (expired) DC CCW.