Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


Rex B
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 25
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#466

Post by Rex B » Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:13 pm

JKTex wrote:
puma guy wrote:Anyway is there something I am missing that allows an exemption to the 30.06 prohibition for gov'mnt to post 30.06 gun shows and has it ever been challenged?
Don't forget that the gun show is privately owned/promoted and they lease the building for the show. I believe that's what's called a game changer. :)
The only game here is them betting that no one will challenge them on an unenforceable sign. So far they have been winning that bet.
It has been said that their insurance carrier requires that they prohibit loaded guns as a condition for coverage. (Has anyone ever seen a policy issued for a gun show that has that stipulation?)
You in turn, agree to abide by that and give up your protection (and some $) in exchange for admittance to the show.
I bet we'd feel better about that if they didn't try to use the 30.06 signs for that purpose.

Seems to me there ought to be a way to challenge such 30.06 postings short of taking a ride to the police station or confronting some ignorant BiD]D]D]D] person like Puma Guy did.
Class action suit?
-----------
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#467

Post by speedsix » Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:29 pm

JKTex wrote:
speedsix wrote:...RPB's post gave me an idea...the County Clerk is elected, right? I'm going to find out if the County Clerk of Dallas County really knows how many voter's he's alienating by having a smaller-than-enforceable 30.06 worded signs inside his satellite vehicle registration offices...betcha he hasn't thought of that...I'll start by trying to find out how many CHLs are currently held in Dallas County...


...methinks fear of losing an election may be more effective than fear of a nasty letter from downstate...
Who is it alienating? No sign is valid or enforceable so you take care of business and go on with your day as usual.

...you been watchin' me??? of course I do, but if you'll follow a few threads 'round here, you'll see that there are a lot of guys who aren't quite as reckless as I am, and they're afraid to...so if I can make him think about all the gunners and hunters he might be offending, the signs might come down faster than if I point out his gaffe...so it's alienating ME, and maybe 2 other voters in the County in which he wants to be re-elected ...

User avatar

Cobra Medic
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:53 pm

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#468

Post by Cobra Medic » Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:20 pm

Rex B wrote:Seems to me there ought to be a way to challenge such 30.06 postings short of taking a ride to the police station or confronting some ignorant BiD]D]D]D] person like Puma Guy did.
Class action suit?
You can ignore it, same as a sign that says "Whites Only" if their insurance company requires one.
This will only hurt a little. What comes next, more so.


tazz0018
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#469

Post by tazz0018 » Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:21 am

I saw this the other day and could not believe I have pasted this 30-06 sign up for years in front of a school where I had drop my kids off (Who would put the 30-06 sign up between the curb and the public sidewalk). I do know the sign is unenforceable, but to think I did not see it for all that time. I might have to let the City of Grand Prairie know they have a unenforceable 30-06 sign on school property and between the public sidewalk and the curb. Any thoughts on this. :bigear:
Image
Image


Rex B
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 25
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#470

Post by Rex B » Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:31 am

Looks like some nitwit needed a feel-good icon for the sheep.
I think this is one case where an improperly posted sign should be called to the attention of the misguided authorities.
If the local LEO think it is enforceable, it could mean a bad day for one of us.
At the very least, I would like to verify that both the Chief and the City Attorney understand the applicable law before a test case comes in their door.
-----------
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch


11B
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:30 am

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#471

Post by 11B » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:44 pm

Right Rex because isn't it LEGAL to disarm and securely leave your handgun in your vehicle in the school parking lot even with this sign posted?

User avatar

rmr1923
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: Katy, TX

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#472

Post by rmr1923 » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:37 pm

Came across this gem at one of the back entrances to Kingwood Medical Center yesterday:

Image

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 51
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#473

Post by seamusTX » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:51 pm

That handgun sign is about as effective as a "Colored only" bathroom sign. That is, for the folk from Loma Linda, not at all.

Also, Kingwood Medical Center is owned by HCA (a private company) and had nothing to do with cities improperly posting.

Still, you don't want to have a nurse taking your temperature and find your Kimber. Probably there would be a bit of a fuss.

The "No smoking" sign is enforceable. Smoking is bad for your health and very expensive. They make gum and patches to deal with the jitters when you quit.

- Jim
Fear, anger, hatred, and greed. The devil's all-you-can-eat buffet.


Pawpaw40
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:32 pm

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#474

Post by Pawpaw40 » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:50 pm

In Longview, Texas, Good Shepherd Medical Center is posted with a correct sign. The land and buildings are owned by Gregg County, but leased to Good Shepherd. Is the sign enforceable? The emergency room entrance has a metal detector and is staffed by Longview PD.

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 33
Posts: 12636
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#475

Post by C-dub » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:58 pm

Pawpaw40 wrote:In Longview, Texas, Good Shepherd Medical Center is posted with a correct sign. The land and buildings are owned by Gregg County, but leased to Good Shepherd. Is the sign enforceable? The emergency room entrance has a metal detector and is staffed by Longview PD.
It shouldn't be. In my opinion it isn't, but often times my opinion isn't worth the ink this is typed with. It is owned by the government and a CHL shouldn't be prohibited just like any other city owned building such as a public library or recreation center.
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

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 51
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#476

Post by seamusTX » Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:45 pm

Pawpaw40 wrote:In Longview, Texas, Good Shepherd Medical Center is posted with a correct sign. The land and buildings are owned by Gregg County, but leased to Good Shepherd. Is the sign enforceable? The emergency room entrance has a metal detector and is staffed by Longview PD.
Ask the police, cuz they're the ones who will make the call. I will be very surprised if they don't tell you that weapons are forbidden on the premises.

This is the same as UTMB Galveston and the Texas Medical Center, both of which are state-owned and operated.

This is one of those situations where you might beat the rap but not the ride, if detected.

- Jim

User avatar

MasterOfNone
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:00 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#477

Post by MasterOfNone » Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:48 pm

seamusTX wrote:
Pawpaw40 wrote:In Longview, Texas, Good Shepherd Medical Center is posted with a correct sign. The land and buildings are owned by Gregg County, but leased to Good Shepherd. Is the sign enforceable? The emergency room entrance has a metal detector and is staffed by Longview PD.
Ask the police, cuz they're the ones who will make the call. I will be very surprised if they don't tell you that weapons are forbidden on the premises.

This is the same as UTMB Galveston and the Texas Medical Center, both of which are state-owned and operated.

This is one of those situations where you might beat the rap but not the ride, if detected.

- Jim
But, the government exception to 30.06 states:
[quote="30.06(e)](e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.[/quote]
If a "Medical Center" is a "Hospital," then it is in fact a place prohibited by 46.035(b)(4). So it seems they could charge you under 46.035 or 30.06.
http://www.PersonalPerimeter.com
DFW area LTC Instructor
NRA Pistol Instructor, Range Safety Officer, Recruiter

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#478

Post by G26ster » Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:56 pm

MasterOfNone wrote: But, the government exception to 30.06 states:
[quote="30.06(e)](e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
If a "Medical Center" is a "Hospital," then it is in fact a place prohibited by 46.035(b)(4). So it seems they could charge you under 46.035 or 30.06.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

Subsection (b)(4) covers hospitals.

User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 43
Posts: 18195
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#479

Post by Keith B » Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:59 pm

MasterOfNone wrote:
seamusTX wrote:
Pawpaw40 wrote:In Longview, Texas, Good Shepherd Medical Center is posted with a correct sign. The land and buildings are owned by Gregg County, but leased to Good Shepherd. Is the sign enforceable? The emergency room entrance has a metal detector and is staffed by Longview PD.
Ask the police, cuz they're the ones who will make the call. I will be very surprised if they don't tell you that weapons are forbidden on the premises.

This is the same as UTMB Galveston and the Texas Medical Center, both of which are state-owned and operated.

This is one of those situations where you might beat the rap but not the ride, if detected.

- Jim
But, the government exception to 30.06 states:
[quote="30.06(e)](e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
If a "Medical Center" is a "Hospital," then it is in fact a place prohibited by 46.035(b)(4). So it seems they could charge you under 46.035 or 30.06.[/quote][/quote]

Better read farther down 46.035 to (i). See the post above.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 51
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

#480

Post by seamusTX » Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:47 pm

Our hard-working Texas legislators have created a situation that begs for an appellate ruling.

You have 30.06, which is not applicable to state-owned property, and then you have 46.035(i) which calls for churches, hospitals, and government meetings to be posted with 30.06 signs.

Of course there are state-owned hospitals. Most government meetings are held in government-owned buildings. There are a few state-owned church buildings (namely university chapels).

I have asked many times, along with Clint Eastwood, how lucky do you feel?

- Jim

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”