TexasCHLforum.com

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?

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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