Fort Worth Mayfest

[Glockster]

There are a couple of ideas here that are simply put, somewhat brilliant.

[doncb]

State issued 3006/07 signs.
To include the address that the sign is valid for.

I really, really like this idea. Make the property owner apply for a 30.06 sign and provide a justification along with proof that they are a location that is allowed to prohibit carry. After an administrative review (similar timeline to what it takes to get your LTC), then you get the sign. Maybe also include a test that the property owner needs to pass showing that they understand the relevant laws on sign placement, etc.

For government owned or leased property, since the legal ability to prohibit carry is an exception, all requests must be submitted directly to the AG, who will then publicly announce them, allow a 90 day period for public comment and then make a ruling within 180 days after that comment period has closed (9 months total).

OH! I like this idea!

[juno106]

I really, really like this idea. Make the property owner apply for a 30.06 sign and provide a justification...

Hmmm... "justification" you say ?

Well, perhaps what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so how about:

"Property owners who have a “good reason” to feel threatened — for example, stalking victims of a LTC holder — would be able to seek a 30.06 sign for legally owned property. But those with generalized fears, such as apprehension about LTC holders committing a crime involving a handgun, would not be considered eligible for such a sign."

People who have a “good reason” to feel threatened — for example, stalking victims — would be able to seek a concealed carry permit for a legally owned handgun under a new D.C. law proposed Thursday. But those with generalized fears, such as apprehension about living in a neighborhood with high crime, would not be considered eligible for such a permit, officials say.

The distinction is an aspect of legislation being grudgingly crafted by D.C. officials in response to a federal court decision that in July struck down the city’s longstanding ban on carrying guns in public.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... /?page=all

[KLB]

I think the legally required text for 30.06 and 30.07 signs should include something like "This sign is not valid for use on government owned property".

Clever idea. I like it, but nothing will change unless and until there's a private cause of actions against illegal government signs. Even then you would need the right to recover reasonable attorneys fees and court costs. I'm not betting the ranch on that happening.

[BTP]

I think the legally required text for 30.06 and 30.07 signs should include something like "This sign is not valid for use on government owned property".

except I would change it in part to read: This sign is not valid for use on government owned or leased property.

I like the sentiment but it would probably need to include "unless.." so back to square one with that.

Question (serious): Why do people care so much about unenforceable signs. Yes it's wrong but I'd almost not like to bring them to light. Let them feel good and be confident you are GTG. Asking for a ruling on retarded signs can go one of two ways, leaving it be can only go one way. I can see there is a moral answer to the question, if it tricks the uniformed, fine, if you carry, you should be capable of knowing what the go or no go situations are, or able to seek out the information prior to events.

i.e. guy stealing a sprinkler, busting out car window, day or night, wake up on the couch to someone in the house, guy stopping his car in front of you then getting out walking toward you.

[LucasMcCain]

I personally care about unenforceable signs because I value my LTC very highly. If I see a sign on a facility I believe to be owned by the government, I'm not going to carry there at that time. I'm going to wait until I have the opportunity to carefully research whether or not that building is in fact owned by the government. Then I have to make very sure that said building is not claiming to be a school or an amusement park or some other prohibited place. Then I have to make very sure that nowhere in that building is there a school sponsored event taking place, early voting, or any other temporary event that would prohibit my carrying there. Only after doing my due diligence would I feel justified in carrying past that sign. Even then, I would do so a bit nervously, because to a LEO who has not done all of the research that I just had to do, it would appear that I am breaking the law.

There is a reason the unlawful posting of prohibitive signs has been criminalized. I want to know where I am legitimately not allowed to carry, and I intend to carry everywhere else. Deliberately misleading me about where I can and cannot carry is dishonest and immoral. It is illegal for me to lie to the government; it should be illegal for the government to lie to me.

[ScottDLS]

It hasn't really been criminalized. The penalty that is assessed against the offending government after AG goes to court is civil, not criminal. Another point is that the real off limits locations of courts and schools don't have to be posted at all. Your research is best directed at locations that don't post, because they don't have to.

Even if you carried at the Dallas Zoo (amusement park) and got arrested, the prosecution would have to prove in COURT, not to the AG, that they were an amusement park. That and they would have to catch you in a building, not walking around the public spaces, which are not "premises" per 46.035.

I might not chance it at the Dallas Zoo after the AG ruling, but the public streets of Ft. Worth during Mayfest, I'm just sorry I didn't get around to OC'ing there.

ETA: Did anybody see any signs at Mayfest this weekend? I went to the Gun Show and not Mayfest.

[LucasMcCain]

It hasn't really been criminalized. The penalty that is assessed against the offending government after AG goes to court is civil, not criminal. Another point is that the real off limits locations of courts and schools don't have to be posted at all. Your research is best directed at locations that don't post, because they don't have to.

Good catch. I keep forgetting it's a civil thing. I'm still a little fuzzy on the difference. I do not have any form of legal background. I know courts and schools don't have to post, but court buildings have been doing so, and places have been claiming to be schools that aren't. That's all I meant. I guess what I was getting at was that I should be able to trust that when I see a compliant sign, it's enforceable. I shouldn't have to do research to find out. We have to follow the rules; the government should have to too. I know you don't disagree with me on this.

[ScottDLS]

I've proposed that there be a sign requirement for 46.03 locations, that must be posted or you should have a Defense to Prosecution like with a 51% location that isn't posted.

When I say proposed, I mean I posted about it on Texas CHL Forum...which is not exactly me acting as any kind of 2nd amendment advocate.

[AZZMIE]

I was there 4 years ago and saw a no weapons sign. Not even a gunbuster. I carried concealed. No metal detectors. Nothing obvious of why they would post the 30.06 or 30.07. Isn't on a public park? Like the State Fair of Texas? The State Fair welcomes open carry.