Could an "Ammo-Busters" Sign Work?

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar
ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 5095
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Could an "Ammo-Busters" Sign Work?

Post by ScottDLS »

Keith B wrote:A CHL does not get out of a 30.05 just for being a CHL. However, we DO get the exemption if the soul reason for the tresspassing charge was because you're were carrying concealed with a license. The 30.05 charge would only be applicable as a Class C misdemanor at most. As for a 'no ammo' sign, a 5 point sign would not be valid per 30.05 as they must be noticiable.
Fair enough, how about BIG ammo-buster or 30.05 notice as specified in my original post? :rules:

I think we would still get the exemption as the intent of the posting would be to try and prohibit concealed carry and it would be clear that was their goal and we would have the defense to prosecution.
I tend to agree but...

There's no CASE LAW?
Are you willing to be the TEST CASE?
Risk TAKING THE RIDE?
Have only a DEFENSE?
What about an ANTI-GUN cop, DA, judge?
What about the Federal GFSZA for long guns?

----insert additional speculative forum cliches here, please----

:banghead:
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
User avatar
Keith B
Moderator
Posts: 18503
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Could an "Ammo-Busters" Sign Work?

Post by Keith B »

See my responses below in red
ScottDLS wrote:
Keith B wrote:A CHL does not get out of a 30.05 just for being a CHL. However, we DO get the exemption if the soul reason for the tresspassing charge was because you're were carrying concealed with a license. The 30.05 charge would only be applicable as a Class C misdemanor at most. As for a 'no ammo' sign, a 5 point sign would not be valid per 30.05 as they must be noticiable.
Fair enough, how about BIG ammo-buster or 30.05 notice as specified in my original post? :rules:

I think we would still get the exemption as the intent of the posting would be to try and prohibit concealed carry and it would be clear that was their goal and we would have the defense to prosecution.
I tend to agree but...

There's no CASE LAW? Correct
Are you willing to be the TEST CASE? If need be
Risk TAKING THE RIDE? See above
Have only a DEFENSE? Would prefer an exemption, but that's what we have
What about an ANTI-GUN cop, DA, judge? That's where the Defense to Prosecution comes in
What about the Federal GFSZA for long guns? Now you're throwing in a new twist. Save that for another topic.

----insert additional speculative forum cliches here, please----

We can speculate all day long and throw out 'What If's'. Not gonna play that.

:banghead:
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
User avatar
sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts: 6267
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: Could an "Ammo-Busters" Sign Work?

Post by sjfcontrol »

But, is the "no ammo" slash sign a 9nn or a .45? Is it round nose or hollow point? Is it a brass she'll or nickel plated? Just what kind of ammo was being restricted? :biggrinjester:
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”