Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Perhaps. I'm personally more worried about a even one LEO who isn't current on the laws, puts the bracelets on me and gives me the beginning of an expensive ride. I understand my responsibility to be current on and comply with the law. That does me no good, however, it the one who has to enforce the law isn't as current as I am. I can see the thought process of "close enough is good enough" not only getting me an expensive ride but maybe worse. My wife and I have both served on juries where a large group of the jury itself weren't much worried about adherence to the law.austinrealtor wrote:I think the problem with 4413 (29ee) signs in particular is they start exactly the same as a real 30.06 sign ... "Pursuant to Section 30.06 Penal Code ..." and so people are likely worried that the wording of the penal code may have changed since they took the class or during the last Legislative session or whatever and they didn't hear about it.
I think the problem with those signs is that they were enforceable when they were installed. Well, if they really were installed before the law changed to include the CHL in the Government Code. I can see a judge finding that this one sign is "close enough" if the person argues that it is that old. I am not sure that the Appeals Court would overturn it either.austinrealtor wrote:I think the problem with 4413 (29ee) signs in particular is they start exactly the same as a real 30.06 sign ... "Pursuant to Section 30.06 Penal Code ..." and so people are likely worried that the wording of the penal code may have changed since they took the class or during the last Legislative session or whatever and they didn't hear about it.
So are we all supposed to walk around paranoid that any sign might be construed as "close enough"? If that's the case, why carry at all?srothstein wrote:I think the problem with those signs is that they were enforceable when they were installed. Well, if they really were installed before the law changed to include the CHL in the Government Code. I can see a judge finding that this one sign is "close enough" if the person argues that it is that old. I am not sure that the Appeals Court would overturn it either.austinrealtor wrote:I think the problem with 4413 (29ee) signs in particular is they start exactly the same as a real 30.06 sign ... "Pursuant to Section 30.06 Penal Code ..." and so people are likely worried that the wording of the penal code may have changed since they took the class or during the last Legislative session or whatever and they didn't hear about it.
You think...?pbwalker wrote:
I personally do not understand all the confusion. I mean...in class, they explain what a 30.06 sign is. They tell you the wording and the requirements.
Yes, but there are also cases where someone wants to give the perception of doing something and display a sign that they know carries no weight with CHLs. They don't not want our business, but they want to give the impression that guns are not allowed to appease someone that doesn't know any better.Pawpaw wrote:My personal philosophy, which may or may not work for others is this:
Whether the sign is valid or not, they obviously don't want my gun inside. I, in turn, do not want my money inside. I go elsewhere to spend my money.
True. I was speaking about Grapevine Mills Mall and some other places that have made it abundantly clear they don't want us to carry, but are so arrogant they won't bother to post the proper sign.C-dub wrote:Yes, but there are also cases where someone wants to give the perception of doing something and display a sign that they know carries no weight with CHLs. They don't not want our business, but they want to give the impression that guns are not allowed to appease someone that doesn't know any better.Pawpaw wrote:My personal philosophy, which may or may not work for others is this:
Whether the sign is valid or not, they obviously don't want my gun inside. I, in turn, do not want my money inside. I go elsewhere to spend my money.
em. minechasfm11 wrote:RedRaider wrote:While I'm not an instructor, I can say that my instructor went over legal signs thoroughly. That said, I still think I learned more and gained more confidence on this forum about what signs are or aren't relavent to CHL holders.Our instructor did a great job of going over the signs, too.
To me, the discussion of the signs has been wonderful. Left on my own, I might have looked at the signs on Grapevine Mills mall, understand from my class that they were invalid and carried anyway. Now, I understand that the Grapevine Police don't share my instructor's view of the invalidity of the signs and I could get to take a ride. Yes, I remember that "concealed is concealed" but don't trust my brand new concealment setup to the trained eyes of an LEO.<SNIP>
I figured that it would the luck of the draw walking into Grapevine Mills or somewhere like it (with the old signs posted). It would take an LEO having a bad day or with a burr under his saddle for CHL and a sharp pair of eyes to make any trouble. Less so in the cooler weather when the garments can be a little heavier.Dragonfighter wrote: srothstein and gigag04 are the only LEO I know with x-ray vision
I actually made my first venture out into public carrying my Glock 22 last night. I was amazed how difficult it is to tell that I was carrying - so much that my kids did not notice at all. My wife (who thought I would never be able to conceal the Glock) was surprised to. I became relaxed after about an hour and the paranoia that everybody was looking went away. I stopped tugging at my shirt to make sure it was over the holster and it became a run of the mill night after that. I don't think I'd be too worried about venturing into that mall if it was me now.chasfm11 wrote: Keep in mind that I'm not yet in possession of my plastic and no matter how many times I'm told to relax, the relaxing isn't going to happen until I've been out in public a few times. I'm carrying around the house and that helps my comfort level with the physical setup. Intellectually, I completely understand that I'm going to be legal. I want some time "under my belt" before I'm sure that I'll be relaxed enough to converse with an LEO inside Grapevine Mills.
Exactly!Pawpaw wrote:True. I was speaking about Grapevine Mills Mall and some other places that have made it abundantly clear they don't want us to carry, but are so arrogant they won't bother to post the proper sign.C-dub wrote:Yes, but there are also cases where someone wants to give the perception of doing something and display a sign that they know carries no weight with CHLs. They don't not want our business, but they want to give the impression that guns are not allowed to appease someone that doesn't know any better.Pawpaw wrote:My personal philosophy, which may or may not work for others is this:
Whether the sign is valid or not, they obviously don't want my gun inside. I, in turn, do not want my money inside. I go elsewhere to spend my money.
I believe lots of places that post the "Unlicensed possession" signs (similar to the TABC sign) are doing so just to give the uneducated masses the impression it is a "gun free" zone and counting on the CHLer to know they are not barring us.
I hope that made sense. At least I understand it.
