Search found 3 matches

by JALLEN
Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:11 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Saw a "first" today...
Replies: 34
Views: 6965

Re: Saw a "first" today...

Jago668 wrote:
JALLEN wrote:
Jago668 wrote:
I find it funny that you think a LTC holder should have to obey the law, yet a property owner shouldn't.
The property owner is obeying law law. A sign is not required, being merely only one of three ways provided by statute to give "effective notice" the predicate for criminal liability to be imposed on the carrier who does not leave upon receiving it.
The Wall said he thought any no gun sign should be the same as the property owner verbally notifying you. That is not the law, yes the law provides 3 ways for me to receive effective notice. However a gunbuster sign is not one of those 3 ways.
What the Wall says or thinks is fascinating, but not dispositive.

If you see a "gunbuster sign" and walk right passed it, concealed, likely the person with apparent authority will not be aware and have no occasion to provide effective notice, which the "gunbuster sign" by itself is not. If you open carry, you likely will be noticed and given effective notice, game, set, match. In either case, the law has been followed, and complied with.

Jeez, you guys are worse than lawyers!
by JALLEN
Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:55 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Saw a "first" today...
Replies: 34
Views: 6965

Re: Saw a "first" today...

Jago668 wrote:
I find it funny that you think a LTC holder should have to obey the law, yet a property owner shouldn't.
The property owner is obeying law law. A sign is not required, being merely only one of three ways provided by statute to give "effective notice" the predicate for criminal liability to be imposed on the carrier who does not leave upon receiving it.
by JALLEN
Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:05 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Saw a "first" today...
Replies: 34
Views: 6965

Re: Saw a "first" today...

No soup for you!

Return to “Saw a "first" today...”