My bad, I meant to post "should" instead of would. It is only my opinion, and I doubt that one would be able to successfully win a lawsuit.rotor wrote:Why do you think the poster would have civil liability? I would think the entity that arrested or charged the LTC holder would have liability. I don't know why posting a 30.06/07 sign would be illegal unless actually done by the government entity on a place that the legislators have clarified as unenforceable and then the city/government would possibly be fined ( how many $ per day- I doubt any government agencies have paid one cent). The AG has said that businesses that lease government property can post but that they are not enforceable. I personally would not want to be the test case to find out though but I would not hesitate to walk in concealed on a business on leased government property with a 30.06/07 in place as long as I was sure that it was one of those unenforceable signs. How would they know I was carrying?Jusme wrote:Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm thinking about this from another perspective. What are the rules about a non-lawyer dispensing legal advice, and specifically incorrect legal advice? The 30.06 sign posted on government owned, and not statutorily restricted, property clearly states that it is a crime to carry a licensed handgun on these premises.....
Would the answer be different if the business owner / person responsible for posting the sign (and dispensing incorrect legal advice), happened to be licensed to practice law in Texas? Such as a judge.
I don't think there are any legal ramifications for posting a sign stating that a crime would be committed if they were disobeyed, although I agree, there probably should be. Especially if the person posting them, say a layer, judge, or LEO, who "should" know the law. A business owner, who is not in that category, I would give the benefit of the doubt, but as the old saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If someone was charged under the statute, or even arrested or detained, and it was shown to be unenforceable, then I would think there would be civil liability, on the poster. JMHO
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Ft Worth Enforcing Ammo Ban at Will Rogers”
- Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:30 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Ft Worth Enforcing Ammo Ban at Will Rogers
- Replies: 55
- Views: 14071
Re: Ft Worth Enforcing Ammo Ban at Will Rogers
- Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:44 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Ft Worth Enforcing Ammo Ban at Will Rogers
- Replies: 55
- Views: 14071
Re: Ft Worth Enforcing Ammo Ban at Will Rogers
Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm thinking about this from another perspective. What are the rules about a non-lawyer dispensing legal advice, and specifically incorrect legal advice? The 30.06 sign posted on government owned, and not statutorily restricted, property clearly states that it is a crime to carry a licensed handgun on these premises.....
Would the answer be different if the business owner / person responsible for posting the sign (and dispensing incorrect legal advice), happened to be licensed to practice law in Texas? Such as a judge.
I don't think there are any legal ramifications for posting a sign stating that a crime would be committed if they were disobeyed, although I agree, there probably should be. Especially if the person posting them, say a layer, judge, or LEO, who "should" know the law. A business owner, who is not in that category, I would give the benefit of the doubt, but as the old saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If someone was charged under the statute, or even arrested or detained, and it was shown to be unenforceable, then I would think there would be civil liability, on the poster. JMHO
- Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:06 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Ft Worth Enforcing Ammo Ban at Will Rogers
- Replies: 55
- Views: 14071
Re: Ft Worth Enforcing Ammo Ban at Will Rogers
TAM,
I have never seen metal detectors at the Will Roger's gun shows, they have unenforceable signage, so I just CC and walk on in.
I will not be taking my carry gun out for any reason besides self defense.
There have never been any issues, so I look at as a don't ask don't tell. I'm sure the gun show promoters are concerned someone will do something stupid like try to sell or trade their loaded gun, or pull it out to try out holsters etc..
They are using the AG "arms length" opinion, to justify their signage, but the entire facility is still controlled and maintained by the City of Ft. Worth, so that doesn't apply, secondly, they conveniently forgot to read the part that the signage is unenforceable.
I may go to the next show, and I'll be glad to drop you at the door, and we will both go in together. But I fully understand your frustration with the idiocy they advocate.
I have never seen metal detectors at the Will Roger's gun shows, they have unenforceable signage, so I just CC and walk on in.
I will not be taking my carry gun out for any reason besides self defense.
There have never been any issues, so I look at as a don't ask don't tell. I'm sure the gun show promoters are concerned someone will do something stupid like try to sell or trade their loaded gun, or pull it out to try out holsters etc..
They are using the AG "arms length" opinion, to justify their signage, but the entire facility is still controlled and maintained by the City of Ft. Worth, so that doesn't apply, secondly, they conveniently forgot to read the part that the signage is unenforceable.
I may go to the next show, and I'll be glad to drop you at the door, and we will both go in together. But I fully understand your frustration with the idiocy they advocate.