TexasCHLforum.com

jrandyw wrote:I like to think the law is our shield here. I understand others' points about the risks of walking past an improper 30.06. But I think we should walk right past them. Same for gun busters and outdated verbiage signs. It seems that using that logic (that you don't want to press your luck and be a test case) we are at risk anytime we carry anywhere and should always consider leaving our guns in our gun safes. You know, just in case.

Ok, perhaps I'm just feeling feisty since I went to the range today. :)

As I stated earlier, it is a decision that each CHL must make for themselves as to pass a non-commpliant sign or not. Our job as instructors is to teach our students what the law says. Then the CHL holder has to make sure they are comfortable with their decision on how they proceed with their daily activites when carrying.

Scott in Houston wrote: Here's what I sent to TABC so they could see for themselves before making the trip out...

Maybe they are segregating their sales. They only have the 51% sign in Spanish, so maybe they make more than 51% of their revenue from sale of alcohol to Hispanics. We 'mericans either need to drink more when we go there or quit eating so much, one or the other.

speedsix wrote:...I don't read that in the law...46.035 says that we commit an offense if we INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY, OR RECKLESSLY carry in a business that has a 51% permit...if it's not posted, the intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly haven't been met...

...any test cases to see how the prosecution handled those points?

From our resident TABC expert viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44884#p544762" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

speedsix wrote: ...not surprised that THEY are sloppy...but that 51% sign is still for OUR protection...if we don't walk past one armed, they can't arrest us...and that's the reason I referred to it...without that 51% sign posted as the law says...we haven't broken the law...

Actually, you have broken the law. The absence of a 51% sign at an actual 51% locaiton does NOT make it legal to enter, it is just a defense to prosecution. The presence of a 51% sign at a non-51% establishment does not make it illegal to enter. Either way, as Ricky Ricardo might say, 'Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!'

jrandyw wrote:C-dub, thanks for the link to the other thread. It was quite interesting to see the back and forth. It seems ultimately that the instructor backpedaled a bit while still somewhat standing by what he said. I find it rather disheartening that the DPS instructions seem to have introduced doubt to something that seemed absolutely clear before (30.06). I guess my personal standard will be that if I see a sign saying anything about the licensed possession I will turn away. I'll assume gun busters signs are like the "blue signs".


Thanks to everyone for the responses.

Each individual has to make a choice on passing any sign. If a person puts a gunbuster sign up and you are caught carrying past it, then you MIGHT get arrested, you MIGHT get prosecuted, and you will PROBABLY win in court and then can file a civil suit for unlawful arrest.

Bottom line, the statute is clear on 30.06 signs verbiage and size and the DPS teaches that. They DO NOT teach you that you will be totally in the clear if you pass a sign of any kind and someone decides to push the issue of notification and take it through the legal system. It could happen and the DPS folks let you know that. It is what you should relay to your students that there are those anti's out there that may push the envelope so you may not be 100% in telling them they are 'good to go' past any non-compliant sign.

What is told in instructor class is what the statue says, and what MAY happen if you pass a non-compliant 30.06 sign.

Are they legal with less than one inch letters? IMO, No. Will you be arrested if found carrying past them? Possibly. Will you beat the rap? Maybe. Since there is no case law on this, then it is totally open to interpretation until each individual incident happens.

And, I will answer and say no, Chaz is not Charles from this forum.