TexasCHLforum.com

boomerang wrote:

rb4browns wrote:How many fellow CHLers wink at knowlingly disregarding legal 30.06 signs yet rail against illegal immigrants simply because they, "broke the law" to get to America.

I don't know. How many?
Is that more or less than the number of companies with anti-gun signs that hire illegals?

If it's 1 CHL holder railing against other people who break the law but proudly tell the world how they themselves commit class A felonies it's a problem.

Any company hiring illegals is a problem and should be fined/punished, regardless of 30.06 or not. That's not the point I am making.

HadEmAll wrote:I've carried through doors that had miniature 30.06 signs, and through doors that had "paraphrased" 30.06 signs. I've carried through doors that had only the English version. Here I carried through a door that didn't have a 30.06 sign at all.

For me, any situation like that is an opportunity.

And rb4browns, to me, people who manufacture facts like "hospital" (which it wasn't and I didn't say, are a real problem, along with illegal immigrants.

You are still irresponsible to say the least to come here bragging how you saw a legal 30.06 sign and blew it off.

HadEmAll wrote: One set of doors had the proper configuration of the 30.06 sign, the other did not. It was definitely possible to enter the non-signed door without even looking at the other, which I did after wiping the sight of the other from my mind.

Illegal immigration is a problem because people cross our border and stay in violation of the law. Not because they are immigrants. CHL holders who knowingly (and proudly trumpet the fact on the internet that they) violate the law are also a problem.

I'm not manafacturing anything, I'm reflecting your words back to you. As another poster pointed out, you are bragging about knowingly committing a Class A misdemeanor. Your irresponsible behavior is a problem for all of us, that you would brag about it is even worse.

HadEmAll wrote:I took my mother to a medical procedure the other day. The facility had 2 entrances to the same lobby, doors facing each other across a sidewalk. Using one would have your back directly to the other. The doors themselves were about 20 feet apart.

One set of doors had the proper configuration of the 30.06 sign, the other did not. It was definitely possible to enter the non-signed door without even looking at the other, which I did after wiping the sight of the other from my mind.

How many fellow CHLers wink at knowlingly disregarding legal 30.06 signs yet rail against illegal immigrants simply because they, "broke the law" to get to America. I'm hard pressed to think of a hospital as a place where one has a compelling reason to carry when there is a 30.06 posted.

boomerang wrote:A gunbuster sign has the same meaning for me as it does for a Texas Peace Officer.

Does a Texas Peace Officer violate the rights of a business owner if, while armed, he walks past a gunbuster sticker on a restaurant door to eat lunch?

Legally does he? I think that has been addressed. Morally I say yes - if a cop is on his property only to eat lunch and has no other official reason to be there than I think the property owner should have the right to refuse service.

boomerang wrote:

rb4browns wrote:Carrying a gun and *feeling* like a cop does not equal being a cop.

As far as I can tell, you're the only one here getting those confused.

I also notice that you didn't answer my implicit question regarding morality (which is different than legality.)

It's possible, I have a newborn and haven't slept for about 3 days now... .

Anyone who knows they have to post a "no guns" sign to keep CHL-ers out also knows (or ought to know!) to know what the requirements are for a valid sign.

===> Perhaps. But I look at the open nature of a verbal notification, which has no guidlines, as speaking to the intent of the law. Namely, to provide shelter to CHLers from ambiguity whether or not they can enter when the owner is not speaking directly to them verbally. That's why the sign has to be very specific while verbally it can be anything along the lines of "no you can;t come in with that gun."

So if someone goes to the trouble of posting something that says "Security Notice - Carrying of Concealed Weapons Is Prohibited" IMHO it's is VERY reasonable to conclude they're not really trying to ban CHLers, they're trying to placate the soccer-mommies who think victim disarmament zones are somehow "safer."

===> I agree in large part. But that's not my point. I'm merely speaking to those who think based on a mistakenly worded sign that their "right" to CHL on private property supercedes a property owner's right to not have an armed CHLer there against there wishes.

Debates on the wisdom of this type of PR move are probably endless, but when I see a sign that's not even close to being compliant, I ignore it - I'm on solid ground legally, and I'm quite sure that ignoring a blatantly non-compliant sign is NOT an indication of moral turpitude.

===> Again I agree with you here.

(Of course, if a sign has 0.95" letters instead of the 1-inch letters called out in the law, or if there's a punctuation mark missing . . . that I'll comply with.)

===> And oncle more I agree.

Photoman wrote:

rb4browns wrote:The law is clear (to me), by virtue of any verbal notification being valid, that the intent under law is that the property owner has every right to deny access to someone with a concealed weapon.

Don't confuse laws with rights.

Don't assume laws are not necessarily related to rights. The intent of the law is such that it respects the right of a property owner to decide who comes on his property and who doesn't with respect to whether that person has a gun.

boomerang wrote:A gunbuster sign has the same meaning for me as it does for a Texas Peace Officer.

Does a Texas Peace Officer violate the rights of a business owner if, while armed, he walks past a gunbuster sticker on a restaurant door to eat lunch?

But unless you're a cop that equivalence is only in your head. It has no application to real life. Texas Peace Officers have a different status when it comes to where/when/how they traverse public and private spheres in society.

Carrying a gun and *feeling* like a cop does not equal being a cop.

nitrogen wrote:I realise I might be a bit extreme in my views, but I view "no guns" signs a lot like people nowadays would view "No Blacks" signs.
They are wrong at public places, hands down.

Having said that, most places that place no guns signs of ANY kind don't get my business. There are a few I'll patronize anyway, but I'll ignore the signs.

I understand your sentiment, but as I pointed out in my response to Photoman "no guns" is not equivalent to "no blacks" (or "no jews") when we're talking about the law. I personally don't see that there is a moral equivalent - I see no constitutional right to carry on someone else's property regardless of public access when they have expressed their wishes. I too would most likely not do business with them but that's a personal choice rather than an issue of rights.

Photoman wrote:

rb4browns wrote:I think a number of posters here are way off the mark. CHL holder or not, there is no inherent right to carry a concealed weapon one someone else's private property.

Property owners do not enjoy unrestricted freedom to set rules for property that is open to the public.

I understand that as a *general* principle. But not allowing people to have concealed weapons on their property is well within their rights and there is no inherent "right" to carry concealed on private property with public access against the owner's wishes.

The law is clear (to me), by virtue of any verbal notification being valid, that the intent under law is that the property owner has every right to deny access to someone with a concealed weapon.

I think a number of posters here are way off the mark. CHL holder or not, there is no inherent right to carry a concealed weapon one someone else's private property.

Do they have an obligation under law to properly advise you in writing or warn verbally that they do not want you (or me) to carry on their property? Yes. But that is only a fair warning for you (and me) to avoid criminal prosecution and give you fair notice to either leave or not enter the property with your (or my) weapon. It has nothing to do with your (or my) inherent right to carry a concealed weapon on their property.

You have every right to avoid doing business with folks who post a 30.06, I respect that. But to say if a sign is slightly off the requirements so therefore you can do whatever you want on their property is to thumb your nose at someone else's rights that IMHO clearly trump yours in a situation like this. SO what if we had to jump through hoops to get our CHL and we have to continue to walk a tightrope sometimes? That has nothing to do with someone elses private property rights.