TexasCHLforum.com

Photoman wrote:

mr.72 wrote:being armed is not my top priority in my life.

I just wasted five minutes of my precious life on a rhetorical question. Ugh!

This wasn't a rhetorical question.

I don't think the signs are intentionally wrong. However I don't know when the law changed that would have affected the wording of the sign. They have been there for as long as that building has been there, completely unchanged, and it's been about since 1998.

I know a number of years ago there were a couple of mid-level managers who had guns in their cars for range trips and talked about it openly, there was no recourse. Like I say, this is Texas, and most of the people who work here are Texans who value freedom and do not have the bay-area mindset of the corporate HQ folks. So I am sure the signs are required by company policy, but not likely readily endorsed by the local management.

It's still a slippery situation and it's unlikely that I am going to carry while at work. I don't want to be the test case for invalid 30.06 signs. I'll let someone do that in Taco Cabana somewhere :)

Alas it appears to be kind of a moot point since the 30.06 sign appears to not be legit.

I hadn't noticed that the language on the sign is outdated until yesterday, and I took a pic with my camera phone and posted it in another topic.

Still not sure I want to risk being the test case for the validity of an almost-accurate 30.06 sign... but at least it makes me feel a LITTLE better.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Good grief. Cars and bicycles are not the same thing, and the nation's roads and highways were designed for use by cars and trucks, not for bicycles.

And the laws written for travel on public roads also are for cars and trucks, not for bicycles.

Plain and simple.

I was going to write a long response but who cares? Everyone who has ridden a bicycle in traffic for any length of time already agrees with me and everyone else will not understand the point. The summary is this: the inconvenience of drivers is not nearly equal to the risk of life and limb to cyclists. I am taking my life into my own hands when I get out on the road, because drivers don't notice me, misjudge my speed, think they have to go faster, and make stupid decisions while driving around bicycles that endanger my life. I am going to do everything in my power to stack the deck in my favor. You might have to follow me for a block at 20mph but that is not going to kill you. However if you try and pass me on my left and then misjudge my speed and make a right turn right on top of me, that might very well kill me. Forgive me for riding my bicycle defensively.

The Annoyed Man wrote: I actually did offer exercise (or "fitness," as you put it) as a possible reason for your having made this choice, nor did I condemn it. I merely pointed out the incompatibility of it with both the current laws and your employer's intransigence.

Yes I know and I agree.

I will bet that if you surveyed a majority of citizens who share your particular political viewpoint, you would find that they also do not commute by either bicycle or public transportation. By the way, they are a major reason why you do not enjoy the options you desire regarding carrying your weapons. You can't blame that one on gun owners. We'll actually support making it more practical for you to go about being armed if that is your wish.

Well, I don't know where I revealed my political viewpoints or how you might divine exactly which citizens would share them. I am a libertarian, for the most part.

The reason most people in TX, of whatever political stripe, do not use public transportation or ride bicycles to work is because it is completely impractical due to distances, lack of pedestrian corridors, and weather. Public transportation is a colossal waste of tax money anyway, as was pointed out in a recent Cato Institute report.

This is totally OT though so not worth discussing much further.

I can't help but think that might be a little bit extreme. Like I said, I make no judgment about your priorities, but you are seeing things from a very one-sided viewpoint when it comes to sharing the road with motor vehicles. I don't condone bad behavior on the part of drivers, but neither do I condone bad behavior on the part of bicyclists, and believe me, it does exist. How about bicyclists who insist on riding 3 or 4 abreast, effectively blocking all traffic on their side of the road, at 15 mph in a 35 mph zone, and refusing to make way for the motor vehicles stacking up behind them? That is flat arrogant, and it is not defensible in a society in which we are required to share the roads.

Well unfortunately, I completely disagree. Now I realize that it may be courteous for a cyclist to get over and allow people to pass just like it would be courteous for any slow driver to get over and allow someone to pass. But far and away most bicycle-auto accidents occur while the cyclist is being passed. The safest thing for a cyclist to do is ride in the lane of traffic and the least safe thing for them to do is encourage drivers to pass them. You would never pass a bus or a dump truck or other slow-moving motor vehicle the way you want to pass a bicycle.

In fact most of the behavior you might think is rude or arrogant on the part of cyclists are things they have adapted in order to enhance their safety. The safest thing to do, if you truly want cyclists to have to abide by all regular traffic laws, is to treat them like you would any other vehicle on the road. That means they ride right there in traffic with everyone else and you have to follow them slowly. If they are kind enough to get over to the shoulder and allow you to pass, then don't get all bent out of shape when they decide that the red light or stop sign ahead is not doing anything to improve their safety so they go ahead and run it.

There are all kinds of other arguments to be made... for instance, how much of your bicycle tire taxes goes toward paying for the upkeep of those roads you ride on? Exactly none of it.

I will definitely get on board for a system that bills each user of the road according to the impact their vehicle has on the cost of upkeep of the roads. I guarantee you a bicycle + rider with a 1 square inch contact patch on the road, moving at 20 mph and weighing a total of 180 lb has virtually zero impact on the road and does not accelerate the maintenance requirement of that road one bit. If nothing but bicycles were on the roads, then those roads would last nearly forever, at least until erosion or a flood or ice caused them to crack and degrade. We are talking 10x as long as they last with cars driving on them.

Likewise howabout my 2,200 lb car costs 1/2 as much for taxes as your 4,500 lb truck? Certainly I am having at most, half of the wear and tear impact on the road when I drive it. You want to drive an 8,000 lb diesel quad cab truck? You should have to pay more! Fair is fair right?

Bicycles do not degrade these roads at all.

I will fully support bicycles paying a road tax as soon as they begin making roads exclusively for bicycles and we only have to pay for the upkeep of those roads.

Bicyclists are not paying their fair share for the use of those roads

Of course they are. Their use of those roads, as a percentage, is so small that it is irrelevant. Their impact to the roads in terms of maintenance and upkeep is virtually zero. Bicycles need only a 3 foot corridor to ride, and bicycle paths 3' wide will accommodate thousands of bicycles per day, do not require excavation or engineered road bed, reinforcement, concrete or any other expensive measure to build, and will last a half a century under regular use. The fact of the matter is that the roads are built for motorized transport, and virtually 100% of the engineering, cost of building, and cost of upkeep is directly resultant of their use by motorized vehicles. Bicycles are not even in the noise floor. Rain and wind cause far and away more wear and tear on the roads than bicycle traffic.

But I do think you need to see the larger picture when it comes to your RKBA and those folks with whom you have chosen to share your political fortunes.

I don't know with whom I share my political fortunes. It's certainly not cyclists. Most of them are flaming liberals and we don't get along.

Lastly, regarding your above comments regarding "most Americans" and bicycle and fitness

I never excluded other countries, but I just have no idea.

I only know about Americans.

Thanks, Byron. I will do that.

being armed is not my top priority in my life.

Life has to have balance... I am painfully aware that many people on this forum, and on other gun-related forums, do not seem to value balance in their lives with respect to being armed or gun ownership.

I ride my bicycle to work for a large number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with the so-called "green" movement. They have mostly to do with my own fitness, time management, stress level, fuel cost, and convenience, in that order. I understand that most Americans don't value fitness. I also understand that most Americans also don't understand time management or stress management. So I don't expect any sympathy on this forum or any other internet forum regarding my choices in favor of these things.

We need a legal option.

Unfortunately most cyclists and gun owners are at opposite ends of the political spectrum so I see little odds of any ground being gained in favor of a legal option. A lot of gun owners would rather just run over me with their gigantic truck and think that bicycles should not be allowed on public roads anyway. A lot of cyclists think big trucks should not be allowed on public roads and gun owners should not be allowed to vote. I think a lot of the bubbas who harrass cyclists may well be gun owners and the last thing they want is armed cyclists who can fight back!

Bike is stored INSIDE the building.

There is no place to lock a bicycle outside the building, and even if there was, that is a major theft magnet.

Have any of you guys ridden a bicycle any distance before? Putting 10+ lb of extra racks, boxes, etc. onto the bicycle and riding it to work are just simply not an option. A hard plastic lockable pistol case small enough that it only holds a pistol and nothing else would be ok, as long as I could take it into the building in my bag and put it in my locker. However this is obviously not going to work.

Things like this make a CHL kind of useless for a lot of people. I know, not you.

Well, this is a very big company based in California. The employee manual and policies are consistent for every locality including several different states. I am certain that I am not the first to question their anti-CHL policy and also I am certain that they are completely inflexible in this area.

What we need is some protection of a container for private property other than just one's home or car.

I had considered something like a pistol safe carried in my bag, which could be used to lock up the gun before I enter the building. This would only be of any use if that container were immune from any kind of search.

Maybe what we need are airport-type rules. That is, you can carry concealed in any area not posted 30.06, and you can carry your weapon in a secured fashion anywhere, under any circumstances, such as in a hard-side case with a lock, as you can in your checked baggage at the airport.

As it is, it looks like since my employer will not allow me to secure the gun on the premises, then I cannot effectively carry while on my ~1 hr each way bicycle commute.

Well the bike is stored inside the building so even storing it on the bike wouldn't work. Plus the bike, if stored outside, would be a huge theft risk anyway.

So I work for an employer who has a 30.06 sign at one entrance to the building, and has language in the employee manual that states that possession of a gun by an employee is grounds for dismissal.

Now one might think, "you can just leave your gun in your car" which would be fine except I ride my bicycle to work every day. I carry a messenger bag with my laptop and other things in it when on my bike.

Is there any legal way to secure a firearm when I get to work that would not either expose me to potential charges of criminal trespass for carrying past a 30.06 sign, or put me at risk of getting fired?

I presume the answer is "no" and as far as I can tell, there is no way for me to do this unless I drive my car.

I'm not talking about carrying on my person in a holster, but more like, locked up inside my bag, or maybe in my locker at the office.