TexasCHLforum.com

E150GT wrote:What is worth more to you? Staying alive in a bad situation, or following the law??

Staying alive, that's for sure. Times like that, I think of the Wisconsin supreme court case from a few years ago which overturned the conviction of a pizza delivery man for carrying a concealed weapon (categorically illegal for a non-LEO there) after he used it to kill two habitual robbers: the court stated that it was a valid exercise of the state's police power to prohibit carrying a concealed weapon, but not at the expense of putting someone in the direct path of harm if it were under immediately threatened circumstances. We don't have a parallel precedent here in Texas, but the law operates in the same way, and if I truly believed there were no way to avoid immediate harm, I would act with no regard for a law which might get me killed. And I know that's the sort of mentality which results in "get arrested, go to trial, get convicted, maybe get it overturned on appeal" situations, but everything is better than death on the bottom line. And I have never found myself in a situation even approaching that, thank God, so I can muse about it academically while following the law.

Carrying a concealed handgun in a movie theater posted with a 30.06... that's just breaking the law. Running across the grounds of a middle school with a rifle because I see a woman being raped on the far street and thereby causing 300 panicked children to flip out... that's the sort of time I hope 12 people would've done the same thing after the fact. And I hope that sort of situation never comes up anywhere in America in the first place!

austinrealtor wrote:

denwego wrote:Moreso, a gunbuster sign is enough for me when I know it reflects the honest wishes of the property owner himself/herself, because if we want credibility with the public when we talk about "protecting our rights," we need to give as good as we expect to get. The fact that something would be legally unenforceable and keep me out of prison doesn't make it correct.

I was with you right up until this part above.

The property owner's rights are no more important than my rights. I have a right to carry unless a law prohibits me from doing so. I'll give a property owner the benefit of the doubt if they try to post 30.06 correctly under the law but maybe have the letters a bit too small or are missing a word or two. But a gunbusters sign without even an attempt at valid 30.06 language? No way. If the property owner wants to assert his right to subjugate my rights, he's going to have to at least ATTEMPT to follow the spirit AND letter of the law.

If property owners wants credibility with the public, then they will follow all laws - not just the ones that are "easy" for them to follow. I follow all laws regarding carry, even though some of them can be a pain. I expect property owners to do the same.

It's not a hard-and-fast rule with me... there are plenty of times I thought the circumstances warranted me staying armed, and I don't feel the slightest bit of rights-related guilt of that sort (not the least of which is the notion that leaving my handgun in the car would likely result in a busted window and a stolen handgun). And the no-real-attempt to even bother to look up §30.06 means I'm happy that all my fellow CHL'ers out there carry how they like and are protected by the very strong and specific nature of posting requirements in Texas, having lived in states where a simple gunbuster sign can get you sent to jail. But personally, I'm happy to respect property owners who are exercising their rights, too, in good faith. It's the lack-of-good-faith boilerplate that I'm content to ignore... it's like art; you can't define it, but you know it when you see it.

On a related note, people that violate or bend other laws to accomplish that end really get my goad: improperly posted 51% are the biggest for me, considering you're risking a decade in prison on other people's idiocy. I went to a sandwich shop here in Houston a number of months back which clearly didn't sell any alcohol at all, but had posted a 51% by the door. When I asked the manager about it, he said he did it to "scare people with guns away" more strongly than the normal sign. That little one there got a call placed to the TABC that afternoon.

I'd go with the "close to a 30.06" option... nitpicking situations, like whether letters are 1" high when they're imperceptibly close at a casual glance, get the benefit of the doubt from me, unless the sign itself is posted in a location which is inherently unenforceable (public property, etc.). Moreso, a gunbuster sign is enough for me when I know it reflects the honest wishes of the property owner himself/herself, because if we want credibility with the public when we talk about "protecting our rights," we need to give as good as we expect to get. The fact that something would be legally unenforceable and keep me out of prison doesn't make it correct.

Likewise, when a badly-posted sign is clearly the boilerplate for a corporate lawyer trying to safeguard a low insurance premium, I consider it not reflecting any more honest intention than a gun manufacturer stamping "don't point towards face" on the barrel