TexasCHLforum.com

scattermaster racing wrote:another newbie here.
Took my class last weekend and waiting on the state now.
Anyway, I struggle a little bit about all the hoopla over the signs. Which one is valid, legal, and so on.
IF a land owner can simply tell you he doesn't want guns on his property, it seems to follow that he could say so on a sign that just says "no guns".
I mean, even if it's not the 30.06 sign, if you read one of those gunbuster signs, you know that they don't want guns there.
I'm not really sure what I'll do if/when I'm at a door and see one of the old signs. Go in because it's not a legal sign, or go elsewhere because I know in my heart that they don't want the guns there.
Am I the only one here that struggles with that?

Welcome to the forum!

No, you're not the only one. You simply haven't been here long enough to have learned the history of the 30.06 notification requirements. Charles can (and has) explained it far more eloquently and in better detail than I can, but I'll make the attempt...

When CHL first became law in 1995, it was with the assumption that you now hold... any notice was valid, under PC 30.05. Unfortunately, many businesses didn't want to "ugly" up the front of their store by posting notice that was easy for the CHLer to find. Then came the proliferation of gunbuster stickers, sometimes as small as 2". This might have been OK if they had put them at eye level on the entry door, but many would hide them in some out of the way corner where the only way you would see it was to do a detailed search of the entire front of the store before entering.

The next legislative session, in 1997, saw a backlash from the legislators against these unscrupulous businesses. Now, if you want to ban CHL, you had to post the big, ugly 30.06 sign so CHL holders would not be tricked into carrying inside and inadvertently committing a Class A misdemeanor.

In light of this, doesn't 30.06 make sense? Just imagine that, before going into Kroger, you had to search the entire front of the store in an Easter egg hunt for that little gunbuster decal hidden among all the posters they have plastered on the windows.

Tracker wrote:Thanks. It ought to expressly prohibit gun buster signs too. Airports are unique in that inside the building is both municipal and federal jurisdictions (Begins at security check in). When I asked the question last night I was inside Love Field to pick someone up. I had to walk through the gun buster sign with the wording "carrying a gun is prohibited." Love is Dallas city property.

Anyone who has a license should know stuff like that has no meaning to them.

Tracker wrote:

Liberty wrote:Thanks Charles, I'm wondering if its worth challanging as an illegal sign.. I'm pretty sure it is government property, and there is no court in the building that I can tell. But I think most CHL holders would just carry on anyway.

Brings up an interesting question: if a municipality posts an old, out-dated 30,06 sign can they be fined? And if not what would keep them from posting them now?

Yes, they can still be fined:

GC §411.209 wrote:GC §411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.
(b) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state that violates Subsection (a) is liable for a civil penalty of: