Sign at DFW airport

[60ampfuse]

Hey guys, new member here and I had a quick question. I know it is legal to carry at DFW airport outside of the secure areas. I was dropping off a rental car about an hour ago and saw this sign posted on the door at the car rental/return area of the airport. My understanding is this sign has no legal meaning, but I'm curious how they can say that it's against Texas state law if it isn't. What do yall think?

[Srnewby]

You can say anything you want on a sigh. It doesn't necessarily mean its true!

[Srnewby]

Sign

[Richbirdhunter]

When I see signs like that I just keep it to myself that it's not a legal sign, we wouldn't want them to know that they're not compliant.

[Right2Carry]

I believe the sign is correct for anyone who doesn't have a CHL.

[joe817]

Hi 60ampfuse, welcome to the forum! Glad to have you with us! There's a wealth of information on this board and a great group of guys & gals to get to know.

I agree with R2C. That sign is directed to those that don't have a CHL. IMO, it carries the same meaning as the blue "unlicensed possession" signs you see at most convenience & grocery stores.

[NotRPB]

Hi 60ampfuse, welcome to the forum! Glad to have you with us! There's a wealth of information on this board and a great group of guys & gals to get to know.

I agree with R2C. That sign is directed to those that don't have a CHL. IMO, it carries the same meaning as the blue "unlicensed possession" signs you see at most convenience & grocery stores.

It's like if you are unlicensed, carrying a gun there is a 30.05 Trespass (not 30.06, not 30.07 but 30.05)
BUT>>>: CHL licensees & 30.05 Trespass
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS
...
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun.

[TxRVer]

Signs like that are going to be a problem next year when OC becomes legal.

[Abraham]

TxRVer,

How so?

Perhaps, I'm overlooking something, but I see no difficulty in spotting compliant vs. non compliant signs.

A typical gun buster sign (easily recognizable) doesn't apply to a CHLer.

Compliant signs: 30.06 or 30.07 - all others can be ignored.

[TxRVer]

Sorry I didn't explain my thoughts. Today when you see that sign you ignore it, and others ignore you because they can't see the gun. Next year, you ignore the sign, others see the gun if you OC. They saw the sign or employees see the gun and know the sign is there. People that don't carry typically don't know the law. Everyone gets excited because they see a gun where guns are "not allowed".

Of course I could be wrong, but until people are either educated or get used to seeing firearms, there will be "man with gun" reports.

[Right2Carry]

Sorry I didn't explain my thoughts. Today when you see that sign you ignore it, and others ignore you because they can't see the gun. Next year, you ignore the sign, others see the gun if you OC. They saw the sign or employees see the gun and know the sign is there. People that don't carry typically don't know the law. Everyone gets excited because they see a gun where guns are "not allowed".

Of course I could be wrong, but until people are either educated or get used to seeing firearms, there will be "man with gun" reports.

As long as a person is legal they shouldn't fear MWG reports.

[Taypo]

Sorry I didn't explain my thoughts. Today when you see that sign you ignore it, and others ignore you because they can't see the gun. Next year, you ignore the sign, others see the gun if you OC. They saw the sign or employees see the gun and know the sign is there. People that don't carry typically don't know the law. Everyone gets excited because they see a gun where guns are "not allowed".

Of course I could be wrong, but until people are either educated or get used to seeing firearms, there will be "man with gun" reports.

I don't think people are going to get terribly excited, I'm sure every local news outlet will be blasting "OC IS HERE!" nonsense all day, every day leading up to Jan 1.

It's a pretty good bet that anyplace flying a Gunbuster sign is probably not OC friendly, though

[jsenner]

Sorry I didn't explain my thoughts. Today when you see that sign you ignore it, and others ignore you because they can't see the gun. Next year, you ignore the sign, others see the gun if you OC. They saw the sign or employees see the gun and know the sign is there. People that don't carry typically don't know the law. Everyone gets excited because they see a gun where guns are "not allowed".

And the very good point made here is that now, in this situation, it will have to be made clear that the sign must change to be enforceable and people/businesses will start to educate themselves and do it. before we silently ignored the signs and that was the end of it. now it'll be forcibly front/center if/when this happens.

[TVegas]

It's been discussed several times on the forum, but I believe that we are absolutely going to see more signs going up over the next year or two. As businesses experience open carry they will either not care or they will, and if they do then they are likely to discover the laws of both open and concealed carry. As a result, signs will be posted to at least some degree. Hopefully the signs are just for open carry and are posted at a minimum.

My two cents.

[thetexan]

I believe the accompanying wording is telling..."state law prohibits the carrying a handgun on these premises".

We all know this is not true. There is not state law as general as that. There is a state law that prohibits guns beyond the secure area but none this side of the secure area. So the sign is a poor attempt to convey a fallacious fact as is the wording.

There is no need to put a sign up for non chls since state law prohibits a gun there anyway by virtue of 46.02, 03, and .035. A non Chl would have been in violation as he left his car, as he walked across the parking lot and on the sidewalk up to the door.

In other words there would have to be signs everywhere you go stating "if you're not in you car, boat or at home, you may not be in possession of a gun".

Again, in other words, as he is standing there reading that sign a non Chl would already be in violation. Much less the premises. So I'm not so sure this is not just another ignorant try at a non compliant prohibition.

tex