"Felony" sign

[chasfm11]

Last night, I attended a banquet held in a Texas Motor Speedway building. There will be Indy car racing there Saturday and Sunday but my event was unrelated.

I thought that I took a picture of the sign but I was being reused past the entrance by an attendant and the picture apparently didn't actually take. There was a sign with a very large lettered work "Felony" which headed it and the rest of the wording was something like "to carry a firearm where alcohol is served". I figured it was intended to a replacement for the TABC sign that still appears in most places like 7-11 or Wal-Mart that sell beer and wine. I'm still puzzled by any of that is still a "thing" after Constitutional Carry. was passed.

It seems obvious to me that the owner of TMS has legal advisers who believe that the "Felony" sign keeps unlicensed carry out of the facility rather than posting a larger 30:05 sign. Under regular operation as a racing track,the professional sports would keep LTC holders from carrying there.

My event was in support of a pregnancy center. Those types of events has been opposed by political activists. While I was greeted by employees who had to find my name on a checklist before I was allowed to board the elevators, the parking lot and the long walk from there were devoid of any visible security. Being unfamiliar with how past events like this are orchestrated. I was concerned about facing a magnetometer like one would at American Airlines Center at some point. When we got to the actual floor, there was no problem but there was also no visible security anywhere. Call me paranoid but this doesn't seem like the way to carry out events like this.

So my question is: what part of this am I getting wrong? I pay no attention to the word salad signs that places like Whole Foods post in lieu of the TPC provided versions. But I'm always nervous that I find myself pushing the boundaries of legal carry where I shouldn't have had to do that.

[RoyGBiv]

Signs that can keep out CC from private businesses that are not otherwise prohibited by statute...
-- 30.05/06/07
-- TABC 51%

I don't see what force of law a "Felony, alcohol..." sign carries, unless there is also a 51% TABC Red sign.

I am not a lawyer. This is only my opinion, not legal advice.

[Tex1961]

Sounds like they tried to recreate the old TABC Blue sign in which you are correct, that sign no longer applies nor has any force of law. I'll bet 99% of all those signs are still hanging in windows across the state with about 98% of those location owners not having a clue that their not valid anymore.

[RoyGBiv]

Sounds like they tried to recreate the old TABC Blue sign in which you are correct, that sign no longer applies nor has any force of law. I'll bet 99% of all those signs are still hanging in windows across the state with about 98% of those location owners not having a clue that their not valid anymore.

I've been tempted a few times to talk to store managers about taking down those signs. Then I thought better of it and carried on. The only place I've noticed that has taken those signs down is my local Walmart Supercenter. You would think that TABC would request the signs be taken down, at least at liquor stores, right? Apparently not.

[03Lightningrocks]

Sometimes I wonder if the folks that are responsible for posting any of these signs, legal or not, really believe it is keeping guns out or if they are simply trying to cover their butts from any potential lawsuits resulting from shootings on the premises. It is just hard for me to imagine anyone being dumb enough to think any bad guy is going to decide to leave because of a sign.

[howdy]

Signs that can keep out CC from private businesses that are not otherwise prohibited by statute..."
-- 30.05/06/07
-- TABC 51%

I think by CC you mean Constitutional carry vs LTC Concealed Carry?

[chasfm11]

Sometimes I wonder if the folks that are responsible for posting any of these signs, legal or not, really believe it is keeping guns out or if they are simply trying to cover their butts from any potential lawsuits resulting from shootings on the premises. It is just hard for me to imagine anyone being dumb enough to think any bad guy is going to decide to leave because of a sign.

I have always thought that it was pure politics and had nothing to do with actual gun use. No thinking person can look at that history of CHL/LTC in Texas and belive that the people who have held that credential are a threat. It goes right along with demanding that only the police have guns and then demanding that the police be defunded.

[srothstein]

No thinking person can look at that history of CHL/LTC in Texas and belive that the people who have held that credential are a threat.

I think this is the problem we, as gun owners, have. It is also the largest difference between most conservatives and most liberals. Conservatives, generally, try to think logically and react to facts, in most topics. We don't make most of our decisions based on emotions. Liberals, generally, react based on their emotions instead of facts. They respond to individual cases instead of trying to generalize and build an argument for all.

This is why they are against guns. They had one bad incident with a gun and now are afraid of them. Or they never had a good incident with a gun because the news tells them about how dangerous they are. Life is dangerous so thinking people balance risk against reward and decide on their own what is an acceptable risk. Emotional people see a danger and try to eliminate it without considering any possible benefit to taking the risk or the harm from eliminating it.

A great example of this is how many of the general public see a news story about a mass shooting of six people and jump on the gun control bandwagon. They don't consider that more people are killed in shootings in Chicago on almost any weekend than in the one shooting. More people are killed in one major city than in all the mass shootings in the US in a year, even when you use the media listing of mass shootings. One incident and they react emotionally to "do something."

When you look at almost every major divisive issue in America today, they almost always come down to emotions versus facts. And until we find a way to change that very basic personality trait (or at least how we debate the issue), we will never again be a united people in this country.

[The Annoyed Man]

When you look at almost every major divisive issue in America today, they almost always come down to emotions versus facts. And until we find a way to change that very basic personality trait (or at least how we debate the issue), we will never again be a united people in this country.

I don’t think it is possible for the left to revert to something more rational. Most of them have gone past the point where they still possess a vestigial logic core that is capable of suppressing reactive hysteria when processing information. Therefore, any incoming data is reacted to, rather than processed…and the rest of us get to "benefit" from their neuroses because they increasingly outnumber us.

It’s my opinion that the Covid pandemic put the final nail in that coffin, and we’re never going to return to some kind of collective national sanity. That’s why some form of divorce or other is necessary if we want to avoid bloodshed on a biblical scale.

Both Matt Bracken's "Enemies" series and Kurt Schlichter’s "Kelly Turnbull" series of books, while fiction, are very plausible scenarios of what will happen when the hysterical left completely overwhelms the normies with their polluted thinking.

[Rafe]

I don’t think it is possible for the left to revert to something more rational. Most of them have gone past the point where they still possess a vestigial logic core that is capable of suppressing reactive hysteria when processing information. Therefore, any incoming data is reacted to, rather than processed…and the rest of us get to "benefit" from their neuroses because they increasingly outnumber us.

And a germinal insidiousness in that is what has become of our education system. It's been turned instead into an indoctrination system from K through graduate degree. Very few institutions buck this, what has been a slowly escalating trend since probably sometime in the '80s.

Critical thinking? Bah, never needs to be in the curricula. Teach formal logic? Have students understand the major logical fallacies? Teach them analytical skills and how to evaluate information for themselves? What a useless, anachronistic concept.

It's positively Orwellian. And now--if we assume an average generational interval of 27 years--we've had time to inculcate group-think into two different generations, going on three. That will be a very difficult clock to roll back. It's resulted in an exponential growth curve. If we were to plot pervasive "wokeness" or extreme left-leaning ideologies as mainstream, I think it would have been the inverse of a logarithmic curve: it started relatively slowly, perhaps as a reaction to the Reagan administration. But then it continued to increase rapidly...to the point now that the general public seems to be perfectly fine with what we would have considered radical notions at the turn of this century, in the George W. Bush administration and the time of 9/11. Now we're fine with Disney (of all companies) putting LGBTQ+ themes and stories in everything they touch. We hardly blinked at the hundreds of violent riots in 2020 because...BLM; you must be a racist if you thought killing people and destroying property was unacceptable.

So let's also gut and destroy the English language while we're at it. And not just pronouns, although some of us will never be able to read without stumbling again: "John opened the door and, after checking their watch, they looked outside." No, not just that, because English reflects back to old white men and toxic masculinity. We need wholesale changes. Like ones recommended last month by the British humanitarian organization Oxfam that wrote, in part, "[English is] "the language of a colonising nation" and therefore it must be cleansed "in order to decolonise our ways of working and shift power." Among the words Oxfam cautions should strictly be avoided are: "colonial," "master," "headquarters," "local," "people," "youth," "the elderly" and "seniors." Using "parent" or "parenthood" is preferable to "mother" or "father"; "expectant mothers" should be replaced with "people who become pregnant."

And a few days ago Fox News reported on Utah school district that was considering banning the Bible under new a new "sensitive materials" law.

We're heading in the wrong direction faster than ever. The faster an object is moving, the more difficult it is to stop. At the start of the '90s it was a .22 Short. Now it's a .257 Weatherby Magnum. If we don't do something, before the end of this decade it'll be a depleted-uranium penetrator rod fired from an M-1 Abrams.

[oohrah]

I think they were trying to invoke the 51% sign. Many venues hire contractors to provide cash bars and their license is always 51% because they don't sell anything but spirits. The interpretation has been that their posting their 51% sign now makes the entire venue off limits to LTCs.

Your decision to test that is up to you.

[C-dub]

I used to work for a company that insisted they had lawyers that knew better when I informed them their parking lot policy was in violation of state law. They did have some great lawyers that pertained to the business I was in, but as far as firearms and the laws in Texas they knew diddly squat. I showed them the law. I was on a first name basis with all the C*O's and was specifically talking with the COO at the time. After multiple kind attempts I just sent their policy to the TSRA and Badda-Bing-Badda-Boom a few months latter their policy magically changed. Several of my friends that I knew also had CHL's at that time, came to me to inform me of the change. I didn't tell them until a few years latter after I was gone what I did.

I think the TMS is just trying to scare people. Some will know better, but many will not and there's always the chance that the TMS folks don't know any better or have also been duped.

[RoyGBiv]

I think the TMS is just trying to scare people. Some will know better, but many will not and there's always the chance that the TMS folks don't know any better or have also been duped.

30.06 restricts carry on private PROPERTY (not PREMISES = Building).... Property would include buildings and land.
If you are not an employee... the parking lot law doesn't cover you.

I am not a lawyer... This is just my opinion.

Sec. [Previous Hit] 30.06 [Next Hit] . TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.03.

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section [Previous Hit] 30.06 [Next Hit] , Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think the TMS is just trying to scare people. Some will know better, but many will not and there's always the chance that the TMS folks don't know any better or have also been duped.

30.06 restricts carry on private PROPERTY (not PREMISES = Building).... Property would include buildings and land.
If you are not an employee... the parking lot law doesn't cover you.

I am not a lawyer... This is just my opinion.

Sec. [Previous Hit] 30.06 [Next Hit] . TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.03.

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section [Previous Hit] 30.06 [Next Hit] , Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03.

That has to be a language change. I have a distinct memory of the law using the word "premises", not to mention MANY conversations about it here on this website over the years. Are my memories incorrect?

[C-dub]

That has to be a language change. I have a distinct memory of the law using the word "premises", not to mention MANY conversations about it here on this website over the years. Are my memories incorrect?

I'm not sure about any changes in wording, but that incident of mine was back when the parking lot law was first passed in Texas. That company I worked for tried to claim that since they owned the parking lot and it had controlled access they could restrict it if they wanted from everyone. They only had and still have an arm that allows a vehicle in and another for exit and the lot is partially fenced without and guard. Anyone can just walk through the lot. Visitors have a separate lot with one entrance/exit that is not controlled in any way.

They did finally post 30.06 signs at the entrances to the building and now have 30.07, but I had left before Constitutional Carry had passed. They never posted either sign at parking lot entrances and only put notice in the employee handbook. I don't remember if it was even the correct wording to have been considered legal notice. It might be now, but I'm not sure about then.