Anyone Seen a 3005 Sign?

[Tex1961]

Not super relevant to the conversation but went to Norma’s Cafe in Frisco for breakfast. There was a 30.07 on a 8.5x11 piece of paper in the window. I just rolled my eyes and went in. I’m sure as heck not going to say anything to them.

I was concealed if your wondering

[srothstein]

My local HEB put up a 30.05 sign. Disappointed.

Interesting that some of the signs include the language that 30.05 does not apply to licensed carry
and some signs do not contain that language.
I just glanced at the sign quickly as I exited the store but I believe the HEB 30.05 sign has the clarifying
language that it does not apply to licensed holders.
Next time I shop there I will take a picture of it with my cell phone.

I was at the Alon H.E.B. in San Antonio today. I can verify that the signs do match the wording of the law with the exception that it addition of the clarification that it doesn't apply to license holders. I took it as meeting the "or substantially similar" clause of the law.

[03Lightningrocks]

I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

Sounds like you are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment. It seems you believe it is some right that has to be earned rather than a god given right to self defense.

[cyphertext]

I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

Sounds like you are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment. It seems you believe it is some right that has to be earned rather than a god given right to self defense.

Not sure how you got that because I believe in private property rights...

[ScottDLS]

I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

Sounds like you are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment. It seems you believe it is some right that has to be earned rather than a god given right to self defense.

Not sure how you got that because I believe in private property rights...

The inconsistency I see is the burden of property rights is OK for you if it's required (two big ugly signs) to keep out LTC, but there should be less burden to keep out the unlicensed. Why not a circle / sticker to (legally) keep out everyone carrying, licensed or otherwise.

[K.Mooneyham]

I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

Oh, I want to see "Big Ugly Signs", IF the business owner wants to tell me, under the law, that they don't want me to come into their establishment while I am carrying a firearm. IF I see the proper "Big Ugly Sign", then I will follow the law and not enter their establishment. I don't want some tiny little "gunbuster" sign, that I might miss, up on a door, then have law enforcement called on me. Those "Big Ugly Signs" exist for both sides of this. The property owner tells me to stay out while carrying, and I comply. And law enforcement can then concentrate on more important things, like catching actual violent criminals.

[chasfm11]

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

I much prefer the Texas system to that of other States. NM, in particular, has tiny signs and they may or may not prohibit open or concealed carry. The businesses are in the habit of posting all many of other signs and flyers and without a consistent format to look at, it is harder to find them - and the penalties for not finding them are more severe than Texas. I, personally, want all the help that I can get in determining what actions to take.

In that regard, many businesses are already stretching the "big ugly" signs into places and formats that make it harder. It is easy to miss one of the light white on clear glass signs that many of the medical establishments use - except that I already am nearly guaranteed that there will be such a sign on an medically related building.

It feels like some believe that the signs are either punishments for the business for prohibiting some manner of carry or punishments for those who might elect to carry, especially without a license. While I have no intention of getting rid of my LTC, I'm thrilled that we have Constitutional Carry. It is a help to me to see the businesses that don't like the law because I will do my best not to give them my business. We are supposed to be getting a HEB in my area and everyone is very happy. I'm not. While I'm not happy about the public statements made by the other grocery chains, I haven't seen a 30.05 sign at any of the. And that was one of my reasons for starting this thread - to see if any of those places were going to follow up the rhetoric with actions/signs. I'm much happier to see that only HEB is doing it.

[texasag93]

I am in Denton and travel all over the metro mess.

I am seeing the 30.05 signs all over.

I think they are like the 30.06 signs from years ago. They will start falling off when the tape dries out and will not be replaced by most businesses.

[cyphertext]

I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

Sounds like you are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment. It seems you believe it is some right that has to be earned rather than a god given right to self defense.

Not sure how you got that because I believe in private property rights...

The inconsistency I see is the burden of property rights is OK for you if it's required (two big ugly signs) to keep out LTC, but there should be less burden to keep out the unlicensed. Why not a circle / sticker to (legally) keep out everyone carrying, licensed or otherwise.

Because, as I already stated, many who will carry unlicensed are not going to bother reading laws. They heard on the news that they can now carry without a license, so signage should be clear in a way that is easy to understand, not legalese. If it is now easy for someone to carry unlicensed, then why should it be difficult for a business to bar it? If you lessen the requirements on one side of the equation, why not lessen the requirements on the other? If you have jumped through the hoops to obtain the LTC, then you at least have a basic understanding of Texas law that those without a license have not demonstrated. Consider it a perk of maintaining a LTC, such as reciprocity, bypassing NICS, campus carry, etc.

I've already spent much more energy on this than I really care about. In my area, I doubt it will be that big of a deal unless you carry openly and I rarely see anyone openly carrying.

[cyphertext]

I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

Oh, I want to see "Big Ugly Signs", IF the business owner wants to tell me, under the law, that they don't want me to come into their establishment while I am carrying a firearm. IF I see the proper "Big Ugly Sign", then I will follow the law and not enter their establishment. I don't want some tiny little "gunbuster" sign, that I might miss, up on a door, then have law enforcement called on me. Those "Big Ugly Signs" exist for both sides of this. The property owner tells me to stay out while carrying, and I comply. And law enforcement can then concentrate on more important things, like catching actual violent criminals.

So do you not have a LTC? Do you open carry? I'm not suggesting that anything should change for LTC.

[ScottDLS]

The inconsistency I see is the burden of property rights is OK for you if it's required (two big ugly signs) to keep out LTC, but there should be less burden to keep out the unlicensed. Why not a circle / sticker to (legally) keep out everyone carrying, licensed or otherwise.

Because, as I already stated, many who will carry unlicensed are not going to bother reading laws. They heard on the news that they can now carry without a license, so signage should be clear in a way that is easy to understand, not legalese. If it is now easy for someone to carry unlicensed, then why should it be difficult for a business to bar it? If you lessen the requirements on one side of the equation, why not lessen the requirements on the other? If you have jumped through the hoops to obtain the LTC, then you at least have a basic understanding of Texas law that those without a license have not demonstrated. Consider it a perk of maintaining a LTC, such as reciprocity, bypassing NICS, campus carry, etc.

I've already spent much more energy on this than I really care about. In my area, I doubt it will be that big of a deal unless you carry openly and I rarely see anyone openly carrying.

My point is it shouldn't be "easy" to use a sign to invoke the police power of the State to enforce your (a business's) personal preferences on behavior that is not even readily identifiable (carrying concealed). Actually, I don't think any signs should do this for carry, as they don't for other things, without requiring an oral request to depart. That is assuming the location is normally open to the public. I don't believe permitless carry should be subject to additional burdens at all.

[cyphertext]

The inconsistency I see is the burden of property rights is OK for you if it's required (two big ugly signs) to keep out LTC, but there should be less burden to keep out the unlicensed. Why not a circle / sticker to (legally) keep out everyone carrying, licensed or otherwise.

Because, as I already stated, many who will carry unlicensed are not going to bother reading laws. They heard on the news that they can now carry without a license, so signage should be clear in a way that is easy to understand, not legalese. If it is now easy for someone to carry unlicensed, then why should it be difficult for a business to bar it? If you lessen the requirements on one side of the equation, why not lessen the requirements on the other? If you have jumped through the hoops to obtain the LTC, then you at least have a basic understanding of Texas law that those without a license have not demonstrated. Consider it a perk of maintaining a LTC, such as reciprocity, bypassing NICS, campus carry, etc.

I've already spent much more energy on this than I really care about. In my area, I doubt it will be that big of a deal unless you carry openly and I rarely see anyone openly carrying.

My point is it shouldn't be "easy" to use a sign to invoke the police power of the State to enforce your (a business's) personal preferences on behavior that is not even readily identifiable (carrying concealed). Actually, I don't think any signs should do this for carry, as they don't for other things, without requiring an oral request to depart. That is assuming the location is normally open to the public. I don't believe permitless carry should be subject to additional burdens at all.

I stated in an earlier post that I would be fine with none of the signs carrying the weight of law.

[K.Mooneyham]

I would like to ask, are you a business owner who plans on using "gunbuster" signs?

Nope, just think that for unlicensed carry with no training requirements to cover all of the legalese, the best approach would be the simplest solution using something that everyone can understand.

And I don't want to see yet another big ugly sign that I am going to have to look at to see if it applies to me as a LTC holder. Like I said in the response to Scott... with 30.06, things were simple, one big ugly sign to look out for and I knew I couldn't carry. Throw in 30.07, not too bad, but now I have to actually look at the sign to see if it applies to me, as they appear very similar at a glance. Now add yet another sign with 1" lettering, in both English and Spanish.

Oh, I want to see "Big Ugly Signs", IF the business owner wants to tell me, under the law, that they don't want me to come into their establishment while I am carrying a firearm. IF I see the proper "Big Ugly Sign", then I will follow the law and not enter their establishment. I don't want some tiny little "gunbuster" sign, that I might miss, up on a door, then have law enforcement called on me. Those "Big Ugly Signs" exist for both sides of this. The property owner tells me to stay out while carrying, and I comply. And law enforcement can then concentrate on more important things, like catching actual violent criminals.

So do you not have a LTC? Do you open carry? I'm not suggesting that anything should change for LTC.

Of course I have an LTC, I've been a member of this forum since not long after I got mine, some years ago. However, it is now legal for those without an LTC to carry. So, businesses should have to comply with the law if they want to keep non-LTCers out, same as if they would want to keep those of us with LTCs out. Also, once you let something like a generic "gunbuster" sign become a norm, well then, some people will want that to carry force of law...and that's NOT a slope we want to slide down. The "big ugly signs" allow property owners to retain their rights, and those same signs function to keep those carrying out of trouble (as long as the signs are heeded).

[cyphertext]

The "big ugly signs" allow property owners to retain their rights, and those same signs function to keep those carrying out of trouble (as long as the signs are heeded).

So I guess this is where we disagree... I look at this very simply. Again, I know what the law states, this is just my opinion...

LTC (legal hoops to carry) = 30.06 /30.07 sign required(legal hoops to deny) The equation is balanced. Both sides are complying with extra measures imposed by regulation. You took a state required class to understand all the signs and what they mean, and businesses post those legal signs that you were taught to look for.

Unlicensed carry (no legal hoops) = 30.05 sign required (legal hoops to deny) This is not balanced. Unlicensed carriers don't take training and may not even know to look for signs barring their entry. So something prominently posted, in plain everyday language makes more sense to me. Something that someone would know what is meant by it by just seeing it, not stopping to read in detail. The circle slash gun buster sign is clear... people have understood pictographs since the dawn of time (think cave drawings). No English and Spanish needed.

One only has to visit OCT Facebook page to see that many gunowners in general do not understand the laws. And new carriers are turning to groups like that for information, not the actual law. People over there are arguing that the signs at HEB are not legal because they are not "contrasting colors" and hard to see... yet they were easy enough to see to argue about, as well as take pictures. Even with proper signage, folks are looking for a loophole.

[Flightmare]

The "big ugly signs" allow property owners to retain their rights, and those same signs function to keep those carrying out of trouble (as long as the signs are heeded).

So I guess this is where we disagree... I look at this very simply. Again, I know what the law states, this is just my opinion...

LTC (legal hoops to carry) = 30.06 /30.07 sign required(legal hoops to deny) The equation is balanced. Both sides are complying with extra measures imposed by regulation. You took a state required class to understand all the signs and what they mean, and businesses post those legal signs that you were taught to look for.

Unlicensed carry (no legal hoops) = 30.05 sign required (legal hoops to deny) This is not balanced. Unlicensed carriers don't take training and may not even know to look for signs barring their entry. So something prominently posted, in plain everyday language makes more sense to me. Something that someone would know what is meant by it by just seeing it, not stopping to read in detail. The circle slash gun buster sign is clear... people have understood pictographs since the dawn of time (think cave drawings). No English and Spanish needed.

One only has to visit OCT Facebook page to see that many gunowners in general do not understand the laws. And new carriers are turning to groups like that for information, not the actual law. People over there are arguing that the signs at HEB are not legal because they are not "contrasting colors" and hard to see... yet they were easy enough to see to argue about, as well as take pictures. Even with proper signage, folks are looking for a loophole.

One counter to your argument about the gun buster signs is the statutorily stated 30.05 signs actually indicate the specific section of the penal code that outlines the trespass law regarding unlicensed carry. People from other states may see a gun-buster sign and interpret that to mean how it does in their own state. In many states, it has no force of law. In some, it does. It would potentially also cause confusion when an uninformed and unlicensed individual sees a licensed individual carry past a sign, not knowing that the person had a license and the gun-buster only applied to unlicensed as opposed to ALL carry. By having the appropriate PC reference and language that specifically states "unlicensed" carry, as opposed to an arguably ambiguous gunbuster pictograph, it makes it easier to understand specifically what is being asked of patrons entering.

While I do not agree with a business' decision to post compliant signage, I appreciate being able to see that from a distance. If the location is a place I need to go, the last thing I want is to have to turn around and store my firearm in my vehicle. Criminals are often looking for opportunities to get their hands on weapons. A person walking up to a building, only to turn around to their vehicle and put something inside makes it fairly obvious what was being stored there.