30.06/30.07 signs went up at work.

[RJGold]

Our HR Group was all geared up to post our offices 30.06 and 30.07 earlier this year. The CEO and CFO had given them that direction. It's already written in our employee manual that we are not allowed to bring firearms into the business.

I spoke to HR and then to the CEO and told them the signs were unnecessary as the employees had already been notified and there was no reason to make us targets by advertising to the public that we were a "gun free zone".

The signs did not go up. I guess they listened to me.

[twomillenium]

I think that there should have been no laws made for the 06-07 sings IMO

Kenneth77, if that had happened then any gunbuster sign and any size placed anywhere on the premises could result a Class A misdemeanor now a Class C for most places for CHL/LTC. Those big ugly signs are for our benefit to make sure we get properly notified.

Now it is another argument to wish that places that are open to the general public would not have the force of law for carrying past a sign rather than when someone refuses to leave when asked like most other trespass citations.

Me saying there should be laws on having the signs means that i believe that companies should not be able to exclude people from their business based on a law that says you can carry if you have the proper license now with saying that i feel like a bar is not a place to be carrying unless you plan on not drinking which i would say for most of us that is hard to do . I just think that most companies that post up sings are being lied to buy someone saying they have to put them up and i blame that on the ATF because some stores have admitted they where told by law they have to and i am not talking about the 51% either . To me this whole 06-07 thing is the same has not allowing someone in your business because of their color !!!

Rights of a private property owner should always override what some people think is their right to what they want on property that is not theirs. If you don't like the property owner's rules then don't go there. That is really simple.

[growlerVII]

Too many to quote here.......again, it's a private business. My employment is conditional upon me abiding by their rules. No biggie. I. Sure the chances of me needing a handgun there are miniscule. We don't really deal with the public, or large amounts of cash. However.......I don't want to be painted as an unarmed victim, either. Guess I'll start looking for another j.o.b.

[Soccerdad1995]

I think that there should have been no laws made for the 06-07 sings IMO

Kenneth77, if that had happened then any gunbuster sign and any size placed anywhere on the premises could result a Class A misdemeanor now a Class C for most places for CHL/LTC. Those big ugly signs are for our benefit to make sure we get properly notified.

Now it is another argument to wish that places that are open to the general public would not have the force of law for carrying past a sign rather than when someone refuses to leave when asked like most other trespass citations.

So I assume that you don't enter a store or home that has an "Aggie's only" sign for fear of being criminally prosecuted? I'm assuming that you are not an Aggie.

[Soccerdad1995]

I think that there should have been no laws made for the 06-07 sings IMO

Kenneth77, if that had happened then any gunbuster sign and any size placed anywhere on the premises could result a Class A misdemeanor now a Class C for most places for CHL/LTC. Those big ugly signs are for our benefit to make sure we get properly notified.

Now it is another argument to wish that places that are open to the general public would not have the force of law for carrying past a sign rather than when someone refuses to leave when asked like most other trespass citations.

Me saying there should be laws on having the signs means that i believe that companies should not be able to exclude people from their business based on a law that says you can carry if you have the proper license now with saying that i feel like a bar is not a place to be carrying unless you plan on not drinking which i would say for most of us that is hard to do . I just think that most companies that post up sings are being lied to buy someone saying they have to put them up and i blame that on the ATF because some stores have admitted they where told by law they have to and i am not talking about the 51% either . To me this whole 06-07 thing is the same has not allowing someone in your business because of their color !!!

Rights of a private property owner should always override what some people think is their right to what they want on property that is not theirs. If you don't like the property owner's rules then don't go there. That is really simple.

If only that's how the law worked. You're right to a wedding cake for a gay wedding trumps their property (and personal) rights, but your 2nd Amendment rights are much less important. I think it is perfectly reasonable to let a property owner decide to remove anyone they want, for any reason. You cannot get more pro property rights than that.

What I object to is the ability to place signs that make it a crime to enter the premises of a business that is open to the public if I am wearing green underwear, believe in god, have a concealed weapon, or anything else that I am not throwing in their face.

[remington79]

I just came back from a state that is more pro carry than here. The signs there have no force of law. You could and I did carry past the signs. The only sign I ever saw was at the hospital. If the owner asked you to leave you had to you would get charged with trespassing. Excluding someone for excercising their rights is wrong. It is no differant than telling customers they have to leave because they voted. That is a win win if you ask me. The city also was in violation of the state law by trying to ban carry at parades. Lots of people ignored that as did I since it was an illegal law.

[twomillenium]

I think that there should have been no laws made for the 06-07 sings IMO

Kenneth77, if that had happened then any gunbuster sign and any size placed anywhere on the premises could result a Class A misdemeanor now a Class C for most places for CHL/LTC. Those big ugly signs are for our benefit to make sure we get properly notified.

Now it is another argument to wish that places that are open to the general public would not have the force of law for carrying past a sign rather than when someone refuses to leave when asked like most other trespass citations.

Me saying there should be laws on having the signs means that i believe that companies should not be able to exclude people from their business based on a law that says you can carry if you have the proper license now with saying that i feel like a bar is not a place to be carrying unless you plan on not drinking which i would say for most of us that is hard to do . I just think that most companies that post up sings are being lied to buy someone saying they have to put them up and i blame that on the ATF because some stores have admitted they where told by law they have to and i am not talking about the 51% either . To me this whole 06-07 thing is the same has not allowing someone in your business because of their color !!!

Rights of a private property owner should always override what some people think is their right to what they want on property that is not theirs. If you don't like the property owner's rules then don't go there. That is really simple.

If only that's how the law worked. You're right to a wedding cake for a gay wedding trumps their property (and personal) rights, but your 2nd Amendment rights are much less important. I think it is perfectly reasonable to let a property owner decide to remove anyone they want, for any reason. You cannot get more pro property rights than that.

What I object to is the ability to place signs that make it a crime to enter the premises of a business that is open to the public if I am wearing green underwear, believe in god, have a concealed weapon, or anything else that I am not throwing in their face.

Don't pull down your pants to show your green underwear, you may have more problems than company policy.

[ScottDLS]

I think that there should have been no laws made for the 06-07 sings IMO

Kenneth77, if that had happened then any gunbuster sign and any size placed anywhere on the premises could result a Class A misdemeanor now a Class C for most places for CHL/LTC. Those big ugly signs are for our benefit to make sure we get properly notified.

Now it is another argument to wish that places that are open to the general public would not have the force of law for carrying past a sign rather than when someone refuses to leave when asked like most other trespass citations.

Me saying there should be laws on having the signs means that i believe that companies should not be able to exclude people from their business based on a law that says you can carry if you have the proper license now with saying that i feel like a bar is not a place to be carrying unless you plan on not drinking which i would say for most of us that is hard to do . I just think that most companies that post up sings are being lied to buy someone saying they have to put them up and i blame that on the ATF because some stores have admitted they where told by law they have to and i am not talking about the 51% either . To me this whole 06-07 thing is the same has not allowing someone in your business because of their color !!!

Rights of a private property owner should always override what some people think is their right to what they want on property that is not theirs. If you don't like the property owner's rules then don't go there. That is really simple.

If only that's how the law worked. You're right to a wedding cake for a gay wedding trumps their property (and personal) rights, but your 2nd Amendment rights are much less important. I think it is perfectly reasonable to let a property owner decide to remove anyone they want, for any reason. You cannot get more pro property rights than that.

What I object to is the ability to place signs that make it a crime to enter the premises of a business that is open to the public if I am wearing green underwear, believe in god, have a concealed weapon, or anything else that I am not throwing in their face.

Property owners who open their property to you have no moral right to the criminal power of the state to enforce their private prejudices. Otherwise, it would be just for the No Aggies sign to have the force of criminal law.

[Soccerdad1995]

I just came back from a state that is more pro carry than here. The signs there have no force of law. You could and I did carry past the signs. The only sign I ever saw was at the hospital. If the owner asked you to leave you had to you would get charged with trespassing. Excluding someone for excercising their rights is wrong. It is no differant than telling customers they have to leave because they voted. That is a win win if you ask me. The city also was in violation of the state law by trying to ban carry at parades. Lots of people ignored that as did I since it was an illegal law.

That sounds like a state that actually has common sense gun laws. I like the analogy to excluding someone because they have voted.

I should post a "no registered democrats" sign in my house and then call the cops to arrest people for trespassing when they tell me they are democrats. I wonder how quickly the police will respond???

[remington79]

I just came back from a state that is more pro carry than here. The signs there have no force of law. You could and I did carry past the signs. The only sign I ever saw was at the hospital. If the owner asked you to leave you had to you would get charged with trespassing. Excluding someone for excercising their rights is wrong. It is no differant than telling customers they have to leave because they voted. That is a win win if you ask me. The city also was in violation of the state law by trying to ban carry at parades. Lots of people ignored that as did I since it was an illegal law.

That sounds like a state that actually has common sense gun laws. I like the analogy to excluding someone because they have voted.

I should post a "no registered democrats" sign in my house and then call the cops to arrest people for trespassing when they tell me they are democrats. I wonder how quickly the police will respond???

That is in Idaho. I lived down here for about 7 years and moved to Idaho for about 7 years. We just moved back here about 2 years ago. Idaho is much more carry friendly than it is here. For your basic (up there Concealed Weapons Permit) its around $50 and all you have to do is show proof of some sort of class. Hunter's Ed counts. From what I gathered the Enhanced Permit is the same but its about $100 for that class. The Enhanced allows you to carry on college campus and to carry in states that don't recognize the basic permit. Up there you can carry everywhere except schools and courthouses. Since I early voted up there it was in a county building so I was able to carry while voting. You can carry in bars up there and the only disqualifying misdemeanors have to deal with domestic battery. They don't have different classes of felonies and misdemeanors. The form is also shorter. It is a one page yes or no while down here it's multipage wanting information from the last 10 years of your life. The cost down here is a poll tax for me as it is keeping me from getting my LTC. If it was no more than $50 I would get it for the next year.

Now they passed Constitutional carry though you can still get the permits if you desire. We're moving next year so I haven't bothered to get my Texas LTC. We were going to move this year but it didn't work out. Because of how expensive the classes are here and how expensive the LTC is I'm not going to bother getting it down here. Unfortunately this means I haven't been able to carry for a couple of years now. Down here the LTC is through the state while up there it is through the county sheriff.


Added text: The city I referenced knows the ordinance is illegal. I don't remember if they removed it or not yet but they don't enforce it. It is said the ordinance was passed because of problems with the Aryan Nations when they were there. In fact a few years ago there was a case where a CWP holder helped save a lady who was being threatened at knife point. The police department gave the citizen a commendation.

[Kenneth77]

I will say it once again ......If a business is open to the public then that to me voids the business from deciding what the public go or do within the law !
I will say as being in a family business i would not feel it is my right to tell someone they cant do what is legal .
Everyone get all bent out of shape when there is a law proposed to not let people on the no fly list be able to get a gun because that is against the 2nd adm but know one seems to care as much about something that to me is more important and is just as much against the 2nd as anything!

[twomillenium]

I think that there should have been no laws made for the 06-07 sings IMO

Kenneth77, if that had happened then any gunbuster sign and any size placed anywhere on the premises could result a Class A misdemeanor now a Class C for most places for CHL/LTC. Those big ugly signs are for our benefit to make sure we get properly notified.

Now it is another argument to wish that places that are open to the general public would not have the force of law for carrying past a sign rather than when someone refuses to leave when asked like most other trespass citations.

Me saying there should be laws on having the signs means that i believe that companies should not be able to exclude people from their business based on a law that says you can carry if you have the proper license now with saying that i feel like a bar is not a place to be carrying unless you plan on not drinking which i would say for most of us that is hard to do . I just think that most companies that post up sings are being lied to buy someone saying they have to put them up and i blame that on the ATF because some stores have admitted they where told by law they have to and i am not talking about the 51% either . To me this whole 06-07 thing is the same has not allowing someone in your business because of their color !!!

Rights of a private property owner should always override what some people think is their right to what they want on property that is not theirs. If you don't like the property owner's rules then don't go there. That is really simple.

If only that's how the law worked. You're right to a wedding cake for a gay wedding trumps their property (and personal) rights, but your 2nd Amendment rights are much less important. I think it is perfectly reasonable to let a property owner decide to remove anyone they want, for any reason. You cannot get more pro property rights than that.

What I object to is the ability to place signs that make it a crime to enter the premises of a business that is open to the public if I am wearing green underwear, believe in god, have a concealed weapon, or anything else that I am not throwing in their face.

Property owners who open their property to you have no moral right to the criminal power of the state to enforce their private prejudices. Otherwise, it would be just for the No Aggies sign to have the force of criminal law.

Property owners have every right within the law to run their business as they wish. You have every right not to participate. That is the way it is and the way it should be.

[Soccerdad1995]

Or you could just carry anyway and take your chances.

It is a bigger chance than you think. Remember that if you are breaking any law except for minor traffic violations and you have to [justifiably] use your gun, you lose the presumption of reasonableness should the DA want to prosecute. That means you just greatly increased your chances of jail time. And carrying past a valid sign is not a minor traffic violation.

This is a red herring. If you carry past a valid sign (class C misdemeanor) you lose your automatic PRESUMPTION of justification under PC 9.31/32. Believe me if you shoot someone and the DA wants to get you...you better make sure you can justify the shoot, presumption or not. It's pretty clear the law was intended make it harder for a criminal to say that he was acting in self defense while committing another crime (like burglary). Yes the class C 30.06 violation costs you your presumption, but it would be kind of hard for the prosecution to argue that the violation was material to your (lack of) justification. I'm really hoping I never shoot anyone, but if I'm watering my lawn on the wrong day (class C) and a bad guy runs into my yard at me with a knife, I'm not going to stop and turn off the water before I draw on him...

I'll also point out that when making decisions it is helpful to consider the impact of all alternatives. So I see a questionable sign and for some reason decide that I can't just avoid the place. My choices are to carry, or to go unarmed. In the unlikely event that I need to use my weapon for self defense, I may possibly face some criminal charges in court. If I make the other decision and go in unarmed, I am dead. Without even considering that the criminal charge scenario is far fetched at best, I already know that the option which leads to my death is the worst choice here.

[Soccerdad1995]

I think that there should have been no laws made for the 06-07 sings IMO

Kenneth77, if that had happened then any gunbuster sign and any size placed anywhere on the premises could result a Class A misdemeanor now a Class C for most places for CHL/LTC. Those big ugly signs are for our benefit to make sure we get properly notified.

Now it is another argument to wish that places that are open to the general public would not have the force of law for carrying past a sign rather than when someone refuses to leave when asked like most other trespass citations.

Me saying there should be laws on having the signs means that i believe that companies should not be able to exclude people from their business based on a law that says you can carry if you have the proper license now with saying that i feel like a bar is not a place to be carrying unless you plan on not drinking which i would say for most of us that is hard to do . I just think that most companies that post up sings are being lied to buy someone saying they have to put them up and i blame that on the ATF because some stores have admitted they where told by law they have to and i am not talking about the 51% either . To me this whole 06-07 thing is the same has not allowing someone in your business because of their color !!!

Rights of a private property owner should always override what some people think is their right to what they want on property that is not theirs. If you don't like the property owner's rules then don't go there. That is really simple.

If only that's how the law worked. You're right to a wedding cake for a gay wedding trumps their property (and personal) rights, but your 2nd Amendment rights are much less important. I think it is perfectly reasonable to let a property owner decide to remove anyone they want, for any reason. You cannot get more pro property rights than that.

What I object to is the ability to place signs that make it a crime to enter the premises of a business that is open to the public if I am wearing green underwear, believe in god, have a concealed weapon, or anything else that I am not throwing in their face.

Property owners who open their property to you have no moral right to the criminal power of the state to enforce their private prejudices. Otherwise, it would be just for the No Aggies sign to have the force of criminal law.

Property owners have every right within the law to run their business as they wish. You have every right not to participate. That is the way it is and the way it should be.

No they don't. A business owner cannot exclude someone based on their race. Or their sex. Or their sexual orientation, or a number of other things. A business owner cannot make improvements that impact wetlands. There are a whole host of things that a business owner cannot do. And they definitely do not have "every right within the law to run their business as they wish". You may want this to be the case, but it simply isn't.

[warnmar10]

No they don't. A business owner cannot exclude someone based on their race. Or their sex. Or their sexual orientation, or a number of other things. A business owner cannot make improvements that impact wetlands. There are a whole host of things that a business owner cannot do. And they definitely do not have "every right within the law to run their business as they wish". You may want this to be the case, but it simply isn't.

Yes.