Improper sign on outside of medical facility

[jimlongley]

If that is the case, it could have gone either way and it seems for the moment we got lucky.

I would love to know your reasoning for that.

My problem is that I like to go to some of the places that are improperly posted, and more importantly I like my wife to be able to protect herself at places that are improperly posted like my Dr.'s office and Buffalo Wild Wings.

So you choose to put yourself in danger of being cuffed and stuffed, and your wife, and giving the rest of us a bad reputation for ignoring signs, just because you like to support people who don't like us?

I can certainly see how annoying it is when places are improperly posted, but in the end we'll just have less places to legally carry, and I think that you don't want that.

Quite obviously I don't agree with you, and if you had read carefully instead of just being arguementative about it, you would realize that. A business with a non-compliant 30.06 sign does not get my money, and if they put up a compliant sign, it doesn't hurt me one bit.

Please don't start a debate thread about how you believe your ideas will increase the number of places to legally carry-Trust me, if you get the ball rolling, business will start communicating with each other and the DA's office and it'll be like there is no concealed handgun law.

Do you really think they are not already communicating? What an interesting world you live in. The debate already started a long time ago, and you have been continuing it with each of your answers to me, if you really want to "all be on the same side here and keep concealed carry legal in as many places as we possibly can." then come on over to my side where it's quite possibly not legal to carry in those places anyway and work to affect real change instead of allowing the status quo to exist in the mistaken assumption that it is a good and safe thing.

[jimlongley]

One of my doctor's offices has a clearly non-compliant 30.06 posting. The office serves about 8 doctors. At the conclusion of my latest visit, I asked him if he knew what 30.06 means, and he as expected answered "No, what's that?". After a brief explanation of the law and telling him there was one on the building and that I was a CHL and was not safe in his office because of the 30.06, I gave him one of the TSRA "No guns = No money" cards. He was receptive; he agreed it was a foolish sign that no crazy/criminal person would obey; he said he would ask the office manager about why it was up and could they get it removed. I NEVER said the sign was not compliant or even hinted at it. My goal is to get it removed but not replaced with a compliant sign.

Your thoughts, comment, and slings and arrows are welcome.

I mentioned the same to a doctor that I went to, who I also knew was a shooter, and he said it was the hospital building's policy that he could do nothing about. I haven't gone back, and he knows why.

[Embalmo]

I'm unsubscribing this topic-Please folks don't don't go on a crusade to limit the places that we can legally carry because of ideology. And please remember that the law is the law until it's changed, so right now signs have to be written a certian way to make them legal-Let's not help the other side.

Embalmo

[jimlongley]

You can't hear my voice, so you're just going to have to take my word for it that I'm just wanting information here instead of a fight. Now any business can try to prosecute you for carrying past their non-compliant sign, and they can try to prosecute you for carrying past their gunbuster sign, but in the end, the law is quite unambiguous as to how the sign is to be posted. It's a black and white issue-A compliant sign means don't go in, an non-compliant sign means go in. Now when those signs become compliant due to outside influences, then it becomes illegal to enter with a concealed handgun. This is the law, not someone's opinion. I can't debate intent, or pretend laws, or how liberal business would like the law to be, that's just too much for me.

I appreciate you clarifying your position-I truly didn't understand until now.

Embalmo

The problem is that what you see as a strictly black and white issue compliant vs non-compliant, is not such. The young lady at DPS that several of us have spoken to, an attorney, says that they will prosecute if the sign is what they consider to be an honest effort at getting it right. Yes, it's the law, but it is not clear, nor is it settled case law, it's just words on paper, and subject to interpretation, interpolation, and just plain lack of inflection as you noted. You and I know what the law is, but does the cop that picks you up because some rabidly anti gun nut saw your holster when you pulled out your wallet, and does the recently elected DA who campaigned on an anti gun ticket, or the judge, or the jury of your "peers"?

NO, and that's the problem, the Sixth Floor Museum thinks it is properly posted with a little sign, with all of the correct words, about five and a half inches by eight, and they steadfastly refuse to post a compliant sign. But try to get in there carrying and the metal detector is going to go off and you WILL be denied admittance with a verbal 30.06 warning.

What you and I see as unambiguous is subject to the point of view of everyone else, and we, among ourselves, have enough trouble agreeing on the exact meaning (globally referring to the entire CHL forum) that it is little wonder if others don't understand.

We are dealing not just with unknowing LEOs (not dumb or ingnorant, just not that into CHL stuff, maybe they personally concentrate on drugs or burglary) who, as has been pointed out here, fill their report in back at the station with words from the book, not necessarily their own. We are dealing not just with elected officials, or randomly picked "peers" (and let me tell you, if I end up on trial for ANYTHING, every juror that does not have a CHL and a ham radio license is going to be excused for cause, if I have any say about it - they are NOT my peers and they won't be until they can send and receive Morse code at 20 WPM and field strip and reassemble a 1911 blindfolded.) but also corporate home offices in other states who could care less what Texas law says, and see our calls and letters as minor irritants at worst, see the various communications over the past years with the Mills Corporation.

Yes, we must cooperate to the fullest, but my opinion is that allowing improper posting to exist is just turning a blind eye to an important issue that could come back and bite us big time, and I am not likely to be swayed by someone who just happens to like Taco Bell.

[A-R]

Fascinating discussion, gents. I'm really gleaning a lot from reading this. Two different opinions, it seems. But with the same goal, IMHO, to make CHL safe and legal for all of us in as many places as possible. Just two different ideas on the best course of action to achieve this goal.

I am a firm believer that 30.06 must be followed to the letter to be legal. BUT, I too will NOT walk past a sign that almost gets it right. If they left out one or two words, or the letters are only 1/2 inch tall, or if it's in English only, I will ABIDE by the sign by not entering. My reasons for this are that "close enough" is good enough for me to 1) be extra cautious and 2) know the intent of the business owner. To elaborate on Jim's thoughts, I don't want to stand trial for illegal carry with my only defense being a typ-O or incorrect font size.

Of course, the opposite side of this is if the "sign" is easy to miss because it's too small (like the 8.5x11 sheets of paper, properly worded, that I've heard about at movie theaters), and I am somehow discovered and arrested, I (or rather my attorney) absolutely WILL insist that I did not receive effective notice because the sign was improperly formatted and therefore not legal - it wasn't legal size, therefore I didn't even see it, therefore I was not given legal notice etc., therefore no trespassing occured.

While it doesn't specifically say so, I treat the detailed description of the 30.06 sign as a "defense to prosecution" not carte blanche to ignore a sign that is close enough. That is my own personal decision, not recommending anyone heed my interpretation or give it any more value than what you paid to read it. And I think the DPS woman is WRONG to state that a passing a "close enough" sign should/would be prosecuted. My not passing one is a personal decision; she is attempting to stretch the clearly worded meaning of the law to force everyone to follow a similar interpretation.

With any 30.06 sign that is "close enough", I will also immediately cease any and all business on the premises and will notify the ownership/management of my decision and why. I won't necessarily point out any slight imperfection in their sign's formatting (I paid good money to get my license and learn the law - it's their responsibility to get equal training and follow the law). This leaves an opening for any other CHLee who wants to risk the "typ-O" defense to make his/her own choice whether to proceed.

I will walk right past gunbusters signs and "no guns" or "no weapons" signs because people who post those arent' really trying hard enough to post the legally required sign, if they intended to do so at all, so I ignore them because I cannot deduce their intent and they have not posted a legally enforcable sign.

But the OP issue of the no-longer-compliant 4413 sign is more of a gray area for me. I would likely walk past these signs as it is my understanding that they no longer hold any legal weight (IANAL, of course). My reasoning is that it could be an old sign, left up from pre-1997. If the owners/managers don't see fit to replace it with the proper sign, then how am I supposed to deduce their current intent? It's sorta like saying a black man shouldn't walk past a "no coloreds" sign because of what that sign "used to mean".

If I'm somehow outed and arrested for carrying past a 4413 sign, then I'd be willing and eager to fight that one in court. I also would not inform a business with a 4413 sign of their mistake. Again, I'll leave it up to other CHLees to make their own personal choice how to proceed if they encounter such signs. And the business that posts (or lazily leaves up) such an old sign is not paying me to offer them legal advice.

Anyway, as I said fascinating to read everyone's opinions. I welcome feedback/agreement/disagreement with my $0.02

[ScottDLS]

What nobody here seems to realize, or at least nobody states, is that this is not a one sided issue, there are crusaders on the other side too, and they write and call. I talked to a paramedic in the Allen fire department a while back and he indicated he was trying to get our hospital properly posted because he felt that guns do not belong in hospitals, and he was not about to allow me to even attempt to change his mind, "Years as a paramedic, lots of 'gun victims'" and so on, when he sees a hospital that is not posted, or has the 30.05 or 46.xxx signs, he tries to get it fixed. I have wondered if he was the reason why 30.06 first appeared at the emergency entrance, and just exactly what would transpire if I was brought in unconscious and carrying, is it me who is responsible for passing the sign, or the paramedics that actually wheeled me through?

When you go and make a big deal about a sign all you're likely to do is get the businesses thinking about how they can prohibit CHL properly. If the business posted a non-compliant sign, it's probably an indication that they don't want CHL on their property, but they didn't go to the trouble to figure out how to do it right. Since that demonstrates a lack of respect for my safety, I'm going to take advantage of their failure to properly post, and ignore their wishes. You're getting them thinking about how to properly post, just like the paramedic.

If you were wheeled past a compliant sign while unconscious, you would not have "received notice" under 30.06 and therefore would not be trespassing.

I, personally, think that we need to concentrate on legislative relief this next session. As much as I would like to see open carry so I don't have to worry about the next time the wind blows my jacket open, or I pull my wallet, or someone even just guesses correctly what that lump on my hip is, I think that our legislative climate is not ripe for it. What we can accomplish is correcting the perceived deficiencies in the 30.06 statute, making it a pure black or white issue; either you have the correct sign or you don't and if you don't it's not enforceable, and the correct sign is very large, in vibrant blue, with bright red letters that hurt your eyes. (Well leave the "hurt your eyes" part out, but you know what I mean." We have a whole thread about "Cuffed and Stuffed" plus lots of, anecdotal, evidence of confusion and abuses, that could serve as a backdrop of reasoning for making the changes.

Revisiting the 30.06 statute would be counterproductive. It would open the opportunity to tinker with a good law. It's already very clear. It defines what constitutes "notice" VERY SPECIFICALLY. And in the case of a sign, if it doesn't comply, it's not written notice. There's probably never going to be a test case, because anybody carrying past these won't get discovered, or if they do, it'll get thrown out before trial. The law has been around in its current for for 13 years, and I haven't heard of one case yet where someone was prosecuted under 30.06 for passing a non-compliant sign. Actually IIRC, there have been very few 30.06 prosecutions AT ALL.

Finally, Handog's "cuffed and stuffed case" has nothing to do with 30.06. There was no posting on the building where he carried and he was charged under 46.035 fore intentionally exposing his handgun. As it turned out, he hadn't, so the charges got thrown out. All this proves is that certain police will arrest you for things that are not a crime. I suppose some CHL holders could draw the conclusion that we shouldn't carry at all for fear of "taking the ride".

[jimlongley]

When you go and make a big deal about a sign all you're likely to do is get the businesses thinking about how they can prohibit CHL properly. If the business posted a non-compliant sign, it's probably an indication that they don't want CHL on their property, but they didn't go to the trouble to figure out how to do it right. Since that demonstrates a lack of respect for my safety, I'm going to take advantage of their failure to properly post, and ignore their wishes. You're getting them thinking about how to properly post, just like the paramedic.

I respectfully disagree, for all of the reasons I have given above. They have made it clear that they don't want me on their premises and that they don't much care if they do it right, they are going to be nasty about it if they catch me. You go ahead and be the test case if you want to, but I see the law, as long as it is subject to any interpretation, as being clear as mud.

If you were wheeled past a compliant sign while unconscious, you would not have "received notice" under 30.06 and therefore would not be trespassing.

But I have serious doubts about what would happen anyway, or how about if I am strapped in and conscious, as almost did happen to me? What do I do, tell the ambulance crew not to take me inside, or maybe ask them to slow down while I disarm?

Revisiting the 30.06 statute would be counterproductive. It would open the opportunity to tinker with a good law. It's already very clear. It defines what constitutes "notice" VERY SPECIFICALLY. And in the case of a sign, if it doesn't comply, it's not written notice. There's probably never going to be a test case, because anybody carrying past these won't get discovered, or if they do, it'll get thrown out before trial. The law has been around in its current for for 13 years, and I haven't heard of one case yet where someone was prosecuted under 30.06 for passing a non-compliant sign. Actually IIRC, there have been very few 30.06 prosecutions AT ALL.

And we have been lucky, and as stated above, as long as there is room for interpretation, it's not clear.

Finally, Handog's "cuffed and stuffed case" has nothing to do with 30.06. There was no posting on the building where he carried and he was charged under 46.035 fore intentionally exposing his handgun. As it turned out, he hadn't, so the charges got thrown out. All this proves is that certain police will arrest you for things that are not a crime. I suppose some CHL holders could draw the conclusion that we shouldn't carry at all for fear of "taking the ride".

Exactly why I used it as an example - no sign equals no foul, right? But look what did happen. Now add in a non-compliant sign, a LEO with little CHL interest, an anti gun DA, an activist liberal judge, and a jury. Just the non-compliant sign and the LEO that arrested Handog would be a quantum worse than what he suffered.

Maybe some CHL holders would jump to that illogical conclusion, but there are activists on the other side to who would be more than willing to see to it that that happened to us and you can bet that they are working up their proposed changes to the law too.

The best defense is a good offense, and a good offense includes getting the law fixed so that there is no longer any rooom for doubt, no longer any room for a DPS attorney to say "If they have a sign that is almost correct, we consider that a good faith effort and will prosecute!" and no longer any need to debate something like this into the ground saying the same things over and over that nobody appears to read.

You do what you want, I'm done.

[sawdust]

.....they are NOT my peers and they won't be until they can send and receive Morse code at 20 WPM ...

Will my my 20 "dit/dah's"-per-minute pass muster?

....and field strip and reassemble a 1911 blindfolded.....

Does this have to be done in the jury box?

Although I do have firm opinions and philosophies about Life, on this issue of to carry/not carry in the face of various signages, I am officially a waffle. I am too new to the CHL world to have an immutable stance. As in many instances, there isthe "letter of the law" and there is the "spirit of the law". Various authorities will apply one or the other in order to take the action that is in concert with their own biases and philosophies. In past times, without responsibilites to others, I would have measured the height of the 30.06 lettering to determine if I would comply or not. Today, I do have responsibilities to others whose lives would be affected by my actions. The legal basis of quibbling over a 30.06 sign that is not quite in compliance is an area that I do not want to test. The poster of the sign is demonstrating the "spirit" and enough of the "letter" of his intent - no CHL holders allowed. Having said that, it seems that walking past a "ghostbusters" sign puts me on a
firmer legal foundation, and it allows me to follow the dictates of my philosophies. As always, we are constantly making decisions about which lines we are willing to cross.

If I write anything more, I will be getting into my "5-beer" conversation mode, and there will be no stopping me.

[Keith B]

I think the bottom line here folks is we all have our various thresholds that we will/won't cross. It boils down to the fact that you can be arrested for carrying a gun even if your are fully within the legal wording of the law. I tend to agree that you need to educate the individuals about non-compliant 'close' 30.06 signs (not other non-compliant no-guns or gun buster signs.) If you do it is very possible that they may remove it completely, removing the issue. If they don't at least they will either leave it alone or make it compliant to remove all issues. Either way, if it is a reasonable facsimile of a valid 30.06 sign, they have made their intentions clear to me and I will NOT be doing business with them unless they remove it. I will bet 90% of other CHLs will not either. So, notifying them equals no foul if they put up a compliant sign, and yeah for them if they remove it!

[austin-tatious]

One of my doctor's offices has a clearly non-compliant 30.06 posting. The office serves about 8 doctors. At the conclusion of my latest visit, I asked him if he knew what 30.06 means, and he as expected answered "No, what's that?". After a brief explanation of the law and telling him there was one on the building and that I was a CHL and was not safe in his office because of the 30.06, I gave him one of the TSRA "No guns = No money" cards. He was receptive; he agreed it was a foolish sign that no crazy/criminal person would obey; he said he would ask the office manager about why it was up and could they get it removed. I NEVER said the sign was not compliant or even hinted at it. My goal is to get it removed but not replaced with a compliant sign.

Your thoughts, comment, and slings and arrows are welcome.

In a perfect world you've got an excellent idea, but in the real world whether you're pro, or anti, you're just going to decrease the number of places to legally carry. Want that?

I'm not sure you understood what I did. I did NOT tell him the sign was not compliant. I talked about it as though it were compliant. My thinking is they will either leave it as is (still NOT compliant) or, at his request, remove it.

Thanks for your response.

[JNMAR]

I think the bottom line here folks is we all have our various thresholds that we will/won't cross. It boils down to the fact that you can be arrested for carrying a gun even if your are fully within the legal wording of the law. I tend to agree that you need to educate the individuals about non-compliant 'close' 30.06 signs (not other non-compliant no-guns or gun buster signs.) If you do it is very possible that they may remove it completely, removing the issue. If they don't at least they will either leave it alone or make it compliant to remove all issues. Either way, if it is a reasonable facsimile of a valid 30.06 sign, they have made their intentions clear to me and I will NOT be doing business with them unless they remove it. I will bet 90% of other CHLs will not either. So, notifying them equals no foul if they put up a compliant sign, and yeah for them if they remove it!

Thank You Keith

[PappaGun]

And we have been lucky, and as stated above, as long as there is room for interpretation, it's not clear.

Wow. This has been a great discussion to follow.

All I can add at this pont is that there will, in the eyes of the law, always be room for interpretation.
The Constitution is a great document that was intentionaly written with room left for interpretation.

I believe this was good.

If no room for interpretation is left, the law of unintended consequense can be more harsh.

Clarity comes with time. And over time, 30.06 will be tested, debated and interpreted. It's application will become more consistent.
This is the system in place and I embrace it.

[jentruma]

It might be a legitimate sign from the hospital. You should verify the sign if it is true or there is a consent from the hospital.