TexasCHLforum.com

And some people just have to show off how smart they are.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

txbirddog wrote:We are proud of our CHL's and the efforts we have had to go through. I would assume that we all know the rules and regulations of our statutes and what it is required to stay compliant. We know the differences between who has a legal 30.06 and 51%, whether we can consume while carrying, at rest areas, churches, hospitals et. al.

What I am confused about is if some business is NOT posted correctly with either 30.06 or 51%,,,,,why do many feel the need to bring to the owner's attention that they are doing it wrong???? Do you want them to post it CORRECTLY so you can no longer carry there???

Not trying to be a smart alec, but just curious......

Mark Twain was known for having said, "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." ....or words to that effect. Unfortunately, that is how some gun owners are. They are so insulted at even a hint of bias against their carrying a weapon into a place of business, that they can't help shooting their mouths off to educate the offender about what they're doing wrong (and by implication, what it will take to do it right). In their zeal to prove the shop owner a moron, they ruin it for all CHLs who come after them. Now who's the moron?

Yep-I agree with you. Some folks like to have the power to make decisions for all of us. The difference is, our opinion on the matter doesn't affect everyone else.

They just need to change the law so that the signs don't carry the weight of law. That way we can just carry on and only if asked by the owner do we then have to worry about a trespass charge.

remington79 wrote:They just need to change the law so that the signs don't carry the weight of law. That way we can just carry on and only if asked by the owner do we then have to worry about a trespass charge.

I agree completely. The business owner should have the right to make their desires known (with a sign, etc). They also should have the right to tell anyone to leave for any reason. An individual should only be guilty of trespass if they are first told to leave and then they refuse to do so.

I disagree with the whole notion that a business owner can post a sign effectively telling anyone with a gun to leave before they even come in. Some of these same businesses specifically invite me to come in when they send me an advertisement. Both the invitation and the sign are written messages. One tells me to come on in, and the other tells me to stay out. Why should one take precedence over the other?

Just make it simple and take out the 30.06 section altogether. A gun owner would be guilty of trespass if they refused to leave after they personally were told to leave. Same standard as for anyone else.

From hearing(?) okay, reading much of what is written here and elsewhere, the "educator" is one who assigns nefarious motives to the improper sign and wishes to illuminate the poor ignoramus. Apart from applying Hanlon's Razor, a CHL'r should do a little self assessment, "Am I psychic?" If the answer is no, or up for debate, the next step should be to acknowledge that one does not KNOW the motive or mindset behind an improper sign. It may indeed be an appeasement for the ill informed, or progressive members of our society. It may not. but whatever the motive, it matters not one wit to a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm and should not be addressed any further. Sleeping dogs and all that.

My, I am feeling verbose this morning.

Now my curiosity is up. Just this week I had to take my mother to a hospital (nothing serious) that had the old 30.06 sign. I walked right past it and sat in the waiting room. It did cross my mind, ever so briefly, to inform someone of the invalid/outdated sign. I thought better of it and kept my mouth shut. I'm a little confused and curious about the whole hospital thing. They are given special mention in the code as being off limits but only if properly posted.

From the Texas CHL FAQ:

"You may not carry handguns in hospitals or nursing homes, amusement parks, places of worship or at government meetings
if signs are posted prohibiting them.
(see Texas Penal Code § 30.06 requirements)."

Why mention hospitals separately at all if they have to post the same signs that most any other building has to?

Kadelic wrote:Why mention hospitals separately at all if they have to post the same signs that most any other building has to?

It is called politics, the great sausage grinder.

The original law listed them as a CPZ (criminal protection zone). The law was later amended to require 30.06 notification. Same as churches.