TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:The purpose of http://www.texas3006.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is to provide a common resource where a CHL'er can check out a place to see if it is validly or semi-validly posted with a compliant or close-to-compliant 30.06 sign BEFORE they get surprised.

I've used it to check places before going there, and I've found it to be fairly accurate. In my experience, when something is wrong, it's noted the comments, and the main entry is updated.

Kroger in Galveston: as of 8 a.m. today, no 30.06 or "anti gun" signs of any sort, except the legally required blue signs because they sell beer and wine.

Also everyone was friendly. I've been shopping there since the week the store opened.

I don't want to come down too hard on anyone, but there is a tendency on gun forums for someone to say that so-and-so is "anti gun," and then a lot of headless-chicken activity follows. A case in point is some statement made by the late Bill Ruger Sr over 20 years ago, which gets repeated periodically, despite his being dead and buried and the Ruger company being sold several times.

- Jim

I disagree with the statement of the OP, "Fewer Places to Pack Legally."

Ever since getting my CHL, knowing the law and paying attention, I can count the number of compliant 30.06 signs that I have seen posted on one hand.

BTW: There are four Krogers the I shop that are within a few miles of my house and none are posted.

I mostly shop at Kroger and HEB.

Both have the standard Felony warning for unlicensed carry notice, sometimes known as "TABC blue".

Russell wrote:Here's one of the pics someone included in an AMC entry. I wouldn't say that this sign is "grossly invalid". I would argue that it is close enough to cause you some pain if you get an officer that isn't completely up to date on their knowledge of CHL laws: [ Image ]

Here was a sign I took. Difference is, with my finger in the picture it makes a sense of scale obvious, and the sign is nowhere close to 1" letters.

For those who don't carry around micrometers, a U.S. quarter is nearly one inch in diameter (about 0.95). The brassy-looking dollar coins that have been in circulation since 2000 are a bit larger than 1 inch.

The adult male human thumb traditionally was considered an inch wide, but obviously there is a lot of variation.

Of course, if you saw the sign, and took a photo of your fingerprint and whatever tin-foil-hat stuff your cell phone records with it ... CSI can sharpen up that photo and pinpoint your current location before the next commercial.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Of course, if you saw the sign, and took a photo of your fingerprint and whatever tin-foil-hat stuff your cell phone records with it ... CSI can sharpen up that photo and pinpoint your current location before the next commercial.

Especially if it's a Verizon device. viewtopic.php?f=94&t=60016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JKTex wrote: HA, I just went over to look around for the first time in probably 3-4 years. First one I see for my town is a bar, properly posting 51% as they are required. 2nd one is an AMC which is the same issue as every AMC, grossly invalid signage. If it's not legit, it's not legit and doesn't need anything further over-read in to it.

Here is a slightly different perspective.

While the bar that you mentioned is legally posted per the TABC, it might not have been required to do so.
- It looks like a bar when you first walk in but the actual bar area is not that much different versus the total square footage of the business than a TGI Friday's or an Outback Steak house are.
- they do serve food and on some nights, their food business is brisk. Without looking at their books, there is no way to tell except the red sign that they don't earn enough money from their food sales to give them blue sign status. I don't accept the obvious without verification because sometimes, the obvious is incorrect.

Regarding invalid signage:
- I make my own determinations where I walk past those signs or not. The specific details about a particular business allows me to assess my own personal risk in walking past the sign. For those signs that reference parts of the TPC that no longer exist, I might be more inclined to carry past than where the sign wording is complete and accurate but the letters are too small.
- in some cases, I have a choice that I can make among stores. A store that posts an invalid sign has signaled to me that they don't want my business and I'd like to know that before I drive there. I prefer to give my business to stores that acknowledge my 2nd Amendment rights like Starbucks did this year. So it isn't a matter of my treating the sign as invalid as much as it is basing my shopping preferences on my own criteria. I won't step foot in an AMC theater as long as Tinseltown exists and I don't care if they print their 30.06 sign on the back of a business card or in 3 foot tall neon letters. The website helps me make those decisions.

Total number of PC 30.06 convictions since 1997:

drumroll please....

Zero.

Total number of sleepness nights worrying about it...

We're still counting.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Total number of PC 30.06 convictions since 1997:

drumroll please....

Zero.

Total number of sleepness nights worrying about it...

We're still counting.

- Jim

Jim;
where did you source your data from?
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/re ... vrates.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I found the DPS stated CHL convection rates for 1996 http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Re ... rt1996.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
through 2011 http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Re ... rt2011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(note replace the year in the URL to get the report year group you want)

But not seeing anything the specifically states convections for TPC 30.06


Thanks

Erik

There is no data for something that never happened. It's like the number of giraffes on the moon (not to be flippant about the question).

The charge would be criminal trespass followed by some abbreviation, similar to UNL CARRY LIC HOLDER ALC PREM/CORR (also zero). It's unfortunate that the DPS summaries of conviction rates don't contain reference to penal code sections by number, but they don't.

- Jim

Haven't looked lately, but IIRC, doesn't those statistics only list felonies? If so, 30.06 would never be listed but that wouldn't mean they never happened.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

The DPS statistics seem to be mostly felonies, but there are some charges such as unlawfully carrying weapons that are not always felonies. Then again, I don't see DWI or drug possession in there. DWI is usually a class B misdemeanor. I dunno.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:There is no data for something that never happened. It's like the number of giraffes on the moon (not to be flippant about the question).

The charge would be criminal trespass followed by some abbreviation, similar to UNL CARRY LIC HOLDER ALC PREM/CORR (also zero). It's unfortunate that the DPS summaries of conviction rates don't contain reference to penal code sections by number, but they don't.

- Jim

Ok.. I get your opinion is there has never been a conviction of a CHL for violation of TPC 30.06... your post made that clear..

So let me put it another way, since you missed the intent of my question.. You stated.

seamusTX wrote:
Total number of PC 30.06 convictions since 1997:

drumroll please....

Zero.

How did you come to that opinion? Where did you look to find ZERO convection's? What data, source of information did you read , hear, take part in that caused you to form the opinion that there has not been a single convection for violation of TPC 30.06?

Erik