TexasCHLforum.com

I've noticed a trend and not sure if it's just a recent trend or if I am just now noticing it. If someone, especially a legislator, doesn't 100% agree on 100% of the issues with a person, that legislator is worthless to that person and needs to be voted out of office. The same applies to laws. If a law isn't 100% effective, then it must be junk and worthless.

This is irrational and illogical rationale as there is no one or no law that is 100% in alignment with 100% of people's opinions. I have never found anyone I agree with 100% of the time on every issue. If that was my standard, I would be one miserable lonely man.

It is possible to disagree with someone on a particular issue and then strongly disagree with them on another without hate taking over. I'm thankful for the Fine for Signs law and the removed signs it is responsible for removing. Kendall County responded and brought their signage in compliance based on the law and AG's opinions without me having to file a formal complaint.

mojo84 wrote:I've noticed a trend and not sure if it's just a recent trend or if I am just now noticing it. If someone, especially a legislator, doesn't 100% agree on 100% of the issues with a person, that legislator is worthless to that person and needs to be voted out of office. The same applies to laws. If a law isn't 100% effective, then it must be junk and worthless.

This is irrational and illogical rationale as there is no one or no law that is 100% in alignment with 100% of people's opinions. I have never found anyone I agree with 100% of the time on every issue. If that was my standard, I would be one miserable lonely man.

It is possible to disagree with someone on a particular issue and then strongly disagree with them on another without hate taking over. I'm thankful for the Fine for Signs law and the removed signs it is responsible for removing. Kendall County responded and brought their signage in compliance based on the law and AG's opinions without me having to file a formal complaint.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I've noticed a trend and not sure if it's just a recent trend or if I am just now noticing it. If someone, especially a legislator, doesn't 100% agree on 100% of the issues with a person, that legislator is worthless to that person and needs to be voted out of office. The same applies to laws. If a law isn't 100% effective, then it must be junk and worthless.

This is irrational and illogical rationale as there is no one or no law that is 100% in alignment with 100% of people's opinions. I have never found anyone I agree with 100% of the time on every issue. If that was my standard, I would be one miserable lonely man.

It is possible to disagree with someone on a particular issue and then strongly disagree with them on another without hate taking over. I'm thankful for the Fine for Signs law and the removed signs it is responsible for removing. Kendall County responded and brought their signage in compliance based on the law and AG's opinions without me having to file a formal complaint.

Houston Zoo still posted, hence why I refuse to go there.

Cities (or private entities renting the space) still posting 30.06 and 30.07 on public property (Pride parade, Houston Livestock Show, ACL, a bunch of Zoos, come to mind) or denying entry to the property, even on public streets, by police.

Need more teeth, and hold officials, not their political subdivisions, responsible. And some timely response, 13 months later...

locke_n_load wrote:Houston Zoo still posted, hence why I refuse to go there.

Cities (or private entities renting the space) still posting 30.06 and 30.07 on public property (Pride parade, Houston Livestock Show, ACL, a bunch of Zoos, come to mind) or denying entry to the property, even on public streets, by police.

Need more teeth, and hold officials, not their political subdivisions, responsible. And some timely response, 13 months later...

Went to ACL this year and didn't see a legal 30.06 or 30.07 sign at the entrance. I know their website says guns are restricted but I think that's as far as they went.

I know that Charles and others are working hard on our behalf in this and many other areas, and I for one am extremely grateful for everything they are doing.

I am also very frustrated that our elected government officials, and unelected government employees that we are paying, are able to flaunt the law with no recourse whatsoever. I think this injustice is what irritates me the most.

I would love to see 30.06/30.07 signs issued for designated addresses only, clearly stating the name and address of the business, and including verbiage that it is not valid for any government owned property, and that anyone posting such a sign, or allowing it to remain posted, in such a location faces personal criminal penalties for doing so. Something like the following added to current wording:

"This restriction applies only to XYZ restaurant, located at 1212 Main Street, Anytown Texas. This sign shall have no effect at any other location, or for any other business that might be located at this address. If this property is owned by a governmental entity, this sign shall have no effect, and it is also a Class A misdemeanor for anyone in control of this property to display this sign, or allow it to remain displayed."


Yes, this makes signs even larger and more difficult to get. If people have an issue with that, they can thank the criminal government officials who have done everything possible to flout current law.

If we can't get all restrictions removed from every governmental location (including court rooms, etc), then issue those locations a different sign.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I know that Charles and others are working hard on our behalf in this and many other areas, and I for one am extremely grateful for everything they are doing.

I am also very frustrated that our elected government officials, and unelected government employees that we are paying, are able to flaunt the law with no recourse whatsoever. I think this injustice is what irritates me the most.

I would love to see 30.06/30.07 signs issued for designated addresses only, clearly stating the name and address of the business, and including verbiage that it is not valid for any government owned property, and that anyone posting such a sign, or allowing it to remain posted, in such a location faces personal criminal penalties for doing so. Something like the following added to current wording:

"This restriction applies only to XYZ restaurant, located at 1212 Main Street, Anytown Texas. This sign shall have no effect at any other location, or for any other business that might be located at this address. If this property is owned by a governmental entity, this sign shall have no effect, and it is also a Class A misdemeanor for anyone in control of this property to display this sign, or allow it to remain displayed."


Yes, this makes signs even larger and more difficult to get. If people have an issue with that, they can thank the criminal government officials who have done everything possible to flout current law.

If we can't get all restrictions removed from every governmental location (including court rooms, etc), then issue those locations a different sign.

I think that it is a great idea to have the required language include the statement about governmental agencies.

BUMP
------
Rather than starting a new topic, I'm bumping my original posted 6 months ago. I still contend that GC 411.209 has had little practical effect. I stand by my original points.

I will also say that other than complaining about it here, voting, and writing a couple of letters to legislators, and one city attorney, I haven't done anything. I am a citizen not a legislator.

ScottDLS wrote:Rather than starting a new topic, I'm bumping my original posted 6 months ago. I still contend that GC 411.209 has had little practical effect. I stand by my original points.

I disagree slightly. I think the law had little or no beneficial impact. However it's hard to dispute the negative impact. I see more government owned property posted and enforced by armed thugs than before.

I was also disgusted by the testimony this session that denied the clear trend of government organizations conspiring with non-governmental organizations to post property that the government can't. If a private citizen rents property to someone else, can the renter ignore deed restrictions, zoning laws, etc.

I'm seeing this ALL THE TIME now in my area. Government owned LAND, and often BUILDING, paid for by taxpayers, but leased by a "private" entity posted, claiming it is OWNED BY THE LESSOR. While clearly illegal by the statute, unless you want to be the first one to pay the huge legal fees to challenge it, we're ALL screwed. Just another example of the way that government works its wonderful expansion and repression.

At the end of the day, as anyone involved in any type of business (politics doesn't count, as the rules of logic don't apply and they don't pay the bills for their actions), the only thing that matters is the end result of any particular action or policy. Not good intentions, not nice tries, not hope that things will change. RESULTS! By that standard, the statute has been a colossal failure. As always, in your particular area, your mileage may vary, but I highly doubt it, as I only continue to see more restrictions posted in more taxpayer funded buildings.....

I agree with ScottDLS in his original post, "After over a year of GC 411.209 "fines for signs" it looks like it's effectively been useless." I am not going to the FTW gun show this weekend because of the past history of them posting 30.06 and their other ridiculous requirements on LTC holders.

Has anyone been asked to leave an event at at a public building that is posted 30.06/30.07 by a private lessor of the facility because it was discovered they were an LTC holder and CC past their signs? If so, how was the situation handled, by event staff asking person to leave, LE involvement or...? I'm asking because I haven't read about any such incident and am curious to see if it has happened and how it was handled. There has been lots of discussion and speculation on this forum about "what if" but no info on actual incidents.

tk1700 wrote:I agree with ScottDLS in his original post, "After over a year of GC 411.209 "fines for signs" it looks like it's effectively been useless." I am not going to the FTW gun show this weekend because of the past history of them posting 30.06 and their other ridiculous requirements on LTC holders.

Has anyone been asked to leave an event at at a public building that is posted 30.06/30.07 by a private lessor of the facility because it was discovered they were an LTC holder and CC past their signs? If so, how was the situation handled, by event staff asking person to leave, LE involvement or...? I'm asking because I haven't read about any such incident and am curious to see if it has happened and how it was handled. There has been lots of discussion and speculation on this forum about "what if" but no info on actual incidents.

I haven't been asked to leave, but I was denied entry to Texas Stadium to a non-scholastic, non-professional, event by private security. I complained to the City of Arlington and received a letter from the city attorney saying that it was controlled by Dallas Cowboys. Interestingly this was before KP-108, but that opinion came out a month or so later. However, I didn't complain to the AG, so I can't take blame for KP-108.

Why does the Attorney General have to be involved in the first place? All this writing letters to the AG, waiting months and months for a reply, etc. is ridiculous. Seems like you should be able to simply report the offense to the appropriate law enforcement agency, and a fine is issued, period.

Ruark wrote:Why does the Attorney General have to be involved in the first place? All this writing letters to the AG, waiting months and months for a reply, etc. is ridiculous. Seems like you should be able to simply report the offense to the appropriate law enforcement agency, and a fine is issued, period.

There's simply not enough red tape in your solution.

We all know of many incidents where public property was posted. Does anyone know of one single fine that was levied? Just one?