TexasCHLforum.com

I'm definitely in favor of signs being larger than they currently are, and for signs being on doors, unobstructed by any other items/displays. I've nearly missed signs because there's some sort of an outdoor endcap, and the sign isn't on the entrance to the building. Ideally, these should be required on all entryways.

Russell wrote:Because if a sign is going to have an instant criminal penalty attached to it, forcing Joe Schmoe to have to look even harder for a sign than he already has to in order to avoid the criminal penalty is unfair.

I would actually prefer to just remove the criminal penalty for signs and then we can eliminate all requirements. Barring that, signage requirements should be increased, not decreased. Most important among these are sign placement and clarification that "contrasting colors" does not mean clear glass as a background.

Maybe we can also include a required warning that these premises are less safe than alternative locations (like we have on packs of cigarettes). Something like the following:

WARNING - The owner of this property, located at 1212 Main St, Houston, TX, has decided to restrict the lawful carry of firearms, which significantly increases the risk of death and/or serious bodily harm for all persons who choose to enter this location.

Pursuant to section 30.06.......

I think you should have to apply with the state for a 30.06/30.07 sign, so that they have to get approval for their property rights like I had to get a permit for my carry rights. This sign has a seal of approval from the DPS and also has your address on it. Any property owned by a subdivision of the state does not get a sign issued to them when requested. Any political puppet decision maker who keeps a policy of disallowing citizens from entering onto public property that does not have 30.06/30.07 rights loses their office, and is barred from holding public office for life.

Pawpaw wrote:

doncb wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:Because we are just so darn law abiding, we want to be able to see the signs at a distance so that we can joyfully comply with the owner's wishes and leave our gun in our vehicle. A small 8.5x11 sign will make this harder.

I want the law changed... to say that any sign must be displayed at the outermost part of each entrance so that it can be viewed without having to enter anywhere. I hate nothing more than signs in foyers, or at the hostess podium, or elsewhere.

Lets take it another step. The signs MUST be located ON the door, bold black letters on a white background and be of a minimum 3' x 4'. If they don't want guns in their business, maybe they should be happy to make it so obvious. Personally, if I have to walk back to my car because of a poorly placed sign, I'm not going to walk back to the business.

While we're wishing...

30.06 signs must be black letters on a yellow background & 30.07 signs must be black letters on a pink background.

While I'm not necessarily supporting something this drastic, it would be nice to be able to tell the difference between a .06 and a .07 sign from further away.

CleverNickname wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

doncb wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:Because we are just so darn law abiding, we want to be able to see the signs at a distance so that we can joyfully comply with the owner's wishes and leave our gun in our vehicle. A small 8.5x11 sign will make this harder.

I want the law changed... to say that any sign must be displayed at the outermost part of each entrance so that it can be viewed without having to enter anywhere. I hate nothing more than signs in foyers, or at the hostess podium, or elsewhere.

Lets take it another step. The signs MUST be located ON the door, bold black letters on a white background and be of a minimum 3' x 4'. If they don't want guns in their business, maybe they should be happy to make it so obvious. Personally, if I have to walk back to my car because of a poorly placed sign, I'm not going to walk back to the business.

While we're wishing...

30.06 signs must be black letters on a yellow background & 30.07 signs must be black letters on a pink background.

While I'm not necessarily supporting something this drastic, it would be nice to be able to tell the difference between a .06 and a .07 sign from further away.

That would be nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 100% agree!!!!! I have had the problem many times trying to "find" the sign

Pawpaw wrote:

doncb wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:Because we are just so darn law abiding, we want to be able to see the signs at a distance so that we can joyfully comply with the owner's wishes and leave our gun in our vehicle. A small 8.5x11 sign will make this harder.

I want the law changed... to say that any sign must be displayed at the outermost part of each entrance so that it can be viewed without having to enter anywhere. I hate nothing more than signs in foyers, or at the hostess podium, or elsewhere.

Lets take it another step. The signs MUST be located ON the door, bold black letters on a white background and be of a minimum 3' x 4'. If they don't want guns in their business, maybe they should be happy to make it so obvious. Personally, if I have to walk back to my car because of a poorly placed sign, I'm not going to walk back to the business.

While we're wishing...

30.06 signs must be black letters on a yellow background & 30.07 signs must be black letters on a pink background.

I like it!

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Russell wrote:Because if a sign is going to have an instant criminal penalty attached to it, forcing Joe Schmoe to have to look even harder for a sign than he already has to in order to avoid the criminal penalty is unfair.

I would actually prefer to just remove the criminal penalty for signs and then we can eliminate all requirements. Barring that, signage requirements should be increased, not decreased. Most important among these are sign placement and clarification that "contrasting colors" does not mean clear glass as a background.

Maybe we can also include a required warning that these premises are less safe than alternative locations (like we have on packs of cigarettes). Something like the following:

WARNING - The owner of this property, located at 1212 Main St, Houston, TX, has decided to restrict the lawful carry of firearms, which significantly increases the risk of death and/or serious bodily harm for all persons who choose to enter this location.

Pursuant to section 30.06.......

Odd that the antis want less protection from guns. Smaller, less distinct signs? You would think they would voluntarily post larger signs. Why take a chance a law abiding citizen would visit, slinging good cheer and interesting conversation wherever he goes?

Regarding the health warning, remember these are activist businesses. I believe they would insist on adding, "For your protection, this business preauthorizes $10,000,000.00 liability payments, per victim, per incident, for anyone harmed by the unlawful use of force, or who is denied reasonable access to cocoa, cupcakes, and safe spaces."

I think with the anti's trying to reduce the sign requirements and make them more broadly applicable, what we should do is....nothing, but block any changes. It's a pretty small number of places in the scheme of things that get the sign requirements right as it is...and many people have had success in convincing businesses to take them down, or at least only post 30.07. Perhaps the only change I would suggest, though it would be a low priority would be to require 30.06 signs at all entrances.

locke_n_load wrote:I think you should have to apply with the state for a 30.06/30.07 sign, so that they have to get approval for their property rights like I had to get a permit for my carry rights. This sign has a seal of approval from the DPS and also has your address on it. Any property owned by a subdivision of the state does not get a sign issued to them when requested. Any political puppet decision maker who keeps a policy of disallowing citizens from entering onto public property that does not have 30.06/30.07 rights loses their office, and is barred from holding public office for life.

Not sure I'd go that far for private businesses but we should definitely require this (state sign approval) for all government agencies AND their lessees that wish to post anything. That should solve all the zoos and daycares and schools nonsense.

Otherwise, I'm in the "remove criminal penalties for signs" camp and then letting anybody post whatever they want. We could even structure it as a compromise with the anti's. Offer to drop 30.06/30.07 and let businesses post whatever sign they want to make their intentions known, but then the sign in and of itself does not carry the force of law - maybe the LTC is a defense unless you refuse to leave when asked. What does it matter if somebody posts a gun buster or a 30.06 except for the penalties? Concealed is concealed, and even if I did open carry, I'm not crossing a gun-buster sign while openly carrying anyway.

Scott Farkus wrote: .
Otherwise, I'm in the "remove criminal penalties for signs" camp and then letting anybody post whatever they want. We could even structure it as a compromise with the anti's. Maybe let businesses post what they want to make their intentions known, but then let the LTC be a defense unless you refuse to leave when asked. What does it matter if somebody posts a gun buster or a 30.06 except for the penalties? Concealed is concealed, and even if I did open carry, I'm not crossing a gun-buster sign while openly carrying anyway.

It has worked in many states and I am sure will work fine here in Texas. This is no way takes away private property rights, is just removes the vehicle given to them by Texas state law that make it an automatic crime for LTC holder to walk past words.

Scott Farkus wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:I think you should have to apply with the state for a 30.06/30.07 sign, so that they have to get approval for their property rights like I had to get a permit for my carry rights. This sign has a seal of approval from the DPS and also has your address on it. Any property owned by a subdivision of the state does not get a sign issued to them when requested. Any political puppet decision maker who keeps a policy of disallowing citizens from entering onto public property that does not have 30.06/30.07 rights loses their office, and is barred from holding public office for life.

Not sure I'd go that far for private businesses but we should definitely require this (state sign approval) for all government agencies AND their lessees that wish to post anything. That should solve all the zoos and daycares and schools nonsense.

Otherwise, I'm in the "remove criminal penalties for signs" camp and then letting anybody post whatever they want. We could even structure it as a compromise with the anti's. Offer to drop 30.06/30.07 and let businesses post whatever sign they want to make their intentions known, but then the sign in and of itself does not carry the force of law - maybe the LTC is a defense unless you refuse to leave when asked. What does it matter if somebody posts a gun buster or a 30.06 except for the penalties? Concealed is concealed, and even if I did open carry, I'm not crossing a gun-buster sign while openly carrying anyway.

The thing is, they will still try to snake their way into posting signs, using their own circular logic and protect themselves with their own courts. If all signs need a DPS seal, then they couldn't try and post the sign unless received by DPS.

Remove all criminal and civil penalties from carrying past 06/07 signs UNLESS you refuse to leave when asked, then I'm good with making the signs smaller.

bblhd672 wrote:Remove all criminal and civil penalties from carrying past 06/07 signs UNLESS you refuse to leave when asked by a LEO, then I'm good with making the signs the size of a postage stamp.

I could live with that.