TexasCHLforum.com

gwashorn wrote:In my case, MPA lets me drive past the 30.06 sign if I understood one of the posts by Charles. There are only gun buster signs.

Doesn't the gunbuster sign prohibit you under the MPA? I think it does.

C-dub wrote:

gwashorn wrote:In my case, MPA lets me drive past the 30.06 sign if I understood one of the posts by Charles. There are only gun buster signs.

Doesn't the gunbuster sign prohibit you under the MPA? I think it does.

That is the point for the question. SB321 changes things. If SB321 does not cover my scenario then I can not enter. If it does, then I can and my CHL is not a part of the issue. If SB321 does not cover me, then the gun buster sign may be my limit for entry and the 30.06 limits me on the CHL. As for the question about the TSRA is that if a company is trying to work around the intent of the SB321 such as in this case, I suspect between now and the next legislative session that a test case will be found. I don't want to be one but I am looking for new employment so, push come to shove, I may force the issue. Again, ashame we can not get resolution on these niches of employment such as multi tenant. My gut feeling is this will have to be handle through how the owner/tenant contracts are written and handled. Then the application of the SB321 can be viewed for how it fits in the contract. I am not sure. Just want to make sense of it.

I noticed this morning that the gunbusters and 30.06 language has been removed from the parking lot signs. I'd post a picture, but it was too rainy to get a good one without getting wet.