TexasCHLforum.com

JSThane wrote:

C-dub wrote:

JSThane wrote:I see a 30-06 sign every time I drive in to work. It's posted on the front gate of my station.

In too-small letters.

In New Mexico.

Yes, we have a TPC 30-06 sign, in New Mexico, AND it's printed wrong!

With the jester smiley I can't be sure about this. If there really is one and in NM and were worded properly, it can't possibly be valid or enforceable. Am I missing something or is this just a joke?

Unfortunately, it is not a joke. It's posted on the front gate of (law enforcement agency) where I work, and is completely and utterly unenforceable, even if it were the right size and posted in the right state. Anyone entering the premises has to have a keycard, meaning they either work there and are therefore "exempt," or they are there as a "guest" of someone who does work there. In fact, it's actually (law enforcement agency) policy that if you carry your issue weapon off-duty, it HAS to be concealed, even in the agency's own compound.

I've brought this sign to the attention of my supervisors, but the decision to post it was made way up high, at the advice of some lawyer who didn't know any better. But since it was "legally advisable" that they put it up, the only way to get rid of it will be to tear down the compound and rebuild it somewhere else.

Odd for sure, but does NM law say anything about your work location? I'm wondering if they even need to put up any sign at all or if they really need a NM sign. Or maybe it's just something to keep people that don't realize they are actually in NM from carrying there. Or hope that the folks in NM don't know it is a Texas sign.

In NM, a "gunbuster" sign is usually sufficient, from my understanding of the law. So, while TPC 30.06 is completely unenforceable, it would still have the effect of notifying anyone entering the property that concealed-carry is verboten.

There's a couple other considerations, but I'm replying via PM, mainly because I don't want details about the job in a publicly searchable forum. Last thing I need is some higher-up stumbling upon it and getting upset for whatever reason.

philip964 wrote:I suggest that the legislature consider a new bill that if the 30.06 sign is posted the business by doing so takes on the responsibility to protect its customers from violence and is strictly liable for damages if violence occurs on its property. A companion measure would be that if no 30.06 sign is posted. The business is strictly not liable for damages for the actions of a CHL licensee while on their premises.

I think the second part of this is politically doable and would be quite popular with business owners. Add to that the reduction of criminal penalties for violating 30.06 (Class C with no effect on CHL unless violated three or more times).

A little something for everyone....

Jason K wrote:

philip964 wrote:I suggest that the legislature consider a new bill that if the 30.06 sign is posted the business by doing so takes on the responsibility to protect its customers from violence and is strictly liable for damages if violence occurs on its property. A companion measure would be that if no 30.06 sign is posted. The business is strictly not liable for damages for the actions of a CHL licensee while on their premises.

I think the second part of this is politically doable and would be quite popular with business owners. Add to that the reduction of criminal penalties for violating 30.06 (Class C with no effect on CHL unless violated three or more times).

A little something for everyone....

just how i see things but why is the first part no doable? i know we're not obligated to do business with them but when was someone's store more important than human life?

I'm in Fort Worth and 30.06 signs are not that much of a problem, at least from what I've seen. I think there are going to be those who oppose weapons simply by default, that is to them a gun is a gun no matter who's carrying it. But, I can't help but wonder at how many of those business owners do post out of fear or ignorance. To address that possibility it might help to raise public education and awareness to the high standards by which CHL holders are legally held to with regard to criminal history and gun proficiency. (that's why I am on the fence about the reduction in classroom hours). The CHL holders I know take the responsibility of carrying a weapon deadly serious and thus do not present a threat from careless or reckless behavior with their weapon. A remedy may be a tiered approach where there would be a "standard" CHL and an "advanced" CHL that would have higher requirements of classroom and range time, but be exempt from some of the restrictions that 30.06 signage present.

All that's just me thinking out loud and not very practical. Over all, I'd have to be honest and say that my ability to carry hasn't been greatly impacted by 30.06 signs. I think the frustration over 30.06 signs comes in because many businesses that post do so thinking they're keeping their premises safer.

Ruark wrote:FWIW, I'm referring to Austin and the metro area. I wouldn't say it's reached the crisis point yet, but the number of 3006 signs is steadily increasing. I think it's inevitable that it will reach that point eventually.

Other than City Hall , where do you see all these signs?

Of the three entries that went up on Texas 3006 last week, two were Sprouts which is a corporate policy of theirs that we've known about for a while. The other one was a restaurant downtown called Frank, and for some reason that entry is no longer on Texas 3006 lists. I work near Frank and have been meaning to go by there and check - I suspect it's a 51% sign.

A good number, maybe even the majority, of the Austin listings are actually 51% signs that somebody mistook for a 30.06. Many others are invalid 30.06 for whatever reason.

Seriously, where are you seeing 30.06 signs? I don't find that many around town particularly considering how insanely liberal this place is.

Did I mention that City Hall is posted?

fickman wrote:I've made the following argument consistently for years, but it's been a while, so please bear with me, and maybe I can influence at least one person on this board.

As long as we're talking about concealed handguns, property rights don't enter into it. Well, they shouldn't. A business can have any policy they want regarding:
- the color of my underwear
- how many coins I can have in my pocket
- how long my chest hair can be
. . . but unless they have a legal way to detect it, or I carelessly fail to conceal it, the government should have no role in enforcing their policy.

To say it another way, property rights are already protected with the current trespassing law APART from any 30.06 signs. If a business owner somehow determines or suspects that I am carrying a firearm, he is free to ask me to leave his premises. He can do so for any reason, really, that isn't prohibited by law. I then have to comply or I'm guilty of trespassing.

This argument only applies to concealed carry, not to open carry.

I know it doesn't hold much water with the ardent property rights people, but it should.

and wholeheartedly.

The notion of prohibiting something that can't even be seen is weird to me.

Around here the places I run into the most with 30.06 signs are hospitals. With two young children and a wife that had two high risk pregnancies, I've been no stranger to them the past few years. It's easy to say "Just don't go there" until you have no choice. For that reason, I'd be in favor of treating the 30.06 restrictions similar to what fickman and others have suggested. It's not without precedent either as there are some states that do treat it this way.

Food for thought..... I wonder how many of the new 30-06 signs being posted are a result of a 'do gooder' CHL holder going into a business and telling them that their ghostbuster style gun sign was not legal?

I see an invalid sign and I just keep my mouth shut. It's on the business owner, not me.

Some businesses post an incorrect 30.06 on purpose. The bank I use has an incorrect 30.06 to satisfy some customers and employees. Certain management know it is incorrect but don't spread the info around. This keeps everyone satisfied. If some people knew the signs were wrong they would make an issue of it, ignorance is bliss.

MeMelYup wrote:Some businesses post an incorrect 30.06 on purpose. The bank I use has an incorrect 30.06 to satisfy some customers and employees. Certain management know it is incorrect but don't spread the info around. This keeps everyone satisfied. If some people knew the signs were wrong they would make an issue of it, ignorance is bliss.

^^ This. Most incorrect signs are just to satisfy the insurance companies and the non-CHL'ers. I appreciate their subtlety and carry on.....

These days the only 30.06 signs I see are faded VCS signs that were never taken down and signs with the correct language at gun shows run by idiots. I boycott those.

Ironic how the remedy for perceived government intrusion is more government intrusion. 30.06s aren't going up en mass. This is a solution in search of a problem. However, this discussion has some value in that the suggestion to decriminalize the 30.06 violation is something that we should get behind.

The Dude wrote:These days the only 30.06 signs I see are faded VCS signs that were never taken down and signs with the correct language at gun shows run by idiots. I boycott those.

Yes sir I quit going to gun shows for the same reason.

cw3van wrote:

The Dude wrote:These days the only 30.06 signs I see are faded VCS signs that were never taken down and signs with the correct language at gun shows run by idiots. I boycott those.

Yes sir I quit going to gun shows for the same reason.

I quit going to gun shows because:

1. I don't like being armpit to armpit with total strangers,
2. The nearest Gun Show involves a 100 mile round trip at >$3/gallon,
3. $7 is too much to spend for the joy of the above; and,
4. adding the cost of 2. and 3. above to the purchase price pretty much negates the bargain (?) price of anything I may encounter.

As for the 30.06 signs on the door....MEH.