TexasCHLforum.com

Since the debate of carrying vs. not carrying past non-compliant 30.06 signs (as well as gunbusters signs) has been coming up in other threads, I thought I would make a separate post for it. So, have there been any test cases concerning this issue already? (i.e. someone getting made inside a business with a bad sign) It need not be an actual court case, it could just be a LEO encounter or a dispute with a business owner. I'm curious what people have said in their own defense, and whether or not it actually worked. (I'm also curious to hear hypotheticals, but more interested in real events).

I've followed a lot of the debates on multiple forums, but haven't seen one valid citing of a test case. I would not be surprised if there are absolutly zero, since even if a holder carries inside a property that has non-compliant signs posted, they would normally be concealed to the point no one would identify and challenge them to start with.

For a real test case to happen, someone would have to be stupid (I.E. printing badly) or someone in the location would have to have personal knowledge somehow that they were carrying. I expect it's entirely possible a real test case might never arrive...unless someone had the guts (AKA lunacy) to set themselves up for it intentionally.

I'm not risking my license to do it!!! I've carried in multiple non-compliant signage places, but have not advertised I was toting and not crowed about it. Some non-compliant signage locations I stay out of, simply because they are close enough to the real deal that I figure it's to 'iffy". Then there's others that I just don't enter because I figure if the business has "CHL holder" mentioned anywhere in their prohibition sign, they shouldn't get my business.

tfrazier wrote:I've followed a lot of the debates on multiple forums, but haven't seen one valid citing of a test case. I would not be surprised if there are absolutly zero, since even if a holder carries inside a property that has non-compliant signs posted, they would normally be concealed to the point no one would identify and challenge them to start with.

I think that a more likely scenario would be, if the person was "made" and they were asked to leave. That would be verbal notice and anyone who didn't leave could be arrested. I can't imagine a person with a CHL would stick around after being given a verbal notice.

Indeed! And since part of our CHL training in Texas is verbal de-escalation tactics, we wouldn't stick around and make a big deal of it on site, anyway...if we've taken our training seriously.

The closest I ever got to being asked to leave a business in relation to questionable 30.06 signs was at Grapevine Mills Mall. I was inside, purely for the purpose of taking pictures of their 30.06 signs back when they were only posted somewhat inconspicuously (IMO) inside the entries (someone recently told me they moved them or added some to the exteriors). One of their security officers caught up with me at the last entry point and asked me why I was in there taking pictures and I told him I was writing an article on CHL laws and identifying local businesses with 30.06 signs. He asked if I was toting (I wasn't) and I just told him, "Sir, I am currently in full compliance with the law and your posted sign." but he asked me to leave anyway.

I had the photos I needed and I said, "sure, no problem, sir" and left. I don't shop there, ever.

tfrazier ,

Did the security guy offer a reason for asking you to leave?

I'm assuming from your posting you were courteous, so it seems odd to me that he'd request your absence. Taking photos isn't prohibited is it?

I also wonder if he was an LEO doing some part time work for the mall or if he was an overzealous renta-cop? (I don't expect you'll have any way of knowing this...)

Or, do you think he's been informed that their 30.06 signage is a sensitive topic with mall management and they don't want attention being drawn to it?

This sort of thing smacks of fascism-light to me.

To give him the benefit of the doubt, he might have simply been working in the best interest of his employer. Once he knew I wasn't their to shop, he probably thought it best I just move along. I wasn't there as a customer, so he was well within his rights to ask me to leave. I was running a web site at the time (chlgrapevine.com) and had already posted a lively article and discussion thread about their stance, so maybe security had been alerted to ask anyone taking pictures of the signs to leave.

Can't blame them for trying to keep folks who intend to lower their customer base from walking freely about their property.

Regardless, I didn't hold that incident against him or them. The company has a legal right to post the signs, and a legal right to tell someone to leave their property; just like I have a legal right to encourage folks not to shop there because they have the signs posted.

tfrazier,

Well said.

Thanks

Also.....
Toys R Us ... in Cedar Park .... 183 S & 620; has a Pistol buster sign at the inner door ...
I'm not sure if N, it's correct ... but it keeps my pistol in the vehicle and I dislike shopping there, with my Grandkids while dogging all the others !
Tha' sign is the correct size, has the correct lettering size and is written in English and Spanish ... But it reads as; Possesion of Firearms are prohibited on these premises ... No mention of any TPC # !
Are these signs correct or legal ?
Mac

.45mac.40 wrote:

Also.....
Toys R Us ... in Cedar Park .... 183 S & 620; has a Pistol buster sign at the inner door ...
I'm not sure if N, it's correct ... but it keeps my pistol in the vehicle and I dislike shopping there, with my Grandkids while dogging all the others !
Tha' sign is the correct size, has the correct lettering size and is written in English and Spanish ... But it reads as; Possesion of Firearms are prohibited on these premises ... No mention of any TPC # !
Are these signs correct or legal ?
Mac

Unless the sign has the exact wording... I'll repeat that ... THE EXACT WORDING in the specified size and manner, then it is not legally enforceable. A gun busters sign is NOT enforceable. A sign that doesn't mention the TPC# is NOT enforceable.

Yep, but if caught, you may still take a ride.

When it comes to unenforceable signage, like the plain ole gun buster circle sign, I ignore them. When it comes to something very, very close to a 30.06 sign, it makes me rethink. Strictly speaking, it too is is unenforceable, but a sympathetic LEO may think it close enough...

Abraham wrote:Yep, but if caught, you may still take a ride.

Hmmm...Sounds like the solution is to conceal properly, and don't do anything stupid to blow your cover.

Just my opinion, but could the lack of test cases over the years imply that it may be a non-problem? I've gotten over my initial "carry jitters" over non-compliant signs in Texas. I have yet to be made by anyone, from the general public to police officers.

In the grand scheme of things, perhaps we are making much ado over nothing.

pedalman wrote:

Abraham wrote:Yep, but if caught, you may still take a ride.

Hmmm...Sounds like the solution is to conceal properly, and don't do anything stupid to blow your cover.

Just my opinion, but could the lack of test cases over the years imply that it may be a non-problem?

When you put it that way it sounds a lot like the hoopla over the law against failing to conceal.

Is it a non-problem because the law has enough wiggle room or because most people with a CHL obey the law?

Toys R Us - Webster Texas -
I did not have my phone with me to take a picture, but on the inside entrance door, in English and Spanish it says
"Firearms are not permitted on these premises"
I know it does not follow the 30.06 sign, and another Toys R us (Cedar Park) was posted above, so I would say that Toys R Us are using these signs on all stores, probably to make their patrons "feel safe"
It is my understanding anywa that if you have a CHL, you can carry there; unless Verbally told you can't or they post the official 30.06 sign.

Teamless broke out the paddles. It's ALIVE!!!