TexasCHLforum.com

Recently the mall here posted 30.06 signs at their entrances. Clear enough. Question, there are several satellite stores that have entrances to the outside and to the mall. If those stores do not have a 30.06 sign, does the mall signs still apply if I only enter those stores from the outside. I know of a restaurant that only has outside entrance and has the licensed carrier sign ( the unlicensed possession of a weapon...). Any clarification would be appreciated. The 3 satellite stores are Penneys, Dillards, Sears. Thanks for your help.

Do a search here for grapevine mills mall, same situation and tons of discussion

If you saw it, then you know you shouldn't carry. Bottom line.
If you carry past and get caught, will you be successfully prosecuted? Maybe. What if you went in an alternate entrance? Same answer.
State law does not require that every entrance be posted, just that is is conspicuously posted...

cb1000rider wrote: State law does not require that every entrance be posted, just that is is conspicuously posted...

This is important

cb1000rider wrote:If you saw it, then you know you shouldn't carry. Bottom line.
If you carry past and get caught, will you be successfully prosecuted? Maybe. What if you went in an alternate entrance? Same answer.
State law does not require that every entrance be posted, just that is is conspicuously posted...

While I am not advocating disregarding signs, if there is not one at the entrance I am going into, then it was not conspicuously posted. The definition of conspicuously is "easily seen or noticed; readily visible or observable". IMO that does not mean one should have to go to every entrance check if one is posted. Have I ever gone into a place that had a sign that was posted at some other entrance? I don't know, since I never saw one conspicuously posted where I entered.

As for getting caught and being prosecuted, since this debate has been going on forever, and I don't recall ever hearing of a single incident of either, I personally am not going to lose any sleep over it.

poppo wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:If you saw it, then you know you shouldn't carry. Bottom line.
If you carry past and get caught, will you be successfully prosecuted? Maybe. What if you went in an alternate entrance? Same answer.
State law does not require that every entrance be posted, just that is is conspicuously posted...

While I am not advocating disregarding signs, if there is not one at the entrance I am going into, then it was not conspicuously posted. The definition of conspicuously is "easily seen or noticed; readily visible or observable". IMO that does not mean one should have to go to every entrance check if one is posted. Have I ever gone into a place that had a sign that was posted at some other entrance? I don't know, since I never saw one conspicuously posted where I entered.

As for getting caught and being prosecuted, since this debate has been going on forever, and I don't recall ever hearing of a single incident of either, I personally am not going to lose any sleep over it.

Unfortunately, You do not get to decide what is "conspicuously posted". A judge or jury will.

That said, sometimes we just have to act reasonably. If you go to the mall and enter through Sears and there is no sign, then clearly carry in Sears is lawful. If you then enter the mall from Sears and there are no signs at the Sears entrance to the mall you are fine. However, if you walk up to a mall entrance, see the 30.06 sign, then walk to other entrances shopping for an entrance with no sign, then you would be in violation entering with a handgun. The argument that the entrance you ultimately chose wws not posted would be void.

poppo wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:If you saw it, then you know you shouldn't carry. Bottom line.
If you carry past and get caught, will you be successfully prosecuted? Maybe. What if you went in an alternate entrance? Same answer.
State law does not require that every entrance be posted, just that is is conspicuously posted...

While I am not advocating disregarding signs, if there is not one at the entrance I am going into, then it was not conspicuously posted. The definition of conspicuously is "easily seen or noticed; readily visible or observable". IMO that does not mean one should have to go to every entrance check if one is posted. Have I ever gone into a place that had a sign that was posted at some other entrance? I don't know, since I never saw one conspicuously posted where I entered.

As for getting caught and being prosecuted, since this debate has been going on forever, and I don't recall ever hearing of a single incident of either, I personally am not going to lose any sleep over it.

Your own definition doesn't even say that you must have seen the sign. A sign, such as those at the Grapevine Mills Mall, are conspicuous (albeit with incorrect verbiage) and meet your definition. And as JBarn mentioned, a judge or jury will decide that if anyone gets caught with a gun a place like that. Also, IIRC, I don't think such a case has made it to court yet for a ruling on this type of situation.

Additionally, while I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sure that if only the mall's main entrances are posted that they wouldn't also apply to the individual stores since they all lease their space from the mall owners. I don't know of a mall that is properly posted and I hardly ever go to a mall anyway, so it's kind of a moot point for me.

C-dub wrote:

poppo wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:If you saw it, then you know you shouldn't carry. Bottom line.
If you carry past and get caught, will you be successfully prosecuted? Maybe. What if you went in an alternate entrance? Same answer.
State law does not require that every entrance be posted, just that is is conspicuously posted...

While I am not advocating disregarding signs, if there is not one at the entrance I am going into, then it was not conspicuously posted. The definition of conspicuously is "easily seen or noticed; readily visible or observable". IMO that does not mean one should have to go to every entrance check if one is posted. Have I ever gone into a place that had a sign that was posted at some other entrance? I don't know, since I never saw one conspicuously posted where I entered.

As for getting caught and being prosecuted, since this debate has been going on forever, and I don't recall ever hearing of a single incident of either, I personally am not going to lose any sleep over it.

Your own definition doesn't even say that you must have seen the sign. A sign, such as those at the Grapevine Mills Mall, are conspicuous (albeit with incorrect verbiage) and meet your definition. And as JBarn mentioned, a judge or jury will decide that if anyone gets caught with a gun a place like that. Also, IIRC, I don't think such a case has made it to court yet for a ruling on this type of situation.

Additionally, while I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sure that if only the mall's main entrances are posted that they wouldn't also apply to the individual stores since they all lease their space from the mall owners. I don't know of a mall that is properly posted and I hardly ever go to a mall anyway, so it's kind of a moot point for me.

Again, until it has been tested in court (and it hasn't), you're left up to making your case when/if you get arrested.

chamberc wrote:

C-dub wrote:

poppo wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:If you saw it, then you know you shouldn't carry. Bottom line.
If you carry past and get caught, will you be successfully prosecuted? Maybe. What if you went in an alternate entrance? Same answer.
State law does not require that every entrance be posted, just that is is conspicuously posted...

While I am not advocating disregarding signs, if there is not one at the entrance I am going into, then it was not conspicuously posted. The definition of conspicuously is "easily seen or noticed; readily visible or observable". IMO that does not mean one should have to go to every entrance check if one is posted. Have I ever gone into a place that had a sign that was posted at some other entrance? I don't know, since I never saw one conspicuously posted where I entered.

As for getting caught and being prosecuted, since this debate has been going on forever, and I don't recall ever hearing of a single incident of either, I personally am not going to lose any sleep over it.

Your own definition doesn't even say that you must have seen the sign. A sign, such as those at the Grapevine Mills Mall, are conspicuous (albeit with incorrect verbiage) and meet your definition. And as JBarn mentioned, a judge or jury will decide that if anyone gets caught with a gun a place like that. Also, IIRC, I don't think such a case has made it to court yet for a ruling on this type of situation.

Additionally, while I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sure that if only the mall's main entrances are posted that they wouldn't also apply to the individual stores since they all lease their space from the mall owners. I don't know of a mall that is properly posted and I hardly ever go to a mall anyway, so it's kind of a moot point for me.

Again, until it has been tested in court (and it hasn't), you're left up to making your case when/if you get arrested.

Thus the need to amend the law to define "conspicuously posted" as being at every public entrance including those entrances either into the anchor stores or from the anchor stores into the mall. I have wondered it the crafters of the law didn't anticipate that malls would only post one entrance, or if they didn't go to malls anyway and didn't think of it, but I have never asked Charles. In any case, once I learn a place is posted, I send them a card and never go there again.

C-dub wrote:Your own definition doesn't even say that you must have seen the sign.

Sometimes people need to use a little common sense.

Again, I'm not advocating ignoring something that you know is there. But I am not going to go to every entrance to check. If it's not posted where I go in, I am not going to worry about it. In the off chance I were caught and charged, I'll take my chances that a jury has at least one person with an IQ above a gnat. IMO it would not take much to argue that "conspicuously posted" means it has to be available to be seen by everyone entering the premises (i.e. all public entrances). It's one thing arguing you did not see a sign that was posted in a crazy spot like this one (which IMO you would also win, besides it being the wrong size), but IMO no sign at all would be pretty easy to successfully argue (unless you stupidly volunteered that you knew it was at other entrances).

poppo wrote:

C-dub wrote:Your own definition doesn't even say that you must have seen the sign.

Sometimes people need to use a little common sense.

Again, I'm not advocating ignoring something that you know is there. But I am not going to go to every entrance to check. If it's not posted where I go in, I am not going to worry about it. In the off chance I were caught and charged, I'll take my chances that a jury has at least one person with an IQ above a gnat. IMO it would not take much to argue that "conspicuously posted" means it has to be available to be seen by everyone entering the premises (i.e. all public entrances). It's one thing arguing you did not see a sign that was posted in a crazy spot like this one (which IMO you would also win, besides it being the wrong size), but IMO no sign at all would be pretty easy to successfully argue (unless you stupidly volunteered that you knew it was at other entrances).

[ Image ]

Have been on a jury once. I was surprised that I was the only one that I can be assured had an IQ over 100. Please do not depend on the "common sense" of a jury.

Be aware that LEOs know very little on TPC 30.06. We spent less than 10mins on it at the academy. With that said, I'll take my chances and carry in my local mall.

In my class, for this particular scenario, I teach:

You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

None of us have the money to be the test case to this scenario. If you go in an entrance that is not posted, and you have no previous knowledge that the rest of the premise is off limits, then you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride to the pokey because someone made a MWAG call. And, if someone made that call, you didn't follow the first rule:

Concealed is concealed.

And if you didn't follow the first rule because you were defending yourself/another, well, then, you get to be the test case.

TBM

poppo wrote:

C-dub wrote:Your own definition doesn't even say that you must have seen the sign.

Sometimes people need to use a little common sense.

Again, I'm not advocating ignoring something that you know is there. But I am not going to go to every entrance to check. If it's not posted where I go in, I am not going to worry about it. In the off chance I were caught and charged, I'll take my chances that a jury has at least one person with an IQ above a gnat. IMO it would not take much to argue that "conspicuously posted" means it has to be available to be seen by everyone entering the premises (i.e. all public entrances). It's one thing arguing you did not see a sign that was posted in a crazy spot like this one (which IMO you would also win, besides it being the wrong size), but IMO no sign at all would be pretty easy to successfully argue (unless you stupidly volunteered that you knew it was at other entrances).

[ Image ]

And I agree with yours and JimLongley's and ChamberC's posts right before yours. I have carried into the Grapevine Mill Mall even before the Chief acknowledged that sign was wrong, but still arrest anyone found carrying in there and before he said it would be up to the responding officer. I knew my chances and knew I was also well enough concealed that the only likely was I was going to be discovered was if I had to use it. I am a little conservative on my approach to situations like this because, like most CHLees, I am an honest law abiding citizen and try to do my best to stay that way, which is another reason this part hasn't been better defined by any ruling in a court yet. The GVMM signs are not correct. If they were, I wold not even push my luck entering a satellite store that was not posted. That's just my choice.

C-dub wrote: And I agree with yours and JimLongley's and ChamberC's posts right before yours. I have carried into the Grapevine Mill Mall even before the Chief acknowledged that sign was wrong, but still arrest anyone found carrying in there and before he said it would be up to the responding officer. I knew my chances and knew I was also well enough concealed that the only likely was I was going to be discovered was if I had to use it. I am a little conservative on my approach to situations like this because, like most CHLees, I am an honest law abiding citizen and try to do my best to stay that way, which is another reason this part hasn't been better defined by any ruling in a court yet. The GVMM signs are not correct. If they were, I wold not even push my luck entering a satellite store that was not posted. That's just my choice.

Sometimes we get caught up in these discussions over the validity of signs and the possible consequences of being detected and prosecuted and loose sight of why most of us have CHLs in the first place. While the statistics are a couple of years old, I'm guessing that they don't change much, year to year.

http://www.grapevinetxonline.com/2012/0 ... grapevine/

Of the top six locations for crime in Grapevine, two are posted 30.06 (Grapevine Mills Mall and Gaylord Texan) I haven't personally seen the Gaylord signs but I presume them to be correct where the GMM ones are obviously incorrect. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that the Mall is seen as a target by criminals. While I typically avoid the mall like any other place that tells me that they don't want my business, if I did go there and did carry, it wouldn't be because I was trying to flaunt walking past an invalid sign but because I viewed the environment as a possible safety risk and I was unwilling to allow someone who showed a disregard for the laws as written to stop me from protecting myself. I would not consider carrying at the Gaylord.