TexasCHLforum.com

Just got the email notification from Texas3006.com. Amplifying info posted on 3006.com:

"Letters are WAY too small at about 1/4". If this is a government office, which I believe it is, and it's not an exception, which I don't think it is, then the 30.06 is a violation."

I looked up the address and it looks like a private office building with numerous occupants. I'm not in her district, but would definately take this into consideration when it came time to vote if I was.

She is a Republican. Who you going to vote for, a Democrat?

tk1700 wrote:Just got the email notification from Texas3006.com. Amplifying info posted on 3006.com:

"Letters are WAY too small at about 1/4". If this is a government office, which I believe it is, and it's not an exception, which I don't think it is, then the 30.06 is a violation."

I looked up the address and it looks like a private office building with numerous occupants. I'm not in her district, but would definately take this into consideration when it came time to vote if I was.

The non-applicability of 30.06/30.07 is for property owned or leased by a government entity. I don't think it matters that she is not the only tenant, unless the entire building is posted.

I just saw that, tried to email her with my indignation.
But if you are not in her district, you can't email her.

I hope she catches holy heck over this one.

Fortunately, I'm in Michael Burgess' district now. None better!

Here's another wrinkle. Is it Federal funds that lease it? If so, it may be off limits anyway.

rtschl wrote:Here's another wrinkle. Is it Federal funds that lease it? If so, it may be off limits anyway.

You are probably right, in which case, it is off limits without a 30.06/30.07 sign.

dhoobler wrote:

tk1700 wrote:Just got the email notification from Texas3006.com. Amplifying info posted on 3006.com:

"Letters are WAY too small at about 1/4". If this is a government office, which I believe it is, and it's not an exception, which I don't think it is, then the 30.06 is a violation."

I looked up the address and it looks like a private office building with numerous occupants. I'm not in her district, but would definately take this into consideration when it came time to vote if I was.

The non-applicability of 30.06/30.07 is for property owned or leased by a government entity. I don't think it matters that she is not the only tenant, unless the entire building is posted.

State or local government entity, not federal.

dhoobler wrote:

rtschl wrote:Here's another wrinkle. Is it Federal funds that lease it? If so, it may be off limits anyway.

You are probably right, in which case, it is off limits without a 30.06/30.07 sign.

But not without a 18 USC 926 sign.

Time to primary Kay Granger, the need to find a real Republican to replace her has long since past, I am in her district!

Texas law affects only Texas governmental entities. Granger is a federal office holder, so her rights are not limited by Texas law pertaining to Texas governmental entities. She must, however, run in the Republican primary. That is where she is vulnerable.

Federal or state property, makes no difference to me.
If a Texas elected official post such a sign when they are not required by law to do so, they are not representing me.

Rex B wrote:Federal or state property, makes no difference to me.
If a Texas elected official post such a sign when they are not required by law to do so, they are not representing me.

Am I right? The office building that she was in is posting the sign, not her. If a US Representative's Office is considered a federal office then 18 USC 926 would apply (like at the Post Office), but you could only be prosecuted if her office was posted IAW that statute. Maybe she didn't intend for the office building owner to post 30.06/7. But she may not have the authority in her lease to force them to take it down.

rotor wrote:She is a Republican. Who you going to vote for, a Democrat?

Support a Republican primary opponent, or vote Libertarian in the general, which is what I do in races where the Dem opponent (if any) has no chance)

But as much as I dislike the the sign, I am also disappointed that you cannot email a representative who is not in your district. You should be able to send the message even if it is noted that you are out of her district.

Email sent:

It has recently come to my attention that your Fort Worth District office has been posted with liberal, anit-gun, signs prohibiting the most law-abiding adults in your district from carrying legally concealed or openly carried weapons. Ma'am, this is unacceptable. This is Texas, not New York or California. Do you think that having these signs will stop some crazed constituent from coming in your office with a weapon? It surely will not. All that you are doing is alienating your most law-abiding constituents.

As a member of your district, I require that you and your office not only recognize, but celebrate the God-given right to keep and bear arms by removing those signs.

I look forward to seeing that this has been resolved so that my conscience and choice are clear when I enter the voting booth in your district both in March, and in November.