30.07 signs appear in TX

Steve, your opinion of the significance of signs is irrelevant to the law. In Texas, gun banning signs are worthless pieces of paper unless they comply with the law defining proper signage.
 
They are only worthless if the property owner wishes to press charges or get the police involved.

Otherwise they do as they are intended to do, inform the public that firearms are not allowed.

Once you carry past a non-compliant sign the property owner can do a couple thing.
1) ask you to leave and stay gone, you must leave and you must stay gone.
2) ask you to take the firearm outside and return without it if you wish, you must remove the firearm.

Once you carry past a Compliant sign, the property owner can do a couple of things.
1) Ask you to leave and stay gone, you must comply.
2) Ask you to take the firearm outside and you are welcome to return with out it, you must remove the firearm.
3) call 911 and have you charged.

Option #3 is the only difference between a compliant sign and a non-compliant sign.


I don't believe a property owner is required under Texas law to call 911 for a Compliant sign violation. If that requirement is Texas law I have not seen it.

If it is a Legal requirement, all the more reason for a Business private property own to post Non-Compliant signs as they do not want to press charges.
 
Otherwise they do as they are intended to do, inform the public that firearms are not allowed.
Click to expand...
In TX, at least, that's not really correct.

They do nothing whatsoever to actually disallow firearms. So if the "public" thinks that firearms are not allowed in an establishment with a non-compliant sign, they are actually misinformed, not informed.

License holders (at least the ones who paid attention in class and/or who know the law) also know that the signs are impotent, so they are not informed that firearms are not allowed.

What the signs MIGHT do is let people know that the store owner doesn't want guns on the premises. What the owner wants is not the same thing as what is allowed/disallowed. I say "MIGHT" because I am aware of a couple of situations where the store owner posts a non-compliant sign to mislead the general public into believing that guns are not allowed (misinforming them, if you will) while not affecting the legality of carry. So all his/her customers are happy. The uninformed ones because they think they're safer (no scary guns) and the informed ones because they know they can still legally carry there.
I don't believe a property owner is required under Texas law to call 911 for a Compliant sign violation.
Click to expand...
They're not required to do anything. Why would they be? But if the person refuses to leave, the owner will have to call the police to achieve compliance. A compliant sign does not give the property owner any special rights in terms of their ability to eject a person who does not wish to leave the premises. It only provides for punishment in the event that a person fails to comply with the owner's wishes if the police are called.
Option #3 is the only difference between a compliant sign and a non-compliant sign.
Click to expand...
What is more revealing is exploring the difference between posting a non-compliant sign and not posting a sign at all.

There is no difference.

The owner's options are exactly the same whether they post no sign at all or whether they post a non-compliant sign. Maintaining that a non-compliant sign disallows carry is only possible by proving that posting no sign at all also disallows carry--clearly ridiculous.

Posting a non-compliant sign in TX has no effect at all in terms of reducing the rights or legal abilities/options of license holders nor in terms of increasing the rights or legal abilities/options of the property owner. The property owner might as well post a sign stating what his/her favorite color is. It will have exactly the same effect on his rights/legal options and on the rights/legal options of license holders.
 
How do I know this - because some of us know the folks who designed the law. The reason was the proliferation of ghost buster signs (some of which you stlll see around). It was quite easy to post such and was recommended in some of the business risk literature at the time.

In the OC debates, a return of the ghost busters was quite the worry. How do I know this, because I know the people involved. That's very simple.
 
30.06 and now 30.07 signs are great, they take the guesswork out of the equation
Having been to many other states and trying to follow the rules is a tricky murky endeavor at best.
I like 30.06 signs.
 
I'm seeing combo 30.06 /30.07 signs. I worry that folks who want to put up a 30.07 will add a 30.06 section when they didn't have a CHL ban before. Now, do you need two separate signs? That's an interesting nuance for experts.
 
I'm sure there will be more interest in prohibiting open carry, so more interest in putting up proper signage. And since they are already going through the trouble of the 30.07 why not prohibit concealed carry as well.
Concealed carry never got their attention much, but open carry sure will. Probably gonna be the end of concealed carry in buildings, public and on private property.
 
I've always thought it weird that some businesses would make grand public statements that they don't want guns in their store...and then NOT put up the proper legal signage to ban concealed carry. Maybe they were just trying to placate some group with a hollow gesture. I think the statement that a more genuine effort to ban open carry through proper signage might result in a decrease in concealed carry because we might suddenly see proper signage put up is a genuine concern.
I've only seen the proper legal 30-06 signage in a total of three places ever. I hope I don't see more of it as a result of a few pushing for open carry, which is so much less practical.
 
http://www.kcentv.com/story/30833677/at-least-3-grocery-stores-opt-out-of-texas-open-carry-gun-law

At Least 3 Grocery Stores Opt Out of Texas Open-Carry Gun Law

Posted: Dec 26, 2015 5:08 PM PST
Updated: Dec 26, 2015 5:08 PM PST



SAN ANTONIO (KENS 5) — At least three grocery stores have opted out of Texas' controversial open-carry gun law that will take effect Friday, saying only concealed weapons are allowed in their stores.

The hashtag #GroceriesNotGuns has begun trending on Twitter, fueled by activist groups such as Moms Demand Action. And several gun owners say they don't mind the decisions from H-E-B, which has almost 350 stores in more than 150 Texas communities; and national chains Safeway and Whole Foods.

"I don't know why in a grocery store I would need to open carry," said Leigh Cutter, a San Antonio mother and concealed handgun owner. "As long as I have it on my person, I would be just fine."

H-E-B, with roots in Texas since its founding in 1905, largely has stayed out of the argument, saying in a statement that its rules comply with state regulations because it sells alcoholic beverages.

"As a retailer of alcohol, long guns and unlicensed guns are prohibited on our property under the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission rules," according to the grocer's statement. "H-E-B maintains the same policy we have for years, only concealed licensed handguns are allowed on our property."

On New Year's Day, Texas will become the 45th state to legalize carrying a pistol in plain sight....
Click to expand...

It goes on to mention the Tea Party and blah blah
 
Texas allows businesses to opt out of allowing carry of weapons, if they post the proper specification signage. It's not "you must allow me to carry on your premises"
I always saw a 30.06 sign and did one of the following: 1. I went somewhere else.
2. I disarmed before entering the establishment.

Mostly option #1 but sometimes you need to go to the hospital
 
I deleted a post that was off TX topics. It's not a general discussion of all kinds of business decisions to ban this or that.

Ricky is correct that some banned places, you do need to go to. I prefer to see my cardiologist than not. It's usually hospitals and big medical buildings that ban. I haven't seen it in the smaller practices.

The removal of ban signs on government buildings was great (except for courts). City and counties had signs all over.
 
The removal of ban signs on government buildings was great (except for courts). City and counties had signs all over.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there are government buildings in McKinney and in Montague that still have such signs despite my notification of the signs not being legally proper.

----------------------

Some folks are considering the dual 30.06/07 postings where no 30.06 posting existed before as backfiring on the cause of gun rights. I don't see it quite that way as much as really helping to identify businesses that are supportive and those that are not.

I also think that a lot of businesses will lose their signs after things settle down, much like many businesses did with 30.06 signs. I would not be surprised if most lose their signs inside of 2 years.
 
http://shop.spreadshirt.com/churchflavor/

1,width=400,height=400,appearanceId=1,version=1451100000.jpg


I promised my wife i wouldn't embarrass her by wearing this tee in HEB
 
The problems with Open Carry right now is that if you go openly carrying an AR-15, it can strike a lot of people as extremist, even those who are against so-called "assault weapons bans," magazine capacity limitations, and universal background checks. I know, because I was once one of those people. Let alone how the people who are more on the fence and might support those measures might see it. People need to be eased into it.

The other thing is that in the current climate of terrorism threats and mass shootings being more frequent, if you see someone open carrying a rifle into a place of people, like a grocery store or mall, you don't know for sure if they are a mass shooter or not.

And the thing with Open Carry is that you can claim that banning it does not violate the right to keep and bear arms as we support it, i.e. that it isn't a ban on carrying of a gun, just the open carrying of a gun, that it is not a ban on the possession of long guns or guns labeled as assault weapons and thus is not a ban on being able to resist a tyranny should one arise, and also is not a ban on the ability to defend oneself.

So it can sound very reasonable to many people who would otherwise themselves be considered extremist by the Moms Demand Action types. Also, one could make the argument that an accident could happen, say a curious child run up and pull the trigger on someone's holstered gun or slung rifle (I know this happened to a police officer visiting a kindergarten).
 
To many people though, open carry is still open carry regardless, and it is easy for legislators to fool those who don't know the nuts and bolts.
 
Quote:
A non-compliant sign may convey the property owner's wishes but it doesn't ban anything.
Sure it does.

It bans firearms from the property owners premises. A total and complete Ban.

The sign may not carry some misdemeanor charges associated with a Compliant sign, but it is a total and complete Ban just the same and violating that sign can get you removed from the premises.

Being removed for disobeying a sign, is a ban.

Sign on the door says, "No Skate Boards Allowed". No force of Law attached.

Ya ride in on a "Skate Board", ya get tossed out the door.

Guess what, the sign banned Skate Boards even without the force of law.
Click to expand...

NO.
Not in Texas. Texas has specific legal requirements for sign posting. This law was put in place specifically to make gunbuster and other signage invalid, as there is a criminal penalty attached to carrying beyond the signs. Additionally, the manner of the sign posting and details on the sign itself (size of lettering, English and Spanish, actual language etc.) are detailed in the law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Interesting side effect again - another new ghost buster sign at a local house of worship. Never had one before.

I wonder if folks don't want to post the large and obnoxious 30.07 but want to make a statement.

If they ever got rid of the 30.06/07 rules, the state would be blanketed with signs.

That would be a gift from the OC crowd.

...and you know this how?
Click to expand...
Past history. When CHL was first put in place a plethora of signs were being put up. The law was enacted with very specific requirements to avoid just such a thing.

The problem you failed to understand, LogicMan, is that 30.06 and 30.07 have nothing to do with long guns.
Click to expand...
Very true. The antics of certain OCT groups have created much of the problem with this, which has been used as fodder by the Bloomberg funded Moms Demand Blah Blah and other groups to pressure entities.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top