Improper "No Guns" Sign

[Booyah]

According to what I see a hospital does have to have 30.06 posted at each entrance...

Where do you see that?

 

[superchief]

I wasn't trying to be noble or anything like that. If a biz puts up the regulation sign, I don't go in. If they have the "gunbuster" sign up, I don't go in. It's just a small effort to keep money out of their hands that might find its way to politicians or groups on the wrong side of this issue. I don't call them, write them, or protest in the parking lot. They just don't get any of my money or anybody's money that I can influence.

 

[benenglish]

If they have the "gunbuster" sign up, I don't go in. It's just a small effort to keep money out of their hands that might find its way to politicians or groups on the wrong side of this issue.

I prefer to be more optimistic.

Has it ever occurred to you that a "gunbuster" sign can be a wink and a nod to those in the know? If a businesses is in an area where the political proclivities of customers mean that a "Guns Welcome" sign would hurt profits, why not post a "gunbusters"? It appeases the know-nothing hoplophobes and, at least in Texas, also says "Hey, all you guys legally carrying concealed know the law and know about signage. This one doesn't mean anything other than you're welcome in my store despite the fact that I have to also cater to a bunch of people who think different."

I remember doing an article for a major industry-specific magazine published out of California in the late 1990s. The article had to do with retail store practices and promotion, i.e. marketing stuff. One store I visited had a hand-drawn gunbusters sign. I took a picture of it then asked the manager about it. He agreed to explain but only off the record. I was OK with that. He told me, as near as I can paraphrase after all these years: "The customers carrying legally know they can ignore it. The customers who are afraid of guns feel safer. It's a win-win."

The magazine, however, had a field day with the picture. They assigned a caption writer to make fun of Texas as a bunch of gunslinging yahoos who had to be reminded to leave their six-shooters in their pickup trucks. That pissed me off; I usually wrote all my own captions. I had to accept, though, that it was my fault for sending them the picture without a caption; I should have known they'd put some stupid text under it.

So I don't assume a gunbusters sign is a bad thing. I recognize it can mean the exact opposite of what most people think it means.

On the very few occasions I've had a reason to discuss the matter with a store owner or manager, the signs didn't change afterward. At that point, they knew what proper signage was yet left the unenforceable signage in place. In cases like that it seems pretty clear (to me, at least) that the business isn't anti-gun at all. The business simply wants to shut up the occasional libtard (not a term I usually use but it's applicable here) who expresses a desire to be kept safe from people toting concealed weaponry.

 

[BIGPAPIGREG]

Has it ever occurred to you that a "gunbuster" sign can be a wink and a nod to those in the know? It appeases the know-nothing hoplophobes and, at least in Texas, also says "Hey, all you guys legally carrying concealed know the law and know about signage. This one doesn't mean anything other than you're welcome in my store despite the fact that I have to also cater to a bunch of people who think different."

Right on the money Ben...at least I feel this way here in TEXAS. Mind you, for the most part even though some stores are run by clueless fools........they are no idiots. I just find it hard to believe that these places of business and the people that run them are "doing it wrong". Now I'm sure it is possible & it does happen, but for the most part I think they realize what it is they are doing. Good post Ben-->.02

 

[karlac]

I prefer to be more optimistic. Has it ever occurred to you that a "gunbuster" sign can be a wink and a nod to those in the know?

Right on the money with regard to the 'wink an nod'.

My gripe, as earlier noted, is for someone to purposely(?) post three conflicting signs, as shown in post#601.

With most laws being written with exceptions, and subject to interpretation by prosecutors and courts (with the results of case law not always readily available), unlawful or non-applicable posting of anything that fosters further confusion, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of citizens who must abide by them or risk heavy penalties, as the three signs above do, should be just as illegal as what they purport to prohibit.

Many of our municipalities are noted for the 'unlawful' posting of 30.06 signs, a fact noted by the last legislature's unfortunately failed attempt to subject that practice to a fine for doing so. So it is apparent that someone is aware of the confusion and doubt resulting from the posting of unlawful, non-applicable, or conflicting signs and has attempted to restrict the practice.

The reality is that, as always, unintended consequences of a requirement for a permit, to exercise a freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, arguably results in a mine field that must be negotiated by the permit holder, further restricting his rights.

 

[benenglish]

...My gripe...is for someone to...post three conflicting signs...

The reality is...unintended consequences...results in a mine field that must be negotiated by the permit holder...

You're certainly right about that.

 

[BIGPAPIGREG]

You're certainly right about that.

+1, not that I like it.....that's just the way it is

 

[MtothePowerofG]

where do you see that?

gc §411.204. Notice required on certain premises.

 

[dwsintxs]

My original post (#601) shows 2 signs on one location, and I had asked for some clarification and I appreciate all the answers on the subject. . . however. . . .several posts have mentioned that there are 3 signs, and I was wondering what is being considered as the 3rd sign?

 

[Booyah]

gc §411.204. Notice required on certain premises.

I don't claim to be an expert and am more than willing to be corrected but here is what I see. The section you cited is government code not penal code. That section defines, for the hospital, what their signage requirements are...it does not define, for me, what is considered criminal behavior with regards to carrying. If someone's behavior is going to be found in violation and considered criminal trespass, it is not going to be under GC §411.204 it is going to be under PC §30.06. Put another way, while GC §411.204 difines what signs a hospital must display, it deos not define what is cosidered "notice" to me to not carry... PC §30.06 does that. Put yet another way, a hospital could be in violation of their signage requirements in GC §411.204 by not having a sign at every entrance and that would not releive me of my responibilities as defined in PC §30.06.

 

[karlac]

My original post (#601) shows 2 signs on one location, and I had asked for some clarification and I appreciate all the answers on the subject. . . however. . . .several posts have mentioned that there are 3 signs, and I was wondering what is being considered as the 3rd sign?

Sign #1 (on the left) - prohibits alcoholic consumption on the premises, conflicting with:


Sign #2 (on the top) - the 51% sign (which is only for establishments with on premises retail like a bar or restaurant, see below), and which prohibits all weapons, licensed or unlicensed, conflicting directly with:


Sign #3 (below #2) - which specfically allows licensed possession and therefore does not apply to a CHL holder.

On-Premise Retail Establishment:

Weapons Warning Sign -

If alcohol sales constitute less than half of gross receipts, the required sign says: "It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law."

If alcohol sales constitute more than half of gross receipts, the signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.

Sign#1 and #3 are possibly required, and I suspect Sign #2 may be overkill by a misguided management, but I don't really care enough to check TABC records because just seeing the three together is enough for me to take my money elsewhere.

 

[superchief]

This is too hard.

 

[orbitup]

This is too hard.

Welcome to the 'out of context quote' thread.

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/...out-context-quote-thread-108.html#post1026648

 

[karlac]

This is too hard.

IOW, confusion, uncertainly and doubt, eh?

 

[dwsintxs]

Sign #1 (on the left) - prohibits alcoholic consumption on the premises, conflicting with:


Sign #2 (on the top) - the 51% sign (which is only for establishments with on premises retail like a bar or restaurant, see below), and which prohibits all weapons, licensed or unlicensed, conflicting directly with:


Sign #3 (below #2) - which specfically allows licensed possession and therefore does not apply to a CHL holder.

On-Premise Retail Establishment:

Weapons Warning Sign -

If alcohol sales constitute less than half of gross receipts, the required sign says: "It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law."

If alcohol sales constitute more than half of gross receipts, the signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.

Sign#1 and #3 are possibly required, and I suspect Sign #2 may be overkill by a misguided management, but I don't really care enough to check TABC records because just seeing the three together is enough for me to take my money elsewhere.

I didn't realize that sign #1 had anything to do with the legality of CHL holders being allowed or barred from the facility. I thought that sign only concerned consumption of alcohol. . .

In my CHL training class, we discussed the 30.06 sign, the unlicensed firearms, and the 51% sign and the gunbusters type signage, but no others.

 

[Charlie]

I'm gettin' dizzy! Hopefully, most here know what the law says ...................... for those that can't get it figured out ..... good luck!

 

[dwsintxs]

I'm gettin' dizzy! Hopefully, most here know what the law says ...................... for those that can't get it figured out ..... good luck!

I was just asking a question to clear up a little confusion about conflicting signage, that's all. I do know what the law says, hence the confusion regarding confusing signage. If you're getting dizzy, sit down and stop spinning around so much.

 

[Charlie]

Not dizzy just from this thread .................. but dizzy from all the gazillion previous threads and posts that have covered this in the past. Thanks for the advice but I prefer to stand and spin.

 

[karlac]

I didn't realize that sign #1 had anything to do with the legality of CHL holders being allowed or barred from the facility.

It doesn't ... the point is that it adds to the confusion: That sign should not be there IF the 51% is valid.

So, which one of those two signs is valid?

You're obviously confused, because it is confusing, and is that not my point all along?

Once again: The combination of signs on that store front causes confusion, uncertainty and doubt, and doing so arguably restricts your right to carry concealed.

Is that better?

 

[dwsintxs]

Yes, much better. I've only been carrying for about 8 months, and have decided that when in doubt, or when there is confusing signage, I will not give that business my cash. Someone also mentioned earlier that the gunbuster sign might very well be a nod and a wink to let CHL'ers know they're welcome but their gunbuster sign is just to appease the anti-gunners crowd. . . since it's impossible for me to truly know their intent, and they may very well be anti-gunners, without the sense to post the correct sign, I will not give them my business either.