Some thoughts on fixing the proliferation of 30.06 and 30.07 signs next session

[Fragman]

Double post

 

[SC-Texas]

Not while carrying a gun, no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you are in the minority.

I have entered places with 30.06 signs that were not posted at the entrance I entered. That were not visible when you entered.

My favorite is the black or white letters on clear glass. Mixed with 5 other signs and notices.

Or the sign posted on the door Itself that you don't see because someone is holding the door open for a group of people as you walk up and you don't see it till you leave.

www.AtomicLabRat.com

 

[Fragman]

Firstly, if you walked in through an unposted entrance, then you did not walk past a sign, nor did you ignore one.
Secondly, I take particular care to look out for the sign, even as I am approaching the property. They are easy enough to spot, even if they are on glass.

You said the vast majority IGNORE the sign. Which means they saw it and went into the premises armed anyway. I think you are wrong. Maybe others from the most law abiding section of the population can say if they ignore the signs too?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SC-Texas]

I like you Sean, but this idea is absurd. A far better target for next session would be allow LTC to carry anywhere LEO can. We have the statistics to prove how well we obey the law.

I don't do business with 30.06 locations, unless I have no option. When I have no option, I continue to be a law abiding citizen. I have never carried past a legitimate 30.06 sign

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Which part is absurd? Specifically?

Frankly, the only thing that really borders on the absurd is making sign posters strictly liable for the actions of criminal actors on their property. Although I guarantee you if they were the victims in this scenario they would be calling me to force the business owner to pay their medical bills and lost wages.

They are separate initiatives. We don't have to pursue all.

I like your idea. There would be no 30.06 or 30.07 if ltc could carry everywhere an Leo could carry. I would support that. No more signs then.

Of course you will get all the "private property trumps all" people in this thread up in arms and telling you that you were evil.

www.AtomicLabRat.com

 

[SC-Texas]

You said the vast majority IGNORE the sign. Which means they saw it and went into the premises armed anyway. I think you are wrong. Maybe others from the most law abiding section of the population can say if they ignore the signs too?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe that the vast majority do ignore 30.06 now. I had a different opinion a few years ago. But that has changed.

I am not going to debate the morality of this. My advise to all clients is to follow the law.

Not a wink wink either. Follow it.

Based on candid conversations over the years, I believe that 30.06 is generally ignored

www.AtomicLabRat.com

 

[Younggun]

I highly doubt that is true. The vast majority? I certainly don't.

Can't claim that we are 'the most law abiding segment of the population' on one hand and then say the vast majority of us ignore 30.06 (which would be breaking the law).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This

In a "Free society", your remedy is to not go.



leVieux

This

I like you Sean, but this idea is absurd. A far better target for next session would be allow LTC to carry anywhere LEO can. We have the statistics to prove how well we obey the law.

I don't do business with 30.06 locations, unless I have no option. When I have no option, I continue to be a law abiding citizen. I have never carried past a legitimate 30.06 sign

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

This

Fix what? Private property rights trump your gun rights.

This

Not while carrying a gun, no I have most certainly not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely this

Firstly, if you walked in through an unposted entrance, then you did not walk past a sign, nor did you ignore one.
Secondly, I take particular care to look out for the sign, even as I am approaching the property. They are easy enough to spot, even if they are on glass.

You said the vast majority IGNORE the sign. Which means they saw it and went into the premises armed anyway. I think you are wrong. Maybe others from the most law abiding section of the population can say if they ignore the signs too?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This too.






I'm strongly against #4. I'll never support requiring victims to pay for the actions of criminals.

I'll also not support any requirement to allow carry on private property. Libs love to trample private property rights and I refuse to say it's ok by following suit.


If you want to say the signs equal trespassing and the signage carries no other weight, fine. But I think that would open the door to gunbusters being considered legal signs as notice for no guns allowed and a lot more places would be off limits real quick. And I wouldn't ignore them.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

Fix what? Private property rights trump your gun rights.

Agree 100%. This is no different than refusing to bake a cake. Business should be allowed to deny service to anyone they choose, regardless of reason.

I like you Sean, but this idea is absurd. A far better target for next session would be allow LTC to carry anywhere LEO can. We have the statistics to prove how well we obey the law.

I don't do business with 30.06 locations, unless I have no option. When I have no option, I continue to be a law abiding citizen. I have never carried past a legitimate 30.06 sign

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

I Concur.

Not while carrying a gun, no I have most certainly not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ditto

Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk

 

[winchster]

Which part is absurd? Specifically?

Frankly, the only thing that really borders on the absurd is making sign posters strictly liable for the actions of criminal actors on their property. Although I guarantee you if they were the victims in this scenario they would be calling me to force the business owner to pay their medical bills and lost wages.

They are separate initiatives. We don't have to pursue all.

I like your idea. There would be no 30.06 or 30.07 if ltc could carry everywhere an Leo could carry. I would support that. No more signs then.

Of course you will get all the "private property trumps all" people in this thread up in arms and telling you that you were evil.

www.AtomicLabRat.com

#4 Crosses the border and jumps smack in the middle
#1 Would open the door to what we had before 30.06

To put the private property initiative another way; Jim Crow laws were wrong. Forcing a business to do something is a play out of the other sides playbook and I just don't agree with that. I know they are heavily regulated already, but they're not forced to serve against their will, and that's what you're proposing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[SC-Texas]

Agree 100%. This is no different than refusing to bake a cake. Business should be allowed to deny service to anyone they choose, regardless of reason

Race? Sex? Age? Religion?





www.AtomicLabRat.com

 

[SC-Texas]

This
I'm strongly against #4. I'll never support requiring victims to pay for the actions of criminals.


Sent from my HAL 9000

But the victims are having to pay under the current system.

The guy who gets shot in the store that posted the 30.06 sign has to pay his own medical bills.

I would grant the store immunity if the did not post the sign and let them be liable if they do post it.

I get it this is a reach. The concept is that the anti-gun business gets to put its money where it's ideology lays.





www.AtomicLabRat.com

 

[Younggun]

But the victims are having to pay under the current system.

The guy who gets shot in the store that posted the 30.06 sign has to pay his own medical bills.

I would grant the store immunity if the did not post the sign and let them be liable if they do post it.

I get it this is a reach. The concept is that the anti-gun business gets to put its money where it's ideology lays.





www.AtomicLabRat.com

He chose to enter with knowledge that the store was posted. His choice, his consequences.

He should have made a better choice and gone to a different store. But that doesn't make the store responsible for the criminals actions.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Younggun]

Race? Sex? Age? Religion?





www.AtomicLabRat.com

Yep. All of those reasons should be perfectly legal motive to deny service. Otherwise we are treading dangerously close to forced servitude.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[SC-Texas]

Yep. All of those reasons should be perfectly legal motive to deny service. Otherwise we are treading dangerously close to forced servitude.


Sent from my HAL 9000

Okay. That's cool. Unfortunately that's not the law.



www.AtomicLabRat.com

 

[SC-Texas]

. Maybe others from the most law abiding section of the population can say if they ignore the signs too?

My advice would be to not post on a forum if you have Done this. But I think most are smart enough to know this.


www.AtomicLabRat.com

 

[Younggun]

Okay. That's cool. Unfortunately that's not the law.



www.AtomicLabRat.com

Isn't this thread about changing laws which effect property rights? I'm simply disagreeing on which laws should change.


Being law doesn't make it right.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Younggun]

My advice would be to not post on a forum if you have Done this. But I think most are smart enough to know this.


www.AtomicLabRat.com

I think most aren't ignoring the signs. But maybe tomorrow I can start a pole on it. That way we can get an idea without anyone having to identify themselves.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

I try to obey all 30.06 and 30.07 postings. Every new buisness I visit, I make it a point to verbally state I'm looking for any signage posted conspicuously. This is to help me bring in witnesses on my side if I miss a sign and get the cops called, and it also helps me remember to look.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk

 

[Hoji]

I have watched people walk up to a posted business( people I do not know) see the posted .06 sign, go back to their vehicles,open the door or trunk and do something,then go right back to the posted store.

Under the ordinary standards of reasonableness, one could infer that they ungunned, and went back in the store. No one I know deliberately walks by legal signage.

 

[Big Dipper]

But the victims are having to pay under the current system.

The guy who gets shot in the store that posted the 30.06 sign has to pay his own medical bills.

I would grant the store immunity if the did not post the sign and let them be liable if they do post it.

I get it this is a reach. The concept is that the anti-gun business gets to put its money where it's ideology lays.

Wisconsin did this when they enacted that state's concealed carry law.

175.60(21)(b)
A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.

And, because of that there are very few places that are posted in Wisconsin!

 

[Younggun]

It reads that the immunity applied in WI is not exactly the same as what is being discussed in this thread.

The way I read it, WI is saying the store can't be sued if a license holder does something stupid. Nothing to do with liability for the actions of a criminal if the property owner prohibits carry.


Sent from my HAL 9000