HEB

[General Zod]

So I can't carry my gun in a club or bar like these fools in Houston do and be shooting each other to death.

That's the idea. But since the fools in Houston do it, obviously the signs are sooooo fucking effective. But yeah. The idea is to prevent legal carry where people are actively serving and consuming alcohol, because we can apparently be trusted to be armed, but not to use common sense while carrying.

 

[TJjerry]

I think that some business post the old "The non-registered firearm is not allowed on these premises" or what ever it says is to just try to defray the stupid and not offend the concealed carriers. I enjoy seeing that sign in lieu of a 30.06. At least I hope that is what they are thinking.
Not well thought out by the Legislature or anyone else thinking that a sign is going to do any good, as today's majority of stupid cannot read.
I am a bit more careful with signs in Harris County than in Montgomery though. Maybe we should demand that those sighs be in French, German, Italian, etc......

Buy the way, if a mall or business post 30.06, 30.05 etc and then gets shot up and people hurt, why are they not sued into bankruptcy for it? Posting such signs seems to convey a message that "honest carriers not necessary, we have your back," when in reality their guard or guards, if they have one, is not usually armed. Seems by this novice that our legal eagles are missing an opportunity.

A few large settlements and they will post instead, 'Shop at your own risk'.

 

[toddnjoyce]

And how exactly were you punished in this instance? You saw an invalid 51% sign. Did a SWAT team immediately descend from the rafters and arrest you?

What makes a 51% sign invalid? As far as TPC46 is concerned, the only thing that matters is whether or not the premises holds certain TABC licenses AND TABC determined the ABC licenseholder derives 51% of earnings from those sales.

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.

(7) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;

It’s been a while since I looked at TABC’s rules and regulations, but last time I checked, there was no specific location to post a red sign, only that it he displayed.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

 

[General Zod]

What makes a 51% sign invalid? As far as TPC46 is concerned, the only thing that matters is whether or not the premises holds certain TABC licenses AND TABC determined the ABC licenseholder derives 51% of earnings from those sales.


It’s been a while since I looked at TABC’s rules and regulations, but last time I checked, there was no specific location to post a red sign, only that it he displayed.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

Location is important.

Section 411.204 - Notice Required on Certain Premises(a) A business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the business premises a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c).

 

[toddnjoyce]

Location is important.

Section 411.204 - Notice Required on Certain Premises(a) A business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the business premises a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c).

TPC46 is a about what a person cannot do; . TGC411.204 is about what a business must do.

Also, nowhere is TPC46.03 does it provide an exception or DTP to a licenseholder who violates B(7), unlike 30.06/07 which clearly specifies signage requirements.

If you want to ante up on a 51% sign, table stakes is a felony, which is why the only authoritative source is the TABC license lookup.

 

[General Zod]

TPC46 is a about what a person cannot do; . TGC411.204 is about what a business must do.

Also, nowhere is TPC46.03 does it provide an exception or DTP to a licenseholder who violates B(7), unlike 30.06/07 which clearly specifies signage requirements.

If you want to ante up on a 51% sign, table stakes is a felony, which is why the only authoritative source is the TABC license lookup.

If the business isn't following 411.204, then the person can't reasonably be expected to know it's a prohibited location. Otherwise the business owner could stick the sign in a desk drawer in their office and be in compliance, and the individual would be none the wiser.

Non-compliant signage posting is a defense to prosecution.

 

[TexasRedneck]

If the 51% sign is not displayed in the location or manner specified by law, it is unenforceable, since it's effectively not posted.

 

[benenglish]

...30.06

... I won't do business with any 'retail' business that displays such a sign.

Somebody on here told a story about a gun shop/range that was posted 30.06. The owner didn't care if you carried; he just wanted to know who was carrying.

IOW, the place was open carry only.

I figure most of us would have no problem doing business there.

 

[benenglish]

Won't go a movie theater that is posted.

I went to a movie recently. There may have been a sign on the outside of the building ~50 feet to the right of the entrance but I certainly couldn't take notice of it at that distance.

 

[benenglish]

As long as the 30.06 sign has the proper verbiage, and the letters are the proper size.

Like this one?

 

[General Zod]

Like this one?

View attachment 439616

Don't tell them, but the combo sign they paid good money for from some out-of-state mass production sign vendor...is exactly as valid as a gunbuster sign.

 

[striker55]

I went to a movie recently. There may have been a sign on the outside of the building ~50 feet to the right of the entrance but I certainly could take notice of it at that distance.

I believe Cinemark is okay with concealed that's the way it was the last time I went.

 

[benenglish]

Don't tell them, but the combo sign they paid good money for from some out-of-state mass production sign vendor...is exactly as valid as a gunbuster sign.

I know.

I should have taken a picture of a medical office I once saw that had apparently ordered every sign from a catalog and put them all up. There were more than 10; 12 or13 iirc. Every single sign was wrong, having no force under Texas law. Every single one.

It was hard to believe what I was seeing. Apparently someone clued them in because the signs were gone a couple of months later.

ETA - That sign I showed above was placed about as far from the door of the office as possible. It's like the owners thought guns were so icky that they didn't even want a sign about them being anywhere near where their customers would be. Seriously, the wall it's on is configured exactly like that all the way up to the door, many yards away. They could have put the sign right next to the door with zero additional effort or expense. But I guess "Out of sight, out of mind" sometimes applies even to serious business decisions.

 

[benenglish]

I believe Cinemark is okay with concealed that's the way it was the last time I went.

That's good to know. I was at a Cinemark.

 

[General Zod]

That's good to know. I was at a Cinemark.

Yeah, no effing way I'm going to a movie theater unarmed...too much of a ripe, easy target for some random Democrat.

 

[toddnjoyce]

…Non-compliant signage posting is a defense to prosecution.

Cite the statute please.

If the 51% sign is not displayed in the location or manner specified by law, it is unenforceable, since it's effectively not posted.

Got any case law to back thise assertions up, because TPC46.03 (which is what you’ll be charged with) doesn’t state that.

It can be taken to trial, sure.

 

[General Zod]

Cite the statute please.



Got any case law to back thise assertions up, because TPC46.03 (which is what you’ll be charged with) doesn’t state that.

It can be taken to trial, sure.

Sections 46.03 (a) (7), (11), and (13) do not apply if the actor: (1) carries a handgun on the premises or other property, as applicable; (2) holds a license to carry a handgun issued under Subchapter H,Chapter 411,Government Code; and (3) was not given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07 of this code or Section 411.204, Government Code, as applicable.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB01927F.pdf#navpanes=0

Giving notice is required. No matter how desperately you, for some reason, want it to be optional. And if the notice is given via a posted sign, it has to be readily visible on entry or it is invalid.

 

[General Zod]

Now if you don't mind, I'm tired of wading through legalese because you want to believe businesses can secretly prohibit legal carry. I'm a graphic designer, not a lawyer.

Also, there's no TABC SWAT teams waiting to rappel down from the rafters if you don't see an inappropriately placed sign.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Cite the statute please.



Got any case law to back thise assertions up, because TPC46.03 (which is what you’ll be charged with) doesn’t state that.

It can be taken to trial, sure.

Got any cases to cite where my assertions are proven wrong?

 

[DoubleDuty]

I know.

I should have taken a picture of a medical office I once saw that had apparently ordered every sign from a catalog and put them all up. There were more than 10; 12 or13 iirc. Every single sign was wrong, having no force under Texas law. Every single one.

It was hard to believe what I was seeing. Apparently someone clued them in because the signs were gone a couple of months later.

We need to work on getting enforceable signs to be unenforceable as they protect no one.