Saw my first 30.07 sign

[Mreed911]

Don't recall exactly how HB910 was finally worded, but I would have to say the addition of the superfluous captions?
Just asking ... not arguing.

Current language:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

New language:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun."

Subtle but different. The statute, however, requires the precise wording.

 

[Renegade]

FYI, the language on the 30.06 sign posted by Winchster is technically incorrect come Jan 1.

Incorrect TODAY too.

I had to read it one word at a time and refer to Code to see error.

2 errors I see, do not know Spanish

 

[Mreed911]

Incorrect TODAY too.

I had to read it one word at a time and refer to Code to see error. Good catch!

2 errors I see, do not know Spanish

Not that I'd bet my freedom on this... but "the law is the law." That 30.06 is technically only effective come Jan 1, and only if correctly posted.

 

[karlac]

Current language:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

New language:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun."

Subtle but different. The statute, however, requires the precise wording.

You're right must be damned subtle, but still don't see (hey - tablet, old eyes, and photo not all that clear) the difference in HB910's new wording, and the wording on the (obviously new) 30:06 sign posted by Winchster, that would make it, as you stated, "technically incorrect after Jan 1".

Help out these old eyes and point out the specific errors/difference, if you don't mind.
Thanks ...

 

[Mreed911]

You're right must be damned subtle, but still don't see (hey - tablet, old eyes, and photo not all that clear) the difference in HB910's new wording, and the wording on the (obviously new) 30:06 sign posted by Winchster, that would make it, as you stated, "technically incorrect after Jan 1".

Help out these old eyes and point out the specific errors/difference, if you don't mind.
Thanks ...

I got my comments crossed and I have edited my original post.

The posted 30.06 sign is correct for the new law, but only applies starting Jan 1. It is NOT correct now.

 

[karlac]

I got my comments crossed and I have edited my original post.

The posted 30.06 sign is correct for the new law, but only applies starting Jan 1. It is NOT correct now.

Thanks ... that was my point all along.
The wording in the new sign appeared correct and identical to the required language after Jan1.

You had me worried there for a minute.

 

[oohrah]

karlac, the differences in RED.

Current language:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

New language:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun."

Subtle but different. The statute, however, requires the precise wording.

 

[karlac]

karlac, the differences in RED.

Well aware of the differences in old and new 30:06 since HB910 passed, thanks.
That was not my question, it was with regard to why the new 30.06 in the photo was not correct after Jan1.
It was patently and obviously incorrect until then ...

BTW, colorblind also.

 

[winchster]

Where is that winchster?

Brewer high school. White Settlement

Edited: FYI, the language on the 30.06 sign posted by Winchster is technically correct only from Jan 1.

Doesn't really matter in this case, but you're correct.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[winchster]

I just now realized your screen name is "winchster", not Winchester.

Cliff note version:
Based on my email, Winchester was not available when I created the original account 15 years ago.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Mreed911]

Brewer high school. White Settlement

Someone should report them.

 

[motorcarman]

the Planned Parenthood office next door had a 30.06 sign that was posted in the bottom corner of the last window in their office

Planned Parenthood DOES NOT NEED A FIREARM to end life. Only a form filled out.
I personally don't care if they abort democrats but they care about the people aborting democrats. Kinda crazy but it is the world we live in.

bob

 

[Mreed911]

Planned Parenthood DOES NOT NEED A FIREARM to end life. Only a form filled out.
I personally don't care if they abort democrats but they care about the people aborting democrats. Kinda crazy but it is the world we live in.

bob

Strange enough, you'd think folks working at Planned Parenthood would ALL be carrying! They're working in a high risk, high-emotion, politically-charged environment. You'd think they'd want that protection (no pun intended).

 

[Tcruse]

Good example, though I don't want to get sidetracked with 30.06 posting requirements that have already been hashed out on here and most folks understand. However, the 30.07 requirements are new and I consider their vagueness somewhat disconcerting. I'd like to see more clarity.

To that end, suppose:

• This mall is in Texas,
• The mall owners want no guns,
• The store owners want no guns, so
• They decide to post all entrances with both 30.06 and 30.07 signs.

At this point of ingress, a single 30.06 sign posted right in the middle would suffice. Yes, I know that not even that is required; they could simply put one sign somewhere inside that they can argue is conspicuous. I'm trying to be a tad more practical with this hypothetical case.

Back to the topic at hand. Does this point of ingress require a single 30.07 sign or seven 30.07 signs?

I feel there should be 7 30.07 signs. However, I won't say the mall/store owners are stupid if they argue that this collection of doors comprises a single entrance and, therefore, only one 30.07 sign is needed.

The reason I'm harping on this is that, if you stop and think about it, there are a whole bunch of businesses that you enter through areas that look similar to this. Also, keep in mind that this analogy can be stretched quite a ways. While a single 30.07 sign might suffice for the spot shown in the picture, there are large public spaces with dozens of doors in a row. In those places, a single sign would clearly violate any intent in the law to make sure the signage is seen by every person who enters.

So, I'm confused. That's my normal state of being, however, so it doesn't have me particularly worried.

Comments or thoughts, anyone?

I think that the answer is 2. One on each side of the set of doors, so that anyone entering has to walk where one of the signs is visible.

 

[Mreed911]

I think that the answer is 2. One on each side of the set of doors, so that anyone entering has to walk where one of the signs is visible.

And if you walk straight down the middle in a Christmas crowd?

 

[Bithabus]

Also important to remember that after Jan 1 people can safely choose to ignore these signs, since the penalty will be lowered to the equivalent of a speeding ticket.

 

[Mreed911]

Also important to remember that after Jan 1 people can safely choose to ignore these signs, since the penalty will be lowered to the equivalent of a speeding ticket.

Almost. You can't be arrested for speeding.

 

[Bithabus]

Almost. You can't be arrested for speeding.

Of course you can.

 

[txinvestigator]

No, it's apropos. It's a clearly marked "please don't shop here" sign for those carrying weapons.

You are smarter than that.

 

[Younggun]

You are smarter than that.

So those carrying handguns can shop there?

Wouldn't that be illegal?


Sent from my HAL 9000