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

stealthyeliminator said:

I know you are talking about in other states, but just in case someone unfamiliar is reading, in Texas these signs (30.06 and 30.07 signs) do indeed have legal weight, and while the law may not explicitly require one to stop and read signs, it does still prohibit carrying past properly posted signs whether you bothered to read it or not.

Now, I hadn't considered that some states don't give any form of sign any legal weight to begin... That's very interesting, and probably a model worth considering for Texas, if it can be made to be consistent with Texas' other various relevant laws and still respectful of private property rights.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying that I was providing it as a model, and that Texas does not enjoy freedom from signage.

Texas is not as gun friendly as we would like you to believe. We are trying to catch up.

as previously stated...the signage issue should be the least of your worries if you are seeking OC w/o a permit.

everyone in their brother will hound the legislature to 'fix the signage issue' and there and only there will their energies be expended making the signage purdy and conform to some wonderful criteria.

btw SC, tell me my quote: additionally, none of his proposals are enforceable w/o significant $$$ for a citizen to run through the judicial process to get relief. unquote which you challenged with this comment: quote: Did you bother reading anything I wrote or just start whining? unquote

so SC here is your proposal you posted on your very first try on this forum: quote
The next session. We need to make some changes


1. 30.06. No more 30.06 for private businesses. If you can't see it. . . . The only lawful 30.06 would be for places that are statutorily prohibited i.e. courts. Voting places etc. Require bars i.e. 51% places to post 30.06.


1.5. 30.05 remains. Business owner may ask you to leave for concealed or open carry.


2. 30.07. Letters must be 6" tall. Black letters on white background. Only mounted on non moving surfaces at All entrances


3. 30.07 class c misdemeanor and can't loose ltc. Or simply decriminalize 30.07.


4. Tort immunity for business that do not post 30.07. Strict liability for damages arising from criminal activity for business that do post 30.07


5. Landlords may not put anti LTC language in lease i.e. 30.06 and 30.07 Language.

whom is going to enforce your proposals?

whom is going to pay the legal fees if a business doesn't meet number 2 or 4 or 5?

is a potential resident going to plow through the judicial system if landlords put the language in their contracts?

number 1 business already have the right to ask you to leave... right? so why have signage?

oh i know your law office will represent the resident challenge the landlord or you will assist the business who puts up the wrong sized sign...for free...right?

seems i did read your post sc but you failed to comprehend mine...

back to the issue at hand...you are pushing specific signage criteria to your legislature to assist a business which already has the right to throw your silly butts out on a whim...instead of developing objectives, getting a viable plan together, finding resources, and pushing that way...ok...i get it...

it worked so well this latest time didn't...p4p w/profit center still intact...

as the piper stated...LGBT went to the courts to get what they felt were their stated objectives...sure a lot of it was pro bono work...hint

ipse

solus said:

as the piper stated...LGBT went to the courts to get what they felt were their stated objectives...sure a lot of it was pro bono work...hint

ipse

Click to expand...

I don't think it was pro bono - I think if you were to peel it back you would find grants, awards and other ways Federal funds were channeled to those agitating for extra-Constitutional emanations and penumbras...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HPmatt said:

I don't think it was pro bono - I think if you were to peel it back you would find grants, awards and other ways Federal funds were channeled to those agitating for extra-Constitutional emanations and penumbras...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

most of the grassroots entities are 501 entities, eligible to apply for grants...

i think i mentioned that the GLBT, by what ever means succeeded in reaching their objectives...

btw, how is your OC permit doing in your back pocket?

ipse

HPmatt said:

I don't think it was pro bono - I think if you were to peel it back you would find grants, awards and other ways Federal funds were channeled to those agitating for extra-Constitutional emanations and penumbras...

Click to expand...

Yup.

And to be clear, I doubt we can count on the same level of judicial activism or support for RKBA as has been provided to some of the more leftist causes.

My point was that the homosexual crowd didn't settle merely for economic boycotts while respecting some right to discriminate in the public sphere. They didn't settle just for private educational and outreach efforts. They used all of these. And they enjoyed the benefit of a friendly media.

But they also relied on some rather strong language to denounce any depiction or description of homosexuality they thought was negative. They made their cause the current version of the 1960s civil rights and by both extension and explicit proclamation, any who opposed them the equivalent of white robed klansmen.

And they pushed for legal protections via the courts, legislatures, and popular referendum. The courts were the most friendly venue and so they concentrated their energies there once it was clear they were losing badly in the legislatures and among the populace on the issue of the definition of marriage. When taken in concert with other existing laws, those legal protections infringe on others private property rights, their rights to conduct business as they see fit, and are moving into threats against freedom of speech and of religion.

But the homosexual lobby has been gloriously successful in gaining both legal protections and dramatically increased social acceptance.

I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is are we RKBA advocates first and libertarians second? Or, are we libertarians first and RKBA advocates second?

Even if we don't want to ask or answer those questions, do we have to support criminal penalties for violation of private policies in businesses open to the public? Or should enforcement of private policies be a private matter?

I can tell you that in Utah we have no legal enforcement of private gun bans in businesses (other than trespass if someone disrupts business). There are very few businesses that bother posting and none that make any attempt to enforce with the exception of our NBA stadium that employs metal detectors for some events.

Employer gun bans for employees likewise enjoy no legal backing in Utah, but are ubiquitous just as they are nationwide. But we do have parking lot preemption so employees are not disarmed during their commute.

Charles

sorry the GLBT group didn't have an amendment going into the race. they established a national plan and pressed across the country took about 11 years...

as for economic sanctions...ask chik-fil-a

what do we have...private grassroots struggling in individual states to ...oh wait, allow the profit center to continue as the nation's citizens are told...be thankful you can OC with your permit...

now TX citizens are led to bewiderment that their next challenge is that the statute signage must be pristine; or FL citizens are told by their legislature; or KY citizens the work in committee is tabled to work on more important stuff...

do you see a pattern across the country and we shrug and say next year we'll do better.

ipse

I'm considering carrying copies of this with me to hand out to places posted.

"Having observered your posting of signage requiring me not to carry my defensive side-arm, I will respect your private property rights by disarming. However, I can only assume that you have decided to accept all responsibility for my health and safety while I patronize your establishment. Should some type of situation occur were I could have defended myself, but was unable to do so, you will be liable for all costs incurred by myself or my family. This will include all health care and/or funeral expenses."


Any thoughts, corrections or additions welcome!

I've been talking about strict liability for posting 3006 signs for years now. I'm also moderately in favor of increasing the required letter height - not just to invalidate signs but because a lot of them are hard to see and I want to know what places don't want my money.

mark-in-texas said:

I'm considering carrying copies of this with me to hand out to places posted.

"Having observered your posting of signage requiring me not to carry my defensive side-arm, I will respect your private property rights by disarming. However, I can only assume that you have decided to accept all responsibility for my health and safety while I patronize your establishment. Should some type of situation occur were I could have defended myself, but was unable to do so, you will be liable for all costs incurred by myself or my family. This will include all health care and/or funeral expenses."

Any thoughts, corrections or additions welcome!

Click to expand...

first whom are you going to give this to...the first clerk you see? the MODuty?

neither have the authority to enter into a binding contract nor circumvent in force insurance riders to provide the liability clauses you insist on.

and if you are in a corp outlet...trust me they will get a good chuckle by your piece of paper.

all will ignore any benefits you will file for...

stick with the card, given to a mgr and walk out to shop somewhere else.

ipse

mark-in-texas said:

I'm considering carrying copies of this with me to hand out to places posted.

"Having observered your posting of signage requiring me not to carry my defensive side-arm, I will respect your private property rights by disarming. However, I can only assume that you have decided to accept all responsibility for my health and safety while I patronize your establishment. Should some type of situation occur were I could have defended myself, but was unable to do so, you will be liable for all costs incurred by myself or my family. This will include all health care and/or funeral expenses."


Any thoughts, corrections or additions welcome!

Click to expand...

Your paper would be worthless without changes in the law. I would reword it that you will not do business with them unless they provide for your safety by providing armed security. For most business this would be too expensive, it won't change their attitude, but it will be effective if they do encounter a problem. If you have it on video that you made them aware you might be able to get a news outlet to pick it up. THAT would damage their business, and they would have to rethink.

The problem is that many of these anti business get robbed, but the public mostly does not know about it, and if they do they do not know they are GFZ. Even non gun people will avoid a business that is unsafe. AND that is the message you need to get across.

MAC702 said:

Many states give no legal weight to any form of signage. If you have a business that is open to the public, you still have the right to refuse service to anyone, and the right to trespass anyone, for any reason that does not violate a civil right.

But the law doesn't require customers to stop at doors and read the signs (the same ones the robbers ignore.)

Click to expand...

According to Barron’s law dictionary CIVIL RIGHTS:

Rights given, defined, and circumscribed by laws enacted by civilized communities… Also, defined as rights of a citizen or citizens, and laws relating to the private rights of individuals and to legal actions involving these.

Click to expand...

Human rights are defined as:

Basic rights that fundamentally and inherently belong to each individual.
Human rights are freedoms established by custom or international agreement that impose standards of conduct on all nations. Human rights are distinct from civil liberties, which are freedoms established by the law of a particular state and applied by that state in its own jurisdiction.

Specific human rights include the right to personal liberty and Due Process of Law; to freedom of thought, expression, religion, organization, and movement; to freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, age, language, and sex; to basic education; to employment; and to property. Human rights laws have been defined by international conventions, by treaties, and by organizations, particularly the United Nations. These laws prohibit practices such as torture, Slavery, summary execution without trial, and Arbitrary detention or exile.

Click to expand...

According to the above definitions, the Right to Keep & Bear Arms is both a civil right & a human right.

If no sign is posted can the owner eject the OC/CCer?

...I've seen a few "No Irish" signs in my day...quiet taverns they were...thankfully.

WalkingWolf said:

The problem is that many of these anti business get robbed, but the public mostly does not know about it, and if they do they do not know they are GFZ. Even non gun people will avoid a business that is unsafe. AND that is the message you need to get across.

Click to expand...

Safety is one aspect. But not the only one.

Going back to what lessons might we learn from highly successful campaigns to change society in their favor, what did the homosexuals do?

Refusing service to homosexual individuals or events, or firing someone who happens to be homosexual doesn't make a business any less safe. And it has no direct effect on 99% of the population even when it does happen, which isn't very often.

The way they got enough of the population to care about it was to cast it as hateful, hurtful, discrimination.

I believe gun owners need to start doing likewise. Banning guns is not merely a decision by a private business owner. It doesn't just make a business more dangerous to the general public. In fact, the business owner isn't banning guns, he is banning gun owners; or at least gun carriers. That is hurtful, hateful, bigoted discrimination.

Let us remember that there is no such thing as "gun rights". Guns don't have rights. People have rights, including the right to an effective self-defense. We have the right to be safe as we go about our business. And we have the same rights to participate in the public square, with dignity and respect for who we are as does anyone else.

Banning gun owners is discrimination. It is as ugly as refusing service to homosexuals, having segregated water fountains, or refusing to hire Irish.

If we don't set the terms of the debate, our opponents will set them for us.

Charles

OC for ME said:

If no sign is posted can the owner eject the OC/CCer?

...I've seen a few "No Irish" signs in my day...quiet taverns they were...thankfully.

Click to expand...

Somehow, someway property rights can trample upon civil & human rights, so yes just the owner or manager saying "no guns allowed" or something to that effect allows them to trespass a law abiding, responsibly armed citizen.

OC for ME said:

If no sign is posted can the owner eject the OC/CCer?

...I've seen a few "No Irish" signs in my day...quiet taverns they were...thankfully.

Click to expand...

Several clubs around here have no gang colors signs, though it is commonly ignored. A lot depends on the gang, local MC clubs are usually given a pass.

mnrobitaille said:

According to Barron’s law dictionary CIVIL RIGHTS:

Human rights are defined as:

According to the above definitions, the Right to Keep & Bear Arms is both a civil right & a human right.

Click to expand...

I should have specified a protected civil right.

MAC702 said:

I should have specified a protected civil right.

Click to expand...

One of the big reasons why RKBA is not a protected civil right is because no one has gone to the legislative branch & judicial branch & made a big fuss about being discriminated against (need to take a page out of the LGBT Movement).

mnrobitaille said:

One of the big reasons why RKBA is not a protected civil right is because no one has gone to the legislative branch & judicial branch & made a big fuss about being discriminated against (need to take a page out of the LGBT Movement).

Click to expand...

I won't disagree, but it's moot to current law, unfortunately.

Also, on the non-legislative side, don't forget the power of social media. Restaurants can be significantly affected by their rating on yelp and the like. While it would be irresponsible to leaving review businesses that you don't have personal experience with, I would think that driving across town to go to a place you heard about only to find that they want to exclude you from their premises would definitely be a one-star experience.