It doesn't matter what we think about it, TABC thinks they do which is why they are a blue sign.
cslifer said:
Angry Elephant is also a blue sign.
cslifer said:
The TABC website is open for anyone that wants to check.
Nobody is carrying onto a commercial aircraft. Not sure what that has to do with walking past a 30.06 sign which is an entirely different decision. The full answer is if you want a gun where you're going you lock it in a box and put it in your checked bag which is perfectly legal.happyinBCS said:
what do you do when you fly commercial airlines or maybe you don't
Yeah, 30.05 is a bit different. There's still questions as to whether a generic "no weapons" sign would exclude an LTC holder entering with a pocket knife or similar since the DTP only applies for entering with a handgun. It would certainly exclude an LTC holder OC a long gun. The DTP is going to have to be clarified by the Legislature at some point.LOYAL AG said:txyaloo said:This is not accurate. With Constitutional Carry, no guns/gun buster signs, carry force of law for unlicensed carry. Business may opt to install 30.05 signs, but there is no requirement to do so in the penal code.LOYAL AG said:JR Ewing said:woodiewood1 said:A lot of places are changing because the 30.07 only prohibits open carry.. The 30.05 prohibits unlicensed carriers and a lot are also putting up the 30.06 signs so they don't want any firearms.JR Ewing said:
Did I miss when Cinemark switched from a 30.07 sign to a 30.05 firearms prohibited sign? Was that recent? I will not be going there anymore. Hope they go bankrupt...
People don't realize that the average person who carries is not a risk as it the criminals who most all cannot even have a gun is causing the problems. Criminals don't follow laws. People making decisions just lack critical thinking skills.
That's their right and it's our right not to go there. Freedom for everyone!
30.05 with a no firearms sign is criminal trespass if you have one. It is essentially a no-go, licensed or not.
This is false. 30.05 specifically refers to unlicensed carry. The "no guns" sign has no meaning in Texas.Quote:
Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, a general residential operation operating as a residential treatment center, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Good to know. I RM thought I'd read where 30.05 signage worked like the other two.
txyaloo said:Yeah, 30.05 is a bit different. There's still questions as to whether a generic "no weapons" sign would exclude an LTC holder entering with a pocket knife or similar since the DTP only applies for entering with a handgun. It would certainly exclude an LTC holder OC a long gun. The DTP is going to have to be clarified by the Legislature at some point.LOYAL AG said:txyaloo said:This is not accurate. With Constitutional Carry, no guns/gun buster signs, carry force of law for unlicensed carry. Business may opt to install 30.05 signs, but there is no requirement to do so in the penal code.LOYAL AG said:JR Ewing said:woodiewood1 said:A lot of places are changing because the 30.07 only prohibits open carry.. The 30.05 prohibits unlicensed carriers and a lot are also putting up the 30.06 signs so they don't want any firearms.JR Ewing said:
Did I miss when Cinemark switched from a 30.07 sign to a 30.05 firearms prohibited sign? Was that recent? I will not be going there anymore. Hope they go bankrupt...
People don't realize that the average person who carries is not a risk as it the criminals who most all cannot even have a gun is causing the problems. Criminals don't follow laws. People making decisions just lack critical thinking skills.
That's their right and it's our right not to go there. Freedom for everyone!
30.05 with a no firearms sign is criminal trespass if you have one. It is essentially a no-go, licensed or not.
This is false. 30.05 specifically refers to unlicensed carry. The "no guns" sign has no meaning in Texas.Quote:
Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, a general residential operation operating as a residential treatment center, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Good to know. I RM thought I'd read where 30.05 signage worked like the other two.
LOYAL AG said:Again with the caveat that walking past a 51% sign is a felony. If they don't ask you to leave but instead call 911 because they're scared and unwilling to approach you that could be a real problem.Rockdoc said:
If you have an LTC, carry no matter what signs they have. If they ask you to leave, just leave. And take your business elsewhere.
The statistical probability of being in a theater with a mass shooter vs the probability a "well trained, licensed concealed gun owner" accidentally shoots innocent bystanders in an attempt to stop the mass shooter is staggering. I'll take my chances of it not happening vs some redneck looking for a reason to use the gun he feels compelled to carry everywhere.Love Gun said:
I ignore every one of those signs. If you make an issue over my concealed firearm, of which I'm trained and licensed to carry in many states, I'll take my criminal trespass warning - and my business elsewhere. I'm not going to put myself in a situation where I will potentially need a gun and not have one. If some idiot wants to try to come in and ventilate everyone in the room, they clearly don't care about your anti-gun stance and/or your signs - and neither will I.
Make no mistake, these are good vs. evil situations. There is evil in this world, and people like me aren't it. I'm sorry you aren't as trusting of me and my training because you think guns are to blame for killing people.
It's being published…Seriously though, my point is that it the likelihood that a theater goer will be present during a mass shooting event is a significantly less than the probability a concealed gun carry would killed by a car going to the theater. There is a myth that no innocent bystander has ever been shot by a concealed carry shooter, but there is no research on whether anyone was injured/killed by a gun carrier trying to stop a gun because 1) the incident is so low and 2) because the likelihood of a conceal carry owner would even be present in that situation is extremely low. To date, there is only anecdotal evidence. The point I was making…in my opinion, is that people who feel compelled to carry a weapon at all times in people, are either in a job/lifestyle that makes it much more likely they will encounter a shooter or they just like the idea of the possibility that an incident will happen in their lifetime , however unlikely that may be. Im all for gun ownership, I just disagree that America needs to regress to the old west to ensure everyone's safety. Now, defense against tyranny is something completely different.BCStalk said:
Could you please post the data and proof of your claim?
BCStalk said:
Doesn't fit his narrative
cslifer said:
But they already asked you not to bring it in, hence the sign. This board cracks me up, people love to talk about their rights, but when someone else exercises their rights on their private property it is ok to ignore them because your rights are more important.
Look at it like this. If a 5 star restaurant had a dress code that said no flip flops, you would respect that. This is the same thing, the business owner for whatever reason doesn't want guns on his property, that is his prerogative as the business owner. Why not just respect him and go elsewhere? By ignoring his request and acting like a jack@@@ all you do is reinforce his line of thinking about guns and the people that carry them.
cslifer said:
You sound like exactly the kind of person I would not want in my business with a gun.
cslifer said:
Your description of yourself just confirmed what I said in my above post!