Apathy and No Guns Signs

[bogie]

Yeah, and after you know what the law is, you can figure ways to get around it.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

I can't recall the last time I saw a "no guns" sign locally whether compliant with state regs or not.

What I see a lot of are the "Unlicensed possession" signs which I take as "We welcome licensed carry".

I just took my CHL class a couple weeks ago, so I'm still waiting for the actual CHL, but I remember the instructor commenting on the different kinds of signs.

The 51% sign in bars is mandated by the TABC -- the business owner has no free will in the matter, so I wouldn't punish them by taking my business elsewhere.

The "Unlicensed possession of a weapon" signs are also mandated by the TABC (as you commented) and can be ignored.

ONLY a 30.06 sign, with the EXACT wording in the law, with letters the right size, counts as a legal deterrant. I can ignore a handwritten "No guns allowed" sign. An old 30.06 sign that has wording inconsistent with the current law is also safe to ignore -- but you'd better be absolutely certain of the wording. Additionally, verbal communication from an agent of the business acting with apparent authority of the owners qualifies.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

Here in Tennessee a no gun sign effectively allows an owner / operator to write the law in the sense that it (the sigh) carries the weight of the law and can get you a fine of up to $500 and is looked upon as a criminal act and loss of CCW license if caught.

An acquaintance of mine from TN claimed that TN laws provides that if a CHL holder prevents a crime with his gun while in a building that disallows guns, no charges would be filed. He was less clear whether a pure self-defense use would qualify as preventing a crime. He also said that in TN, if a shooting was ruled as justified, you were protected from any and all civil liability.

Can anybody verify or refute this for me?

According to my CHL class, in Texas, no matter how justified you are in a shooting, you can and will be sued.

 

[bdickens]

Yeah, and after you know what the law is, you can figure ways to get around it.

That is an irresponsible statement!

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

According to my CHL class, in Texas, no matter how justified you are in a shooting, you can and will be sued

That is no longer true now that a "castle doctrine" law was passed in Texas. If the grand jury decides it was a good shoot, you are immune from civil liability if it has to do with the shooting.

SB 378, as passed by the Texas state senate:

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.



SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.



SECTION 5.

(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.



SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

 

[clarence222]

Most of the privately owned gun shops around here are posted no guns. The funny thing is Gander Mountain is specifically posted to allow carrying by those with a CCW

 

[Hawk]

ONLY a 30.06 sign, with the EXACT wording in the law, with letters the right size, counts as a legal deterrant. I can ignore a handwritten "No guns allowed" sign.

That's true.

But a "ghostbusters" sign with a handgun, or something that says "No guns - period" written in crayon still means the business owner doesn't want my money and I'm happy to oblige him in this.

If a business owner wants a sign that doesn't offend me, he can put up something like the TABC sign which basically says "CHLs welcome - wink wink nudge nudge"

A "no guns whether licensed or not" sign essentially says to me: "You're scum, your beliefs are misguided and we don't need or want your stinky carcass or your smelly money in here". I can not, for the life of me, conceive of why I would want to enter his place of businesss, even though I could due to his sign not being compliant, and force money down his throat to encourage his behavior.

Just because I can legally do a thing doesn't mean I think I should. I don't voluntarily do business with bigots.

 

[shdwfx]

Discrimination?

Being as "No Gun" signs* do nothing to deter illegal possession, I see them serving only one purpose - keeping out law abiding gun owners.

In that, they are no better than the "No Coloreds" signs 55 years back.
Are we allowed to advocate civil disobedience on THR?


*where not required by law.