For Texas Carriers...

[boomer1911a1]

As I understood it from my CHL class back in the mid-90s, businesses wanting to ban CHL carriers from their premises had to have a legal justification (like being a hospital or a dedicated bar netting 51% of their income from booze) for posting a 30.06 sign. If a place didn't post an official 30.06 sign, it wasn't legally enforceable.

Is that still true? Was it ever true?

 

[Red Wind]

I believe yes. But I really believe your great sig line!
1953. The pro gun George Stevens is the Director.

 

[dogtown tom]

boomer1911a1 As I understood it from my CHL class back in the mid-90s, businesses wanting to ban CHL carriers from their premises had to have a legal justification (like being a hospital or a dedicated bar netting 51% of their income from booze) for posting a 30.06 sign.

Not true, no "justification" was required, just the desire of the business to not allow concealed handguns on their premises.

If a place didn't post an official 30.06 sign, it wasn't legally enforceable.

Posting the 30.06 sign was effective notice, without the sign they could also tell you to leave....."Get out!" was just as enforceable as the sign.

Is that still true? Was it ever true?

You need to visit the DPS website and start reading.

 

[txblackout]

what others have said is correct

1) no justification needed
2) legal notice is provided by having a compliant sign (too small letters, wrong wording etc are not compliant)
3) there is now a 30.07 which blocks open carry
4) public owned property is not allowed to post 30.06 or 30.07 signs except for certain types of property (courthouse

 

[double bogey]

My favorite restaurant posted a 51% sign this weekend. I am pretty sure it isn't a 51% establishment. I think it is a response to the new open carry. Obviously they don't want guns in their place, so I guess I need to find a new favorite place to eat. It is not posted on the door, it is about 12 feet from it. I was finished with my meal and leaving when I first saw it. I am wondering if I could have been prosecuted if a cop saw me? it is a regular place for several of them to eat.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I just love the fact that the previous statute is 30.06 Was it accidental or an Easter egg?

Mike

 

[threoh8]

"My favorite restaurant posted a 51% sign this weekend. I am pretty sure it isn't a 51% establishment. I think it is a response to the new open carry. "

A lot of places unknowingly post the wrong TABC sign (the red "51%" instead the blue "unlicensed carry"). They are often given both. It will say on their alcohol license which one, red or blue, they have to post. They don't get to choose the TABC sign. You can check at the TABC License Search. You can also report incorrect sign postings, which will get corrected.

As far as the 30.06 (Concealed Carry) or 30.07 (Open Carry) signs that they may choose to post, check and/or report at http://www.texas3006.com/.

 

[gbran]

Just curious, does TX have any brandishing rules now that CCW permittees are allowed to open carry?

 

[orionengnr]

does TX have any brandishing rules

My understanding:
"Brandishing" would consist of taking your gun out of the holster, waving it around or pointing it at someone without justification.

Printing visibly or an inadvertent display (wind blowing your shirt, stretching for an object on a high shelf, etc.) used to be punishable under TX law. I'm not aware of a case being prosecuted, but I am not a legal professional.

Regardless, that provision of the law was fixed several years ago.

We are making progress...one step at a time.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I just love the fact that the previous statute is 30.06 Was it accidental or an Easter egg?

It was definitely intentional.

 

[threoh8]

No laws about "brandishing" per se, but there is this, under "Disorderly Conduct":

"42.01(a)(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
...
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;"

 

[Trueno]

Printing visibly or an inadvertent display (wind blowing your shirt, stretching for an object on a high shelf, etc.) used to be punishable under TX law.

To my knowledge, "Printing visibly" has never been punishable under Texas law.

t

 

[jdh]

double bogey,

If they posted the 51% sign on their own and are not a 51% establishment it is grounds for TABC to revoke their license.

 

[double bogey]

Thanks JDS, I have been busy and have not had time to look into this. There are several of these in the metroplex. I may contact the management.

It is Boomer Jacks.

Not really my favorite restaurant, but I have soup and salad there a couple of times a week.

 

[barnbwt]

"To my knowledge, "Printing visibly" has never been punishable under Texas law"
Dunno if anyone was ever nailed after wind blew up their skirt while a cop was present or whatever, but the law was recently changed* to specifically exempt unintentional exposure. Due to the realities of what will actually get a conviction from a jury, it was probably more a precautionary measure than a significant one, but there is now a black and white recognition (so hopefully even the potential for abuse by uppity DA's is reduced if not eliminated)

Penal Code 46.035, post open carry law (last sentence);

"A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays [fails to conceal**] the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder."
--technically OC by licensees is still illegal, but for the 'holster exemption' (kind of like our status with NFA items, which are illegal but for the tax-stamp )

TCB

*9/1/13, SB299
**vague enough for me to think a clear print (or even gesture towards the gun's location) qualifies in the eyes of an eager beaver