|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Lawful Carry of Concealed Handguns
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 05-14-2004 07:55 PM
quote:
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Etc, etc, etc...
That is exactly correct and just what I have been saying. Those little signs that theaters are using mean nothing. To be compliant with the law on the theater's end and to have any say so in the choice of banning firearms on their property, the sign must have 1" contrasting letters, specific verbage, etc turns out to be HUGE!!! If I remember the specifics, it must also be at every possible entry point of the building. As long as that specific sign isn't there, any other sign means nothing legally and the theater has nothing to stand on legally.
quote: Carl Martin
what if you're packing and you have to go to the hospital?
In that instance you have no choice but to leave it in your car. My instructor recommended that it be unloaded and to make sure that the gun is seperated from the ammunition (such as the gun underneath the front seat and the ammunition in the trunk) to further deter things. Last I checked though, car break-ins aren't too common at hospitals. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Andy Muirhead
I must admit I find the idea of ordinary civilians 'packing heat' absolutely terrifying.
It's different in every state, so there is no easy answer. At minimum you have to pass a competency test as well as a written test and know all of the applicable laws. Each person also is fingerprinted, their gun(s) registered and the FBI starts a file on them. In my opinion, a state which permits citizens the right to concealed carry is a safer state. Any dunce can do the basic math and realize that there will always be criminals who carry, and those are the people who are a problem. At least in those states where people can obtain a license to carry legally, those criminals have no idea who is "packing" or not. In regards to licensed people going crazy and running around shooting people, that would be about the stupidest possible thing they could do. Remember, EVERYTHING about licensed people is WELL documented and there is no way they could get away with killing someone. The evidence would be everywhere. As such, a state with a carry law does not turn itself into the "old west". ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote: Bobby Henderson
Overall it comes down to a manners thing.
Bobby, I'll agree with your "manners" choice of words, but do remember that as a licensed citizen I do have a right to carry it past those little signs if I choose, private property or not. That's why this whole thread is so stupid. No theater is going to post such large signs at every way into the building, and as such they can complain and whine all they want, but they still have no say so in the matter if a licensed person chooses to arm themselves with a concealed firearm.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ron Yost
Master Film Handler
Posts: 344
From: Paso Robles, CA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 05-14-2004 11:28 PM
Apparently, this is the LANGUAGE of the "30.06 sign" (curious numerical designation):
-----------------------------------------------
"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A 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."
"CONFORME A LA SECCIÓN 30.06 DEL CÔDIGO PENAL (TRASPASAR PORTANDO ARMAS DE FUEGO) PERSONAS CON LICENCIA BAJO DEL SUB-CAPITULO H, CAPITULO 411, CODIGO DE GOBIERNO (LEY DE PORTAR ARMAS), NO DEBEN ENTRAR A ESTA PROPIEDAD PORTANDO UN ARMA DE FUEGO."
----------------------------------
I could find NO actual specification for the sign itself online (size, acceptable colors, etc.), except the 1"-high minimum letter size stated in the code which, in itself, means it would be fairly large. Even the Texas Department of Public Safety's site has NO official design specs. All they have is the language (that's where I cut-and-pasted the text from -- the all-caps are theirs, not mine, and they don't say whether that's a requirement either.) ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Government sucks. ![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
Enuf, already.
Ron Yost
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-15-2004 12:23 AM
I always laugh when a government or other business entity specifies "block" for use as the preferred letter style on a sign. With the zeal of lawyers needing to get paid for nitpicking one would think they would be aware of the problem they're inviting upon themselves.
There is an actual font family called "Block;" however, I don't think it is the one they intend for use. Normally what they want is Helvetica. But hell, you could switch out Helvetica with Univers, News Gothic, Franklin Gothic, Akzidenz Grotesk or even Gill Sans, Avant Garde or Futura and the lawyers wouldn't know the difference -until someone counter-sued.
Incidentally, the 1" letters thing doesn't make for quite as large a sign as I would have thought. Using the verbiage Ron posted, and setting it in Helvetica55 Medium you could make the type work in a 36" X 24" space. If you want to throw in a red circle-slash over a gun symbol, make the sign an even 3' X 3'. It's not huge. But then it isn't something that's going to fit on a door's window glass either.
On a different matter, I own guns, but not to protect myself from the government. In this age of high technology, it is pure folly to think you'll manage to protect yourself from "the government" with a single gun. These days, things like information and perception and spin of reality is more powerful than bullets.
I'm not worried much about street criminals either. I don't make much of a target in that regard.
The thing I fear is some ordinary shlep flipping out and "going postal". The heat of the moment stuff between people who know each other is what gets more citizens killed than anything else. Instead of fearing strangers, I think many in this country need to look into anger management instead.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-15-2004 11:45 PM
quote: Jeremy Fuentes
...knowingly endangering others...
I think that statement is completely fallacious.
In another thread, recently, I pointed out the number of houses that burn down due to electrical fires and how many people are killed in accidents involving electricity. Yet, few people would say that having electricity in a movie theater is a danger.
The same goes for automobiles. Thousands and thousands of people die every year in this country in incidents involving cars and trucks. Still, people think of them as an indespensible part of life.
I'm not trying to downplay the potential for danger with handguns in any way but I am pointing out that they are not the only dangerous things we deal with every day of our lives. It's all a matter of perception and that perception is almost completely subjective.
In all three examples, you have to have a license to use the thing in question: You have to have a license to wire a public building with electricity. You have to have a license to drive a car on public roads. You have to have a license to carry a handgun in public.
In all cases, there are rules that say you can or can not do certain things: "No right turn on red." or "Road closed to through traffic." if you are talking about cars. The N.E.C. says you can or can not do certain things when you install electrical wires and equipment. (Most states & localities cite the N.E.C. as the ground rules for their laws/ordinances about electricity.) It follows that there should be rules for when and where you can or can not carry a gun.
If the law says that posting a sign (or signs) in a certain way which cites the code/ordinance that lays out a rule to be followed then the citizen in question must either follow that rule or pay the legal penalty. (Summons, fine or jail.)
I think there is a problem with the wording of the Texas statute:
quote: Ron Yost
A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN.
Does this mean that a person NOT licensed to carry a gun may enter with a concealed weapon!? (Okay, okay... Humor. ) But, it goes to the next point. It has been said several times in this thread: The problem is NOT with licensed people carrying handguns. It is with UNLICENSED people (criminals) carrying them. The whole point of a license (Driver's license, Electician's license, gun license or any other kind of license) is to help ensure that a people do a certain activity in the safest possible way and to correct/punish those who don't. Licensed gun owners are no more of a menace than licensed drivers.
quote: Jeremy Fuentes
...if I felt that I needed a gun with me to go anywhere, maybe I shouldnt be going to those places.
All free, law abiding citizens have the right to go wherever they want, whenever they want and they have the right to be safe in their person and property when they go there. They can go on public property without explicit permission, they can go on private property with implicit permission (e.g.: To enter a place of business.) and they can enter private property, within reason, to seek permission. (e.g.: Walk up to your front door and ring the doorbell.)
In the exercise of that right, there are times when others will try to commit crimes against you. (Robbery, assault, etc.) Generally speaking, the police are supposed to protect you from those kinds of crimes but it's not logical to assume that they can protect everybody all of the time. Therefore, every free, law abiding citizen over the age of majority has the right to protect himself (and others around him) from crime using whatever (legal) means he sees fit.
If a person chooses to carry a gun, has obeyed the law and shows no signs of endangering others with it that is his right. Nobody can do anything against that.
Just because somebody else is afraid of things that make loud noises there's no reason for me to walk on eggshells all the time!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man
Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 05-16-2004 12:44 AM
Just abide by the rules of your state.
Jeeze, everybody should know by now that crooks, thugs, drug dealers, etc. have no respect for the law in the first place. They are the ones that you have to be careful of.
I would say that just about ANY any responsible CWP holder will abide by the wishes of the property owners who may not like the idea of a handgun on their property. So what's the big deal? The property owner has the trump card. End of story.
Same holds true for private residences. If the household involved has a rule of "No guns allowed in their house", that is exactly what they mean. Again, any responsible CWP holder will abide, WITHOUT QUESTION, that request.
If one has a problem (like I would have) about leaving the firearm in the car where it could be stolen, then you have two options.
1. Take the damn thing home and lock it in your safe or:
2. Get the hell off the property as requested by the property owner until such time as you wake up and realize the property owner also has rights. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
I don't know of any CWP holder that would be willing to jepardize his or her permit to carry a concealed weapon by flaunting the laws governing the carrying of said devices.
You have the right to "Bare Arms". As far as I understand, you do not have the right to carry a concealed pistol unless you are qualified to do so. Any felony will disqualify you from doing that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-16-2004 01:54 AM
Okay, if people really have a bug up their ass about getting guns out of the hands of criminals, they really need to write their congressman on what kinds of guns to ban.
100% of the people serving in the US House of Representatives and US Senate (and likely the President and all the folks in the Surpreme Court) are f**king idiots when it comes to gun control laws.
Example: the assault rifle ban. Doofus!!!!
Assault rifles are not cheap. Most are piece-of-shit weapons not worthy of a good fence post (and YES I do mean the AK-47 crap-o-rama rifle). Pure garbage! Give me a Winchester Model 70 .300 Magnum with 1 shot in the chamber bolt lock capacity, and I'll plant some AK holding wannabe on his back. The deadliest thing on the battlefield is ONE well aimed shot.
But assault rifles are NOT at all the weapons used typically in most gun-related homicides, especially when it comes to street-level, gang-oriented crime. The kind of guns they typically use are those cheap little .22 and .25 ACP handguns that cost only around $100 and can be thrown down a storm drain after a murder has been committed.
Who in the living hell is going to ditch a Heckler and Koch MP-5 sub-machinegun after blasting somebody? The damned rifle costs over $3,000 (if you can even manage to buy it anywhere legally in the world anymore). If you have a prized weapon you're going to be particularly careful about how it is used, especially in matters of defending yourself.
If our f**king dopey, stupid government wants to make an impact against gun related crimes, they'll drop their dumbass assault rifle ban and do something sensible such as banning those cheap-ass throw-away .22 and .25 hideaway handguns. I doubt if too many self-respecting gun owners out there would have much of a problem with that.
If some gun fan has a problem with banning cheap shit weapons, I will laugh at them for being such a stupid cheapskate when it comes to protecting their life. You cannot buy a good, new handgun for under $500. You can't hit shit with those tiny, cutesy gangbanger handguns that cost under $100. They jam. They stovepipe. They will get your ass killed in a bad situation.
If you are serious about protecting yourself with a handgun, you pack a more legitimate piece, such as a Sig Sauer P226 or a Walther, or H&K M7P9. Or if you like the classic revolver, I highly recommend the Smith and Wesson Model 629 .44 Magnum. You have your choice of wood grips or Pacmar grips, whichever your perfer. You don't buy shitty junk when it comes to handguns. Ban the cheap crap, put those cheapie shit maker gun companies under and you'll make a serious dent in the gun crime problem.
But then after that, we'll all likely have to fill out paperwork to buy a Louisville Slugger baseball bat. You can bet if the homeboys in Compton, CA can't shoot each other with guns costing under $100 they'll be beating each other's brains in with baseball bats. Those assholes.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jeremy Fuentes
Mmmm, Dr. Pepper!
Posts: 1168
From: Corpus Christi, TX United States
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 05-16-2004 02:01 AM
Sorry for the misunderstanding of my statements. What I meant to say was would you want someone in your place of business that is most likely going to use a gun, and not just for possible protection. If someone came in to your business, and looked nervous and/or paranoid, and you noticed they had a gun, you couldnt kick them out because its not against the law for them to have it.(I mean here in Texas) Even worse, if someone plans on using the gun, but doesnt look nervous at all. That makes me nervous, I dont know about you. What I meant about knowingly endangering people with a gun is the same thing as a licensed driver, driving drunk, or a licensed electrician, ignoring safety rules. Once again sorry for the misunderstanding. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic