|
|
01-30-2012, 04:53 PM
|
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,143
Likes: 3,701
Liked 5,261 Times in 1,885 Posts
|
|
Unlicensed possession restrictions
I live in Texas, and I frequently see businesses with a sign saying (paraphrased) "The unlicensed possession of a firearm on these premises..." and it goes on to describe the penalties.
My question is, by using the term unlicensed, does that mean that you can legally carry into the premise if you have a CCW permit? That would make you licensed to carry.
Thanks.
|
01-30-2012, 05:01 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Crossville, TN., U.S.A.
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
Sounds like it to me. They only want folks with CCW's packin' in their place.
__________________
S&W M642-2,
ATI 1911a1, 4.25"
|
01-30-2012, 05:29 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West TEXAS
Posts: 961
Likes: 106
Liked 301 Times in 139 Posts
|
|
For TEXAS, that's exactly what it means.
|
01-30-2012, 06:02 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas Panhandle
Posts: 7,215
Likes: 5,644
Liked 3,462 Times in 1,729 Posts
|
|
Pretty self explanatory when you think about it.
James
|
01-30-2012, 09:06 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 118
Liked 1,179 Times in 379 Posts
|
|
To some, it could mean that their firearm must be licensed (registered). Depends on where you live is how you interpet the statement.
|
01-31-2012, 01:32 PM
|
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,143
Likes: 3,701
Liked 5,261 Times in 1,885 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie
Pretty self explanatory when you think about it.
James
|
Well, I thought so too...it would seem like that if a business didn't want you to carry a firearm in or on their premise, they would have a sign saying "No firearms." The sign saying "No unlicensed firearms" seems strange to me...since if you carry without a license or CCW permit, it is a violation of the law anyway.
|
01-31-2012, 01:57 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 466
Likes: 2
Liked 39 Times in 29 Posts
|
|
I've aways thought those signs were both strange and useless. Strange because if you're allowing me to carry since I have a license, why post it and useless because if I'm illegally carrying without a license, I doubt I'll pay any attention to your sign.
|
01-31-2012, 07:33 PM
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,361
Likes: 24,260
Liked 16,154 Times in 7,408 Posts
|
|
I think the Texas liquor control board requires the signs in businesses that sell or serve alcohol.
|
02-03-2012, 03:46 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 466
Likes: 2
Liked 39 Times in 29 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Star
I think the Texas liquor control board requires the signs in businesses that sell or serve alcohol.
|
A very good possibility now that I think about it; it's usually restaurants that I see these at.
|
02-03-2012, 05:00 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 1,827
Liked 1,170 Times in 310 Posts
|
|
Do the signs say unlawful or unlicensed? Big difference as there are restrictions concerning the unlawful possession of a firearm by a CHL holder.
From the TABC website:
All alcoholic beverage retailers must post one of two firearms signs.
The 51% sign is required to be posted on the premises of establishments where the possession of any concealed weapon is illegal. These are establishments that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales constitutes more than half of their gross receipts. These signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.
Establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption or establishments licensed to sell for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales are 50% or less of total gross receipts are required to post a sign that warns that the unlicensed possession of a concealed weapon is a felony. The holder of a concealed handgun license may lawfully possess a concealed handgun on these premises.
Sign required to be posted at an off-premise retail establishment:
•Weapons Warning Sign: It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law.
Sign required to be posted at an on-premises retail establishment:
•Weapons Warning Sign - If alcohol sales constitute less than half of gross receipts, the required sign says: "It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law." If alcohol sales constitute more than half of gross receipts, the signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.
If it's 51% or more, then you can't carry, licensed or not.
Last edited by CelticSire; 02-03-2012 at 05:05 PM.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-04-2012, 06:37 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: DFW< TEXAS
Posts: 647
Likes: 189
Liked 347 Times in 119 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticSire
Do the signs say unlawful or unlicensed? Big difference as there are restrictions concerning the unlawful possession of a firearm by a CHL holder.
From the TABC website:
All alcoholic beverage retailers must post one of two firearms signs.
The 51% sign is required to be posted on the premises of establishments where the possession of any concealed weapon is illegal. These are establishments that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales constitutes more than half of their gross receipts. These signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.
Establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption or establishments licensed to sell for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales are 50% or less of total gross receipts are required to post a sign that warns that the unlicensed possession of a concealed weapon is a felony. The holder of a concealed handgun license may lawfully possess a concealed handgun on these premises.
Sign required to be posted at an off-premise retail establishment:
•Weapons Warning Sign: It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law.
Sign required to be posted at an on-premises retail establishment:
•Weapons Warning Sign - If alcohol sales constitute less than half of gross receipts, the required sign says: "It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law." If alcohol sales constitute more than half of gross receipts, the signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.
If it's 51% or more, then you can't carry, licensed or not.
|
Very good, we should put you up for Texas CHL instructor of the year. Its a sign that causes confusion to a lot of folks, but your explanation is right on the money. I can spend an hour trying to get the point across to my CHL students here in Texas. Nice Job!!!
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-04-2012, 09:45 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 1,827
Liked 1,170 Times in 310 Posts
|
|
Aw shucks. Twern't nuthin.
|
02-11-2012, 01:23 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
So, what does "shall not be abridged" mean, anyway? I thought our 2nd Amendment was merely in support of our God given right to defend ourselves and others from being attacked. Am I confused?
|
02-13-2012, 02:27 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
And also to defend against tyranny in government
|
02-15-2012, 11:22 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 787
Likes: 594
Liked 489 Times in 232 Posts
|
|
What's a well regulated militia?
And don't we have a standing army now and no need for a militia for the security of a free State?
Last edited by Nico Testosteros; 02-15-2012 at 11:28 PM.
|
02-16-2012, 03:41 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Iowa
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
2nd Amendment Question For Anyone
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in part that the right of the citizens to "keep" and to "bear" arms shall not be "infringed". We recently had a US Supreme Court Dicision that found that the 2nd Amendment "does" apply to the "individual" and not the state etc. Sooooooo the question is this: By what authority can any state or political subdivision thereof (cities, counties, townships etc.) pass any firearms laws or ordinance that in any way "infringes" on the "individual's" right to keep and to "bear" arms? This is the 2nd Amendment (not something burried in the bowls of a huge document) this is No. 2!! Lets put this in perspective. Does anyone believe that a state or city could pass a law restricting an individual's rights against self incrimination as provided by the 5th Amendment? What about passing a law restricting one's freedom of religion as provided for in the 1st Amendment? Could a city pass an ordiance that ignored the protections against "unreasonable search and seizure" as provided for in the 4th Amendment? I believe the answer to all of these questions is: NO!
Soooooooo why is the 2nd Amendment any different? Especially now that the question regarding whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the state or to the individual has been answered by the Supreme Court and the answer is that it applies to the individual.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
05-13-2012, 01:20 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Metro Denver, CO
Posts: 303
Likes: 18
Liked 50 Times in 35 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUCKHTR
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in part that the right of the citizens to "keep" and to "bear" arms shall not be "infringed". We recently had a US Supreme Court Dicision that found that the 2nd Amendment "does" apply to the "individual" and not the state etc. Sooooooo the question is this: By what authority can any state or political subdivision thereof (cities, counties, townships etc.) pass any firearms laws or ordinance that in any way "infringes" on the "individual's" right to keep and to "bear" arms? This is the 2nd Amendment (not something burried in the bowls of a huge document) this is No. 2!! Lets put this in perspective. Does anyone believe that a state or city could pass a law restricting an individual's rights against self incrimination as provided by the 5th Amendment? What about passing a law restricting one's freedom of religion as provided for in the 1st Amendment? Could a city pass an ordiance that ignored the protections against "unreasonable search and seizure" as provided for in the 4th Amendment? I believe the answer to all of these questions is: NO!
Soooooooo why is the 2nd Amendment any different? Especially now that the question regarding whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the state or to the individual has been answered by the Supreme Court and the answer is that it applies to the individual.
|
Very well said
|
05-13-2012, 06:42 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 7,348
Likes: 7,536
Liked 5,590 Times in 2,562 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Testosteros
What's a well regulated militia?
And don't we have a standing army now and no need for a militia for the security of a free State?
|
As explained above, it seems that the Supreme Court doesn't feel that the Second Amendment depends on the need for a militia. Even if it did, the Constitution doesn't say anything about a standing army's negating the need for a militia. Many would say that it increases the need. Regardless, the Constitution flat says that it is necessary, and didn't solicit any opinions regarding the effect of a standing army.
Regarding a well regulated militia, that is a little like a well regulated double rifle - one in which more than one barrel can hit what it's shooting at.
BTW, the Constitution seemed also not to solicit any opinions on the relationship between the militia clause and the simple injunction that the right to bear arms not be infringed. This may have some relation to the the Supreme Court's view.
Last edited by ImprovedModel56Fan; 05-13-2012 at 06:45 AM.
Reason: BTW
|
05-13-2012, 11:46 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montana
Posts: 822
Likes: 503
Liked 452 Times in 253 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Testosteros
What's a well regulated militia?
And don't we have a standing army now and no need for a militia for the security of a free State?
|
I am a well regulated militia.
|
05-13-2012, 11:52 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 168
Likes: 35
Liked 32 Times in 25 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKC
Well, I thought so too...it would seem like that if a business didn't want you to carry a firearm in or on their premise, they would have a sign saying "No firearms." The sign saying "No unlicensed firearms" seems strange to me...since if you carry without a license or CCW permit, it is a violation of the law anyway.
|
Unless open carry without ccw is legal in Texas? is it? From what I've read, it's not..
|
05-13-2012, 12:50 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 18
Likes: 32
Liked 39 Times in 15 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Star
I think the Texas liquor control board requires the signs in businesses that sell or serve alcohol.
|
This is correct. In a nutshell, in Texas, the carrying of a concealed handgun without a CHL (i.e. unlicensed!) is a misdemeanor.
In places where alcohol is served or sold, it is elevated to a felony. The TABC require those premises to post the sign to advise people of that.
If you have a CHL, then the sign is moot, as you are not unlicensed.
All the above applies to premises that make less than 51 percent of their revenue from the sales of alcohol for consumption on the premises. 51 percent or over, it's another sign and it's a felony CHL or not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by Frankenstein; 05-13-2012 at 12:54 PM.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
05-15-2012, 10:55 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 515
Likes: 110
Liked 158 Times in 100 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUCKHTR
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in part that the right of the citizens to "keep" and to "bear" arms shall not be "infringed". We recently had a US Supreme Court Dicision that found that the 2nd Amendment "does" apply to the "individual" and not the state etc. Sooooooo the question is this: By what authority can any state or political subdivision thereof (cities, counties, townships etc.) pass any firearms laws or ordinance that in any way "infringes" on the "individual's" right to keep and to "bear" arms? This is the 2nd Amendment (not something burried in the bowls of a huge document) this is No. 2!! Lets put this in perspective. Does anyone believe that a state or city could pass a law restricting an individual's rights against self incrimination as provided by the 5th Amendment? What about passing a law restricting one's freedom of religion as provided for in the 1st Amendment? Could a city pass an ordiance that ignored the protections against "unreasonable search and seizure" as provided for in the 4th Amendment? I believe the answer to all of these questions is: NO!
Soooooooo why is the 2nd Amendment any different? Especially now that the question regarding whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the state or to the individual has been answered by the Supreme Court and the answer is that it applies to the individual.
|
Regarding 1st Amendment...Number 1. Look at the limits placed on protests by such diverse groups as Occupy, KKK, Westboro Baptist, Tea Party, any political discourse at the upcoming political conventions. All have or will have had limits on them. Either a requirement of permit, a time limit, a scheduled time for assembly, an assigned place for assembly...all to express political ideas with which one side or another will most likely agree or disagree vehemently. Or, if a majority disagrees...maybe no time or place at all.
I just drove through Mayfield Kentucky yesterday. Two years ago it was a hotbed of protest...a group of Somali refugees, after escaping the Hell caused by the torturous political regime in their home country had to put up with folks not allowing them to open their storefront church, or as they called it a Muslim Community Center. Yet another part of Number 1. They now have their Community Center after Mayfield did a cost analysis of how much their bias was going to cost in the court system.
To answer your question...cities from New York City to Tampa to Mayfield make laws restricting speech and religion all the time. It just usually isn't "our" speech or religion that gets restricted.
As for the 4th Amendment...I keep wondering when Castle Doctrine and No Knock Warrants will meet.
|
06-02-2012, 10:11 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Louseyana
Posts: 309
Likes: 4
Liked 165 Times in 46 Posts
|
|
The statement "The unlicensed possession" means just that. Unlicensed, i.e. NON CHL holder. Establishments that post the 51% sign for alcohol sales are for BARS. Any establishment can ban the legal gun carrier from possessing his gun but they must display a sign that references PC30.06, which covers CHL holders.
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|