Everytown’s ‘Gun-Free’ Zone Signage Lawsuit: Be Careful What You Wish For

Open carry revolver holster

Dan Z for TTAG

Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Criminal Empowerment is backing a lawsuit over Texas’ 30.06 and 30.07 signs. If you’re new to this, those are the signs property owners must post on their premises to designate it as “gun-free” (well, free of the lawfully carried guns; criminals tend to ignore the rules for some reason). The intent is to make sure that lawful gun carriers can plainly see that a location — usually a store or a restaurant — is a designated target-rich environment.

Everytown, and the suckers they’ve recruited as plaintiffs, claim that the specific requirements for the signage — font size, law citations, placement — unduly burden the free speech rights of those wishing to post their facilities off-limits.

My guess is they would prefer to use less-prominent signs so that they can play gotcha with unsuspecting gun owners and have them ticketed for trespassing.

From the lawsuit:

But Texas has ignored the First Amendment and enacted legislation that singles out a group with which it disagrees — those who refer to keep guns off of their property—and selectively burdens their speech. Specifically, Texas property owners who espouse this viewpoint must post multiple large, text-heavy signs containing language specified by the State in order to exercise the longest established and most fundamental of their property rights: the right to exclude. If these property owners use other means of indicating that firearms are not welcome on the premises — even if entirely reasonable and understandable — they cannot avail themselves of Texas’s criminal trespass laws.

That last assertion is false. A simple reading of the law in question makes that clear.

For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

Even if they don’t have any sign, any property owner can still tell a carrier that they exclude guns. That person must then remove his firearm from the premises. Only if he declines to do so could he he then be charged with trespassing.

Through the lawsuit, Everytown wants to create legal booby traps for gun owners.

It’s unlikely that this silly lawsuit will succeed. After all, states routinely regulate all manner of signage. But if Everytown somehow wins, I think Texas gun owners would take great pleasure in seeing the judicial precedent that’s set used against other burdens on constitutionally guaranteed rights.

If rules making sure the speech on signs is clear and understandable somehow burden property owners’ First Amendment rights — “heightened and onerous speech requirements” according to the lawsuit — then what of the Second Amendment burdens?

Everytown whines about having to post signs at stores. Well, they object to these signs. I seem to recall that they approved of King County mandating suicide prevention signs in gun stores. Requiring someone to express a mandated message that can harm your own business is just fine with them.

But what about the Second Amendment burdens gun control want to impose on us?

  • Licensing
  • Background checks
  • Waiting periods
  • Registration
  • Rationing
  • “Gun-free” zones
  • Magazine restrictions
  • Ban on entire classes of firearms

Those are somehow “reasonable” and “sensible” burdons on an enumerated right. If posting 30.06-compliant signs are somehow ruled burdensome, then Everytown will have handed us a useful precedent.

comments

  1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    This is all they have, pathetic.

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      There is more than enough evidence that such signs have got people slaughtered by criminals who knew the pickings would be easy because the f-n signs say so.
      Of course after the smoke clears those who hung the signs and held the door open for murderers always get a pass and the firearm gets the blame.
      When Gun Control is seen across America as a sicko agenda rooted in racism and genocide is when Gun Control loses its standing whether the do-gooders who flaunt themselves as not being racists like it or not.

  2. avatar In Texas says:

    They’re just pissed off because the law was recently changed to say that if a person doesn’t see the sign they can’t immediately be charged with criminal trespass. It falls in favor of the gun owner in case they just didn’t see the sign because of a dumbass business owner not putting the sign AT the entrance. I’ve seen them blocked by all kinds of stuff or just plain 15 feet from the door where no one looks.

    1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

      Question for those in Texas –

      In Texas, a concealed carrier sees and (rightfully, in my opinion) ignores the 30.06 notification and enters the property to conduct a business transaction, and does so.

      Upon leaving the property, a situation develops where the carrier needs to use their weapon, and successfully does so. Threat eliminated. The shoot is ruled legal, except for the trespass part.

      Would the carrier be charged with trespass, or simply notified by LE not to enter the property again?

      1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

        My guess, I’m no lawyer, but if you can’t be charged until refusing to remove your weapon from said premises, then even if you were to use it legally on said premises, your good to go. But when prosecutors, judges and lawyers get involved who knows.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          In Texas, just make sure you don’t let those lawyers and judges talk you into anything without a jury involved. Texas juries are made up of actual people, but even here lawyers and judges tend to be … uh … lawyers and judges.

      2. avatar Joel says:

        Geoff, I figure if I actually need to use my firearm in a “gun free zone” then criminal trespass charges are the least of my worries……

        I’d rather not have to choose between “tried by twelve or carried by six” but if push comes to shove I’ll choose the former.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          Geoff.
          There was an incident in Frisco/Plano area several years ago, an LTC holder shot and killed an armed robber in a busy bar/restaurant.
          The establishment had signage that met the requirements as defined by law (51% rule applied), yet the LTC holder who disposed of the trash was NOT charged. He was not consuming alcohol or impaired in any way, although several members of his group were drinking during dinner that evening. The firearm the LTC holder used was not even taken from him by LE that evening, or ever.
          It was a good shoot, with dozens of firsthand witnesses telling the same story to LEOs.
          This same gentleman actually signed off on my training/testing, and proficiency skills verification that was submitted to the state for my Texas LTC.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Geoff, that answer would be “neither”, once a carrier has LEFT the premises, he is not subject to that kind of silliness, an investigating LEO would tell your assumed proprietor to piss up a rope, go back inside and STFU. And go back to congratulating you on a job well done, or whatever.

        1. avatar Fantasy... what it B...? says:

          You’re living in a fantasy ….

    2. avatar Paul says:

      Heh – I don’t read signs on storefronts. I just assume that the signs are some kind of advertisement, and ignore them. If I walk into an auto parts store, I expect to find auto parts. Boot store, grocery store, whatever – I don’t need to read the signs to find my way in.

      1. avatar possum says:

        I bet if there was advertising an M14 and five hundred rounds, sale price $450 , you’d see that wouldn’t you uh huh

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m not sure that’s fair, there are some of us that don’t see the sign even if it is square in the middle of the door in letters 3″ tall, with flashing lights and a siren. What I see, for example, is a metal detector manned by an armed guard, IOW someone who will prevent the next guy who comes along from carrying in a gun and killing me with it.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        a metal detector manned by an armed guard, IOW someone who will prevent the next guy who comes along from carrying in a gun and killing me with it.

        You just described the FIRST person I would take out if I were so inclined.. An armed person sitting at a metal detector is not a deterrent to a determined shooter…

        1. avatar Pat Riot says:

          Still, better them than me, and that at least gives me a fighting chance to escape.

  3. avatar MB (the real MB) says:

    While I am not a fan of restrictions on gun ownership, gun possession in public or and restrictions on type of firearm, magazine capacity, bullet configuration etc . we in Texas understand that Texas is a property rights state, meaning the property owner has final say as to who can or can not access their property. I abide by the property owners wishes, and I don’t patronize businesses that post 30.06 signage, which is my right as a consumer. We can disagree with the property owner on gun carry, but at the end of the day, it’s his property, not yours. BTW, the Texas property rights laws also work in the favor of gun owners who wish to defend their life and property with guns, as gun owners we can’t have it both ways. Respect the wishes on the property owner, it’s the Texas friendly way. I imagine I will get some heat for this but even being from New England, I abide by the state laws of the place I chose to call home now.

    1. avatar Wtf?! says:

      Shouldn’t stores have to uphold the pro gun states laws if they decide to set up shop in those states? And they are able to protect their stores in those states with guns just like your private property…so you saying you can’t have it both ways in this instance is comparing apples to oranges…

    2. avatar jwm says:

      If you can’t ban a person from your business based on race, religion, gender, etc how can you ban a person from your business for exercising their 2a rights?

      1. avatar possum says:

        What’s a 2a right? I live in America, I’m not familiar rights. Oh the one about keeping your mouth shut until youve decided you’ve had enough of the interrogation and jail food, then you cave. Okay yeah

        1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “What’s a 2a right? I live in America, I’m not familiar rights.”

          Allow me to re-phrase the question, Marsupial One –

          Are Possums in their right to defend their burrow with claws, teeth (to inflict a nasty rabies infection), and a surly attitude?

          Of course they are… 😉

        2. avatar MB (the real MB) says:

          @Geoff “Ammo. LOTS of ammo…” PR, Not 100% sure, but I don’t think possums are susceptible to rabies. LOL

        3. avatar Rabielover says:

          They aren’t susceptible you moron…. that’s how they carry the organisms in their saliva….
          Gd…. and we wonder why gun owners get a bad rap… with morons like this guy carrying its scary…

      2. avatar MB (the real MB) says:

        @Wtf?! I am not a Constitutional law expert, but I do agree that the Constitution should be followed as written, along with Bill of Rights, and a lot of the issues we have today are because we have strayed from those principals along with the failure to follow the Ten Commandments. If we followed those, no other laws might be required. That said, I have always obeyed the 30.06 and 30.07 signage, even when it’s not technically a valid sign (too small, improperly placed or worded, etc) My LTC is too valuable (along with my freedom) for me to get into a pissing contest with some liberal scared of a gun pu$$y. Let him/her get robbed, I won’t been there to play sheep dog when the wolf comes. Choices have consequences.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Choices have consequences.”

          Oh, my. You are such a meany.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        Because you haven’t successfully gotten a legislative body to go along with the idea, I guess. There’s nothing in the 1st, 2nd, or any other Amendment that effects whether a private store has to let someone in. It’s all laws.

        You can ban democrats from your store. You can ban people who wear green shirts from your store. If Congress were to remove the 1964 Civil Rights Act laws you could ban them for being black, gay, or whatever. Or Congress could enact a law that says you can’t ban people for carrying a gun… they won’t, of course.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      MB, while I could respect your attitude last year (although I did not *agree* even then), this year it is time for you to “peacefully protest” such signage by simply ignoring it. Hell, those who open carry should open carry in such places, I’d bet money most would not be noticed. It takes a special kind of fool to think a sign will stop a killer. And all they can do is order you to leave, hopefully after you are halfway through your meal.

      1. avatar MB (the real MB) says:

        @Larry, yes a sign never stopped any psychopath from his intended deed, only fool thinks “no guns” stops criminals. What is does to is prevent good, law abiding citizens from their 2A rights. It also creates a target rich environment and a free fire zone for aforementioned psychopath. But life as a LTC gun owner is Texas is miles ahead of most other states (I know coming from a DemonRat $hithole in New England), and although I would like all signage gone and be able to carry anywhere, the 30.06/30.07 is a compromise that seems to work, and preserves the property owners rights. In a perfect world, pansy a$$es would”t piss their pants at the sight of a gun. Better yet, we would not need to carry guns because people would behave.

      2. avatar Mealymouthmfer says:

        Fat people and their “meals”…. ugh…. and their “food”….
        Gtfo of the restaurant that doesn’t want you there….. seems fitting for a bunch of fat people to argue over carrying a gun vs eating their “meal”

    4. avatar Denis Wauchope says:

      While I don’t much like the 30.06/30.07 signs, I do obey them. As you said, it’s their property & they can set their own rules.

      BUT- I carry carry cards in my wallet, to give to those proprietors (or their lackey,) which states:

      Your “30.06/30.07” sign prevents me from patronizing your business. No Guns = No Money!

      On the back, the card explains that Texas LTCs have no felony convictions, no drug convictions, no mental defects/disabilities, no Class B misdemeanors or higher, and that we’ve passed a NICS criminal background check; it also says that these silly signs don’t prevent bad guys from coming in, so no one is safer. And that they might want to think about driving away good customers from their “easy target” business!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “BUT- I carry carry cards in my wallet,”

        Like it. Will file this away for the day I own something that can be carried discretely.

      2. avatar MB (the real MB) says:

        Guys, I like the card idea, but since a carry everywhere, I can’t hand a card to a business owner unless he comes to me. If I see a 30.06 sign, I assume since my gun is not welcome, I am not either and I just STFO I have a safe in my cars to contain my gun when on the very rare occasion I have to go into the Post Office or a courthouse. Other than that, my gun never leaves my person, and is on me at home, visiting friends and family, at church, or working in the yard.

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    The left finds protection in the first amendment when it suits them, and disregards the 1st when it doesn’t. An endearing quality is the selective acknowledgement they have for rights.
    Should the ledt obtain enough power it’s all out the window in favor of something that empowers the left over their enemies with no chance of recourse.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Fascism, Marxism and Communism at it’s finest. Who believes an Election will change anything? What will it take to Stop it? Is there even a Will to stop it? The game goes on.

      1. avatar possum says:

        I think there’s a stop coming, and it’s going to blindside us.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Not gonna blindside me, even my membership in the Neptune society is paid off.

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Mine too…

  5. avatar possum says:

    Bloomberg owns the sign making company. Naturally he wants more signs put up. The bank I bank at has a No Gunm sign but the cashier told me “if someone got shot in the bank and could not defend themselves the bank could be sued, so we don’t go by that sign.” I don’t know if that’s right, but that’s the way the bank thinks and good enough for me. BTW that particular bank has Winchester commemorative 94’s hanging from the walls, a grizzly bear mount, pronghorn, elk, and moose heads, it’s a fun bank to visit

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Sounds like a cool bank! I’d love to visit and take pictures.

      1. avatar possum says:

        , I think if you was taking pictures in a bank you might get in trouble. where’s a possum keep his money,? Not in the River Bank

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Possum, he was talking about pictures of the memorabilia, not carrying.

  6. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “Compelled” speech is always interesting. Seems to me that if anti-gun property owners cannot be compelled to declare their opposition, then government cannot be compelled to publish laws government doesn’t like. What fun.

  7. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    I have yet to fully grasp the stupidity of these people. I mean if they set that precedent it could then easily be applied all over. I mean are they really this dumb? Did they not stop to think just a little? I would immediately argue the counter point, for the suicide signs, and while I don’t think Texas has rationing or wait requirements, those could reasonably be sought as well.

  8. avatar Peter Gunn says:

    I see this as an attempt to keep store owners from being required to post signage- mainly because it can be a deterrence to business. It’s basically the “having your cake and eating it too” argument- businesses want to appear to be anti-gun, but do not want to lose money because of it.

    I believe that it you take a stand, you fly the flag- regardless of the consequences.
    Anything less is, well… dishonest.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I believe that it you take a stand, you fly the flag- regardless of the consequences.”

      In the Dim, Leftist, anti-gun world, there should be no consequences for any action, thought, speech.

      For Dim, Leftist, anti-gunners.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Any rational BUSINESS (as opposed to campaign) wishes to gain the business of those who oppose gun ownership, as well as those who favor gun ownership, in addition to the 75% who do not give a shit, one way or the other. They don’t want you posting stupid signs and they don’t want you posing with your AR and camo on their porch. We used to be civil.

  9. avatar Omega Red says:

    “exercise the longest established and most fundamental of their property rights: the right to exclude.”

    What we need to push is that these exclusions are not placed against things, they are in fact exclusions against people, people who chose to lawfully exercising a right. Or more basically, a people who are exercising they are.

    We are people of the gun. That is what we believe and that is who we are. It is no less wrong to place a sign telling homosexual persons, that they can come in only if they leave their homosexuality outside, then it is to tell me to leave my gun outside. It is who they are; it is who we are. Gun bigots only pretend to focus their hatred against the object. It is us they hate.

  10. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I find license plates and inspection stickers on my vehicles to be a violation of my free speech rights too. Somehow I don’t think that one is going to fly either.

    1. avatar possum says:

      My tag expired, I spray painted BLM on it, no worries about getting stopped.

      1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        *Snicker*… 😉

  11. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Under the 2 nd. amendment no signs are required any where in this nation.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Under the 2 nd. amendment no signs are required any where in this nation.”

      This article is timely. Just for fun, and because the WuFlu is making crazy people of us all, I decided to wear big shirts, and shop with my right thumb jammed between my shirt, and my waistband. It is quite fun to just suddenly stuff my thumb inside the waistband, with my fingers curled, assuming a semi-isosceles stance, and clear 180deg. Peoples is the funniest peoples.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I’ve been reading your comments for a lot longer than wuflu has been a thing. Blaming your crazy on wuflu is like me blaming my spoon for being fat.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Blaming your crazy on wuflu is like me blaming my spoon for being fat.”

          Your point being?

        2. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “…is like me blaming my spoon for being fat.”

          Damn good thing forks are officially off the hook.

          *Burp*… 🙂

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      The Second Amendment restricts the government not private individuals. I don’t understand why you people can’t get that into your head. If you think the Second prohibits property owners from excluding guns then it follows that they must allow you to exercise the first on their property. In other words, you don’t believe in property rights.

      1. avatar Texican says:

        I believe in property rights. And I also believe that if your business is open to the public then people who frequent your establishment have civil rights that are intact and they can exercise them. Just because you might tell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater doesn’t mean the staff can duct tape your mouth closed while you’re watching a movie. So, in a Constitutional World, you would be able to carry just about everywhere.

      2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        . I don’t understand why you people can’t get that into your head.

        And what difference does it make that YOU are (apparently) the only person in America that understands the 2nd Amendment, the Govt has been allowed to overreach it’s authority since it’s inception (that whole power corrupts/absolute power… “you know the thing we say”) and the people have allowed it in the name of public safety (think about the children) since 15 minutes after the first time… Guns, speed limits, vaccines, education, drugs, finances, property rights, seat belts, MC helmets, gender identification… The only way to fix this now (sadly) is the BLM/Antifa way (but not their ideology), burn it ALL down and start over because as long as the crazies that have infiltrated our govt (from locals to the Halls Congress) remain in power, there is NOTHING anyone can do to change it… VOTE? for what? The least fucked up person who will do the least damage (it’s STILL damage) to add to an already broken system? Or you can sit around and bitch and try to convince yourself that you are smarter and more informed and that you are morally superior to everyone else.. In the end the results will still be the same, no one is going to repeal any existing gun legislation whether or not it is Constitutional and if you find yourself on the wrong side of THEIR rules you WILL pay the price…

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        TDI, what is your point? You ARE prevented from prohibiting protesting in your restaurant or ice cream store, the only right which can be universally ignored is 2A.

      4. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

        If you are open to the public with posted hours you need to abide by the BOR. Try ejecting a Gay couple because you don’t agree with their lifestyle and find it offensive. There is no right to be Gay as far as I can tell. There is a right to keep and bear arms. Now if I am waving my gun around then yes I can see being asked to leave. Simply carrying it either open or concealed is no cause for any business to deny me service or entrance. There is so much wrong with your thinking and you are a huge part of the problem.

  12. avatar Scott says:

    Bloomie as this no personality jerk is sometimes referred to needs to practice what he preaches and disarm his security guards instead of illegally arming them with Class III weapons that they somehow are permitted to carry interstate and, yes more than likely carry into designated gun free zones without consequence. The United States has way too many double standards these days.

  13. avatar AlanInFL says:

    I remember one time going to a jewelry store that had the stupid you can’t carry in here because we put the sign close to the ground and up to knee high. I haven’t gone back and I believe was robbed once and burglared too.

  14. avatar Rusty - Always Carry - Chains says:

    This brings up “free speech” zones conservatives get forced into on many a college campus. They hate being held to their own standard.

  15. avatar Andrew lias says:

    but the signs save lives.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Criminal lives.

  16. avatar DougBob says:

    Here’s a thought – You can’t post a gun-free zone unless you provide on-site, adequate, armed protection, AND you assume liability for whatever happens.

    1. avatar possum says:

      My post about my bank is an example

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    “Gun free”…target rich😃 Ya know I drive on I-80 occasionally. Despite speed limit signs it’s a vertible race track with lunatics regularly exceeding 100mph. And so it goes😏

    1. avatar possum says:

      If cars weren’t meant to go fast the speedo would say 55

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        At one time in the 70s, cars were sold with a speedometer that maxed out at 70mph.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Actually, it was 85 (at least in the US), but the idea is the same. I was known to ride my bike for hours without a clue how fast I was going, speedo never came off the peg. Just a few years back the bride and I were cruising the Northwest in my convertible BMW at around 90 for a tank of gas, pulled in to refuel and a Porsche 911 pulled in. Ensuing conversation revealed he and his bride had just finished a tank cruising at 140. Posting signs is meaningless.

          Just remembered, my bride once piled the kids in our ’79 Lincoln Town Car (with 85 mph speedo) and drove it from Austin TX to Merced CA to pick me up from a flying school, and had the speedo buried the whole way. Probably got 4 mpg, but it was sure good to see them.

        2. avatar My bride isn't my wife says:

          Who refers to their wife as their “bride” after the honeymoon?…..a weirdo THAT’S WHO

        3. avatar MORONFINDR says:

          My bride isn’t my wife says:
          Who refers to their wife as their “bride” after the honeymoon?…..a weirdo THAT’S WHO

          And who posts on here with absolutely NOTHING to contribute? Oh yeah that would be YOU….

  18. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Y’all can put unicorns farting rainbows on the sign cause it don’t mean nothing

  19. avatar Imayeti says:

    I complained to management when the apartment I’d lived suddenly became a gun free zone. Got a written letter saying paying residents were exempt. Trying to create a gun free zone in El Paso, already a regular on the top 10 list of safest cities, would be like trying to drain the ocean 1 glass full at a time.

  20. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    As for selective signage law:
    Wisconsin had a law that said : if you DON’T post a “NO Trespassing” or “NO Hunting” sign, anyone could hunt or walk on your property. Oh, and you had to post the sign(s) every so many feet/yards. I wonder how the lawmakers would had felt if someone pitched a tent in their front yard.

  21. avatar enuf says:

    private property owners can have all sorts of rules for guests on their property, up to a point. But if you are going to try and ban a Constitutional right there should be a Federal law for minimal signage.

    Start with three foot high by five foot wide, premanently bolted to the structure.

    If you are going to pretend to be a safe zone from those dastardly implements of evil incarnate, don’t be small about it…

    GO LARGE!!!

    *** so the very well armed and entirely uncaring criminal element will not miss a career opportunity ***

  22. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

    Makes you wonder if the same legal foundation can be used to back up bakers who don’t want to make cakes for same-sex marriages. They’ll call it discrimination.

    Well, then wouldn’t this usage of that sign warning trespassing for CCW holders be discrimination as well?

    It’s one or the other guys; can’t have both.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Great theory, unfortunately they currently DO have both.

  23. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    It all comes down to “Rights for me, but not for thee” Sue em all Bloomie, burn that cash, keep it out of the elections…

  24. avatar Harley says:

    I think everyone should go back and re-read that Texas sign. Carefully! It does have a “loop hole” so to speak, and an important one at that.

    I very seldom post here but read this site everyday. I am a born Texan and have lived here for more than half a century and am not planning to go anywhere else.

    The “loop hole” is this, the sign ONLY applies to LTC holders. Those that carry without one is in violation of current Texas law but is not in violation of that sign. Here is the important part, when, not if, Texas goes to Constitutional carry, those signs will become meaningless and will have to be reworded.

  25. avatar zerofoo says:

    They want a regulatory nanny state, but they also don’t seem to like it when the regulations inconvenience them.

    There should be CLEAR legal requirements for these signs. Including location and visibility requirements. This way all parties involved are aware of the rules and no one can claim ignorance.

  26. avatar Allen Davis says:

    I’m late to the party in reading this edition of TTAG and the lawsuit. I damn near gagged when I came across the passage where these simpering asshats are complaining about two things you almost never hear a Leftist Democrat talk about, let alone complain!

    They’re bitching about PROPERTY RIGHTS??? And one of the most fundamental aspects of PROPERTY RIGHTS, which is THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE??? Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick, man! If these dumbasses ever let the likes of Bernie or AOC hear talk like that, they’ll shit polka-dotted kittens! THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE? Hell, from all their socialist blathering, EXCLUDING somebody from PRIVATE PROPERTY goes against everything they stand for!!! That means that lawyer critter and his wife in St. Louis didn’t do anything wrong when they were parading around their lawn keeping all the mostly peaceful protesters off their PRIVATE PROPERTY with an AR-15 and a Walther PPK/S!

    Their brains are liable to explode from the paradoxical penundrum ! What’s it going to be? Think of all the butt hurt feelings from people being EXCLUDED! What will they ever do? How will they decide??? Oh, I forgot… these asshats get to have things BOTH WAYS when it comes to them.

  27. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    This really is stupid. You’d thinking Bloomberg was smarter than wasting his cash on this. But then again look at his campaign for potus.

    This sigh requirement doesn’t regulate speech at all. It simply says that IF you want the extra protection as a property owner you have to comply with the signage requirements.

    Speech restrictions on “time manner and place “ are constitutional anyway.

    This is no different than a state saying you have to fill out a form to get Benefits.

  28. avatar Jeffery P says:

    I briefly lived in Texas (near the People’s Democrat Republic of Austin) and really liked their law against employers prohibing firearms in parked cars. I don’t know if this also applies to retail or restaurant patrons.

    1. avatar MB (the real MB) says:

      @Jeffery P: In Texas , premises, contrary to Webster’s dictionary, is only used to describe the building(s), not the property the building sits on. Once you have entered the physical building, then you are trespassing in violation. Parking lots, walkways, and sidewalks are not considered a trespass violation, but only when it comes to 30.06/30.07 because of the required sign placement. In all other instance, being on the property would be a trespass. This is how it was explained to me by the former LEO who taught the LTC class. I would hope he knew what he was talking about.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email