TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:My thoughts are starting to evolve on signs like this one.

When OC first passed, I was really offended by the actions of a few large chains, Whataburger being one of them, who immediately stated that they would ban OC. They made these announcements as much as 6 months in advance, with no evidence whatsoever that OC would cause any issues at all for their restaurants. I felt like they were making a political statement as opposed to a business decision. And I would rather that the people selling me food, and for that matter entertainment, just stick with what they know best and not lecture me about their political beliefs.

But I am starting to realize that these businesses are in a tough position because there are a lot of small minded people out there who have been indoctrinated to truly fear guns. The mere sight of a gun will cause these folks to go into a mini-panic. Obviously it would be best for all of us if we could get these poor unfortunate souls to understand that an inanimate object is not going to hurt them. But am I starting to think that it may be a bit hypocritical of me to expect business owners to take up this effort given what I wrote in the above paragraph. As much as I would love to see all business owners allow, and even encourage, every LTC holder to openly carry firearms, I do understand that they must make a profit and it is reasonable for them to strike some type of a balance.

I do strongly prefer that businesses post courteous signs as opposed to valid 30.07 notices. If a customer OC's past a sign such as the one in the picture above, an employee can then just politely let them know that they need to untuck their shirt, giving them verbal (oral?) notice. The 30.07 wording with it's reference to OC in a criminal context has the unintended consequence of reinforcing the notion for some folks that carrying guns is bad, IMHO.

My feelings on 30.06 are much, much different. By posting a 30.06 sign, a business owner is restricting my ability to exercise fundamental human and civil rights on their property. They have the legal right to do this, but simple decency should dictate that such a restriction is only considered as a last resort to solve a compelling and significant issue. I don't think that any such issue exists related to the carrying of a concealed handgun by a LTC holder.