TexasCHLforum.com

I do not believe that someone on TV/Radio reading a statement from a company qualifies as legal notice under 30.06. The person verbally notifying you does not have any authority for the business and with a number of businesses having both company and franchise store you can not tell if the person who issued the statement, which was not given to you, has the authority for any particular locale you visit.

rotor wrote:I didn't originate this post. I am commenting that it seems that CHL people seem to be very negative to open carry. From what I have seen many posts seem to reflect that view. I would have thought that people that support 2nd ammendment would have supported open carry too. I didn't intend for this to become an argument, only a reflection of what I see. I am not really sure why CHL people tend to be anti open carry at least from the responses on these posts. Perhaps the majority of CHL are not open carry. I don't see why we can't support CHL and open carry. I am not in favor of the dumb open carry tactics that we all see. I see nothing wrong with having open carry in Texas and CHL for those that prefer concealed. I realize this is a CHL board but there are a lot of open carry posts. Obviously someone has an interest in open carry, perhaps for it and perhaps against it.

I feel the CHL camp has the following major divisions:
Want/support OC.
Indifferent to OC.
Against OC because of past history (I could easily have fallen into this group a few times).
Against OC because of current tactics.
Against OC because they believe it will negatively impact them.

I strongly suspect the first group is the largest, if it's not then it would be the second. Combined the first and second groups are larger than the others combined, although I suspect each individually is larger than the last three combined. I have been threatened by supposed OC advocates in the past because I call things like I see them and they didn't like what I happened to say. Yet here I am working to move OC forward doing a podcast about OC. Just remember that you are seeing the more biased opinions, many people will look at these threads and say "Bleh, another OC thread that I am not interested in." I was in a thread debate with someone on another forum who views the number of open carry marches as being some sort of credential, I didn't tell him I had probably OCed a modern handgun more hours than he has. Also remember the point of a debate when it comes to civil rights is not to convince your opponent, but to convince the audience.

"wharrgarbl, It's my right wharrgarbl, so I am going to do it, wharrgarbl!" is not as convincing of an argument where you show that gun grabs are rare, the OCer being shot first simply doesn't happen, and that OC has actual statistical support.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Am I the only one who noticed Section 11 of this bill and realizes what it does?

Is it trying to repeal CHLs? It repeals the exemption of CHLs from 46.02, which is unlawful carrying of weapons.

Basically as written the bill would remove the exemption regarding 46.02 for CHL holders essentially, which if the bill was written better would not matter but it strikes language that doesn't exist in 46.02 so when that is "fixed" you could easily have a bill that outlaws licensed concealed carry.

Am I the only one who noticed Section 11 of this bill and realizes what it does?

MeMelYup wrote:Olive Garden along with several other Restaurants I have observed the blue sign.

The Blue Sign is required for business that sell alcohol but do not meet the requirement to post the 51% sign.