TexasCHLforum.com

brewster wrote: I do think there are times and places where you have to make that decision. Those decisions should be made to cover the gap where the law ends and your gut feeling begins. So, kudos for your example. I don't think however, that strolling past an employer's 30.06 sign like it's some goofy company newsletter has the same merit.

I agree.

Many years ago when living in RI I had to manage some apartment houses my mom owned. They were in bad neighborhoods, and the type of places where the tennants paid by the week. I was over 21 and owned a 38 spl Colt revolver that I had bought for my 21st birthday "because I could".

It never occurred to me, but I could have easily met the requirements for having a "good and proper reason" to get a "may issue" RI Pistol Permit. But I didn't know any of that stuff at the time so I didn't apply.

But what I did know was that I was out at night time collecting cash in some pretty bad neighborhoods. I was also aware that I did not look like anyone who lived in those neighborhoods. And I had little doubt that people who saw me out and around every week had a good idea as to what I was doing.

So I figured I was a big time target to be robbed or worse. Not only did my mom and I need the money, but I figured I had a long life ahead of me and I didn't want to leave it in some alley over a few hundred bucks. So I started carrying the Colt in my waistband on "rent day" when I would make my rounds.

Under RI law at the time, I believe that carrying without a license was a felony. (The statute of limitations has long since run out.) But I didn't care. I did what I needed to do and hoped that things would turn out OK. As it happened, they did.

No one ever bothered me, and I never had to draw the little Colt (Thank God!). But it sure was a comfort having it.

And to this day, I see nothing whatever wrong with what I did. Sure it was partially due to my own ignorance, because I could have gotten a permit had I known to apply. But I was, as we all are, at least partly a product of the culture I was raised in, and that did not include the idea of carrying guns for protection.

Back in those days, for someone growing up in the Northeast, carrying a gun was something that private detectives did on TV shows.

For me, the job is too important. I follow the rules, even though I am not happy about it. I was really hoping that the parking lot bill would have passed this year, but no such luck. Maybe next time.

Today I received a package in the mail from the largest HR organization in the US. I get them about once a month, and they are filled with everything from newletters, to magazines, training materials, etc. While flipping through it, I noticed an article that basically stated "Laws passed in 13 states render company anti-weapon policies unenforceable" (very paraphrased). It went on to say that this particular HR organization has helped lobby against the same legislation being passed in 12 other states successfully. I assume this is referring to the castle doctrine, but it did not say. Interesting read, though.

I actually think the article was referring to some version of a parking lot bill rather than Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine does not say anything one way or the other about anyone's right to carry, times, places, etc. It only refers to the actual use of force in self defense.