Search found 3 matches

by sjfcontrol
Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:27 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Whole Foods Gun Policy
Replies: 108
Views: 22845

Re: Whole Foods Gun Policy

LDB415 wrote:So your argument is going to be that

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

isn't valid because a few words were removed but adding words to the "must be identical to" doesn't change the wording and make it different than what the law demands it be identical to. That's certainly an available option you are welcome to but I'm going with deleting or adding words being equal errors and both invalidating the sign. Not as a blatant test case, but as my belief.
Good luck with that. Please don't advise any of my CHL students regarding your beliefs.
by sjfcontrol
Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:58 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Whole Foods Gun Policy
Replies: 108
Views: 22845

Re: Whole Foods Gun Policy

LDB415 wrote:Actually it reads "with language identical to the following". That sign's language isn't identical. It has been edited. No, I won't be the test case. I didn't shop there. I don't shop there. And I won't be shopping there. But I believe it's a valid argument the sign is nullified by being altered.
Did it contain language identical to the following? Yes it did.
by sjfcontrol
Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:40 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Whole Foods Gun Policy
Replies: 108
Views: 22845

Re: Whole Foods Gun Policy

Yeah, if it has the required wording, it meets the legal requirement as far as I'm concerned. The law does NOT read , "contains the following wording, and nothing in addition".

Return to “Whole Foods Gun Policy”