jimlongley wrote:baldeagle wrote:It's entirely possible that a business that posts a gunbuster sign does it intentionally to make its customers feel comfortable without ever intending to prevent legal carry. After all, any business of any size has lawyers to inform it of the legal requirements to prevent lawful carry.
And it's just as possible, maybe even moreso, that those lawyers are in some other state and haven't bothered to acquaint themselves with the specifics of TX law.
However, that ain't my problem.
jimlongley wrote:baldeagle wrote:You can't tell me that a company the size of Babies(Toys)-R-Us isn't aware of the laws that govern the conduct of their business in Texas.
Sure I can, just did, two major national/international companies that I worked for in the past had absolutely no clue, and when I tried to educate them denied that they had it wrong. Dallas Love Field still has 30.05 signs posted, despite letters and meetings, and DPD says they will consider anyone caught carrying to be trespassing. TSA, where I worked for three plus years also, despite "allowing" guns to be transported in checked bags, says CHL on airport property is illegal.
baldeagle wrote:So I see those signs as a wink-wink-nod-nod to gun owners while making people who are unaware of the law feel good about being in a gun free zone.
And good luck with that if you ever chance to be in the situation where you expect them to be winking and ndding and they are cuffing and dragging.
And they are going to handcuff me and drag me away for what? I can't be charged with trespassing unless they either have a valid 30.06 sign or they have given me verbal notice. I then must be given the opportunity to comply with their reqeust. They can't simply charge me with trespassing because I'm there.
jimlongley wrote:baldeagle wrote:It's not my job as a CHL holder to divine the store's intentions.
Which is why I will continue to err on the side of they have absolutely no idea what the law says but will still cause me problems if they catch me.
And that's your privilege to think that way. But if they "catch" you, they must ask you to leave. They can't cause you problems simply because they "caught" you. (I don't like the term "catch", because it implies you have done something wrong, which you have not done.)
jimlongley wrote:baldeagle wrote:It's my job to follow the law. Should management become aware of my concealed weapon and ask me to leave, I will do so politely and immediately. In the meantime, I will assume that the company and I are "in on the joke".
And it is their job to follow the law too, but if their understanding happens to run counter to yours . . .
Their understanding is irrelevant. Only the law is relevant. The law says they have to post a 30.06 sign if they don't want me armed in their store
or upon discovering that I'm armed, they must ask me to leave. If that were to happen, I would apologize and tell the manager that since they did not have valid notification posted I was unaware that I wasn't allowed to carry in their store. If he then pointed me to the sign, my reply would be that the sign is not valid notification.
jimlongley wrote:baldeagle wrote:My position is at least as plausible as the alternative - that the company really doesn't want to allow legal carry but has no clue what the law really says.
Only if you first accept that ". . .a company the size of Babies(Toys)-R-Us isn't aware of the laws that govern the conduct of their business in Texas . . ." which I do not. The lawyers that tell them how to conduct their business in the state of Texas may very well spend absolutely no time reviewing the penal law, which has little or nothing to do with how they conduct their business.
Yet it is their responsibility to do so, just as it is mine to be knowledgeable of the laws that govern my conduct as a CHL holder.
jimlongley wrote:baldeagle wrote:You also need to remember that many gunbuster signs are legacies of when the CHL law first passed and everyone freaked out about shootouts in the streets.
Which would mean that a simple letter informing them that their sign has no meaning should encourage them to remove it.
I'm disinclined to do that. I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. I'm not trying to "get away with something". I'm complying with the law. I expect retailers to do the same. When they don't, it is not my responsibility to educate them, unless they want to pay me as a consultant to advise them where to find the appropriate law.