Almost went to jail!!!

[mreed911]

If I see a 30.07 sign, compliant in size or not, I'm not going in as OC. I'll know exactly what the property owners stance is

That sign, translated, says "I don't want your business or your money." TSRA even sells handy little cards for these occasions.

[jed]

I'm confused.....for the passed few weeks, probably longer, I have read an awful lot of posts about proper wording, letter size and such about both .06 and .07 signs. IIRC, a lot of posters were saying walk on in if signage is not 100% correct. Now, everyone seems to be all riled up because someone did just that.

Like I have said several times, if the business knows enough to include the numbers 30.06 and or 30.07 in any kind of sign, they don't want guns in their business. Why would you want to patronize a business that does not want a law abiding, licensed gun carrier in their establishment?

[mreed911]

I'm confused.....for the passed few weeks, probably longer, I have read an awful lot of posts about proper wording, letter size and such about both .06 and .07 signs. IIRC, a lot of posters were saying walk on in if signage is not 100% correct. Now, everyone seems to be all riled up because someone did just that.

Like I have said several times, if the business knows enough to include the numbers 30.06 and or 30.07 in any kind of sign, they don't want guns in their business. Why would you want to patronize a business that does not want a law abiding, licensed gun carrier in their establishment?

For CC, walking past an invalid sign has no consequences.

For OC, walking past an invalid sign invites both verbal notice AND an encounter with law enforcement.

On your last point, we agree. No guns, no money.

[Keith B]

I'm confused.....for the passed few weeks, probably longer, I have read an awful lot of posts about proper wording, letter size and such about both .06 and .07 signs. IIRC, a lot of posters were saying walk on in if signage is not 100% correct. Now, everyone seems to be all riled up because someone did just that.

Like I have said several times, if the business knows enough to include the numbers 30.06 and or 30.07 in any kind of sign, they don't want guns in their business. Why would you want to patronize a business that does not want a law abiding, licensed gun carrier in their establishment?

Totally different if you pass a non-compliant 30.06 sign concealed since if it is properly hidden, no one will know. Openly carrying past a 30.07 sign where God and everyone can see your hog leg is asking for verbal notification or worse (like in this case)

[jmra]

I'm confused.....for the passed few weeks, probably longer, I have read an awful lot of posts about proper wording, letter size and such about both .06 and .07 signs. IIRC, a lot of posters were saying walk on in if signage is not 100% correct. Now, everyone seems to be all riled up because someone did just that.
seems to me people are upset because the OP stated he would return to the same location and OC again even though it is obvious he received notice
Like I have said several times, if the business knows enough to include the numbers 30.06 and or 30.07 in any kind of sign, they don't want guns in their business. Why would you want to patronize a business that does not want a law abiding, licensed gun carrier in their establishment?

[mreed911]

I'm confused.....for the passed few weeks, probably longer, I have read an awful lot of posts about proper wording, letter size and such about both .06 and .07 signs. IIRC, a lot of posters were saying walk on in if signage is not 100% correct. Now, everyone seems to be all riled up because someone did just that.

Like I have said several times, if the business knows enough to include the numbers 30.06 and or 30.07 in any kind of sign, they don't want guns in their business. Why would you want to patronize a business that does not want a law abiding, licensed gun carrier in their establishment?

Totally different if you pass a non-compliant 30.06 sign concealed since if it is properly hidden, no one will know. Openly carrying past a 30.07 sign where God and everyone can see your hog leg is asking for verbal notification or worse (like in this case)

And has two bad consequences: a negative encounter with OC + law enforcement AND giving notice to the restaurant that they need COMPLIANT signs, which means they're more likely to prohibit BOTH correctly.

I'll try to avoid 30.07 posted businesses, but if I have to do business with one, I'll conceal and cover under 30.06. I won't do business with those that post 30.06 or both.

[mreed911]

double tap

[mreed911]

triple tap

[goose]

triple tap

looking to sell a firearm?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I guess I have mixed feelings about all of this.

It irks me that one half of the parties in the contract (so to speak), the sign posting establishments, do not have to post compliant signs. If someone can call the police on OCers why isn't there a way to do something about their non-compliance?

We are expected to live by the specifics of the law, but they don't have to. And, when it comes down to a contest between the two, the establishment is given the benefit of the doubt the offender, who technically is not offending, is scolded, arrested, or worse as if the burden of fulfilling the contract (the law that specifies requirements to both parties) rest solely on the OCer.

That's a sad system.

How many of us are afraid to risk the ride rather than to insist that establishments are just as responsible to follow the compliance law as we are to follow compliant notices? Do we fear they, whoever they are, may take our freedom away from us if we protest too much?

Why should a LEO have anything to say at all to a OCer when he is being completely lawful. IN FACT, IT IS THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS FAILING TO ABIDE BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE LAW!!! Of all people the LEO should know that the OCer has done nothing wrong and rather than making him to feel like a criminal why not advise the establishment to get ITS act together?

The LEO should, if asked by the establishment, give his verbal 30.06 or 30.07 notice and be on his way. I almost want to say how dare they presume to admonish the OCer for doing nothing but following the law as written. That requires the LEO to be solidly clear on the law which most are. Fairness in the application of a law written to and for both parties is not too much to ask.

So I am torn about how to feel about this kind of situation.

To quote Hamlet...."...Thus, conscience, does make cowards of us all. And thus the native hue of resolution, is sullied ore' the pale cast of thought."

And let me add, I am one of those who would rather retreat and fight on another battlefield of legislation and try to make a point in front of a family eating their dinner at a restaurant and make life more difficult for the rest of OCers.

BUT IT TICKS ME OFF THAT IS SHOULD BE THIS WAY!!!

tex

I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point. Everyone should follow the law, whether it is the property owner or the person carrying a handgun. If it had been a legally insufficient 30.06 sign, then one could enter without causing a scene. However, the OP knew or should have known that walking in showing his gun to everyone was going to result in a confrontation of some sort. Obviously, he didn't care. He didn't care if his action was a blight on open-carry on its first day in Texas.

Although walking in in spite of a legally insufficient sign was not unlawful because Luby's didn't comply with the law, he was given verbal notice by the officers. You take offense at the way they talked to him, but there are two issues you need to consider. First, you don't know what was said or how the message was delivered. The OP has his story and I'm sure the LEOs have theirs also. One must consider that the OP has stated on an open forum that he plans to go back and reenter the same restaurant, if a legally sufficient 30.07 sign is not posted, in spite of having received verbal notice. That attitude gives significant insight to his personality and I suspect he was equally unstatesmanlike with the officers as he was with Luby's.

Chas.

[mreed911]

triple tap

looking to sell a firearm?

No, my browser and this site don't get along. It posted the same thing three times. Chrome on OS X... and it's the only forum I seem to have this problem with.

I didn't even know there was a classifieds section here. :)

I'd be fine with a mod deleting them.

[goose]

triple tap

looking to sell a firearm?

No, my browser and this site don't get along. It posted the same thing three times. Chrome on OS X... and it's the only forum I seem to have this problem with.

I didn't even know there was a classifieds section here. :)

I'd be fine with a mod deleting them.

I thought the "double tap" on the font thread was pretty funny. Then this one made me more leary. I get some double posts now and then as well.

[Archery1]

Makes no sense to me. If I walk past an improper 30.07 sign of which I fully understand both sides of the coin, my only net expected outcome is eventually a verbal request. There is no challenge to the sign other than for them to fix it, as the management has already stated their opinion. My walking past makes no statement at all.

[mojo84]

There are some inconsistencies in this story that make me wonder if this actually happened. The OP stated he went into the restaurant, a cafeteria, and 20 minutes later the cops showed up. He then said said the cops showed up before he had a chance to order. Then he said they must not have cooked his food since the manager called the police.

Too many inconsistencies here for me to believe this event actually happened. I think I took the bait and got reeled up to the boat and threw the hook as the net approached me.

[mreed911]

triple tap

looking to sell a firearm?

No, my browser and this site don't get along. It posted the same thing three times. Chrome on OS X... and it's the only forum I seem to have this problem with.

I didn't even know there was a classifieds section here. :)

I'd be fine with a mod deleting them.

I thought the "double tap" on the font thread was pretty funny. Then this one made me more leary. I get some double posts now and then as well.

I think it's the "this thread has been updated" logic that throws it/me off. Rather than posting, it's like the page resets, then I re-click, it takes forever, re-click and it posts. Sometimes once, sometimes twice.

Is there a setting to turn that off? (Sorry to post this in the thread - happy to take it to PM if that matters).