Someone placing 30.07 signs in front of businesses...

[K5GU]

If someone puts a sign or poster on, or in my property that is not approved, and they get caught, they would probably face a criminal mischief misdemeanor charge. If it's a 30.06 or .07 and it can be proven that the sign caused a loss of business, the charges could go up to class B based on the value of sales lost.

[K5GU]

Nothing wrong with either in my opinion. The signs are legal and related to their business. I know our local gun range has decided to post 30.07 for safety reasons related to misfires that have occurred at other ranges when re-holstering in the showroom areas.

I just caught this...Nobody should be un-holstering/re-holstering a gun in a showroom. This is flawed regardless of any signs posted.

For the record, I don't think gun ranges should be posted, but noted that holstered guns MUST STAY HOLSTERED.

I agree it could better be handled by policy, but doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to picture...."have I shown you my new SIG?? It's really sweet...takes it out to show it off..."

Most ranges I have been to require weapons to be unloaded prior to entering the show room for this reason as well.

It's natural to want to have the show and tell moment in a gun friendly environment. Unfortunately not everyone is as responsible with their weapons as they should be.

I will give them the same benefit of any other establishment I frequent. 30.07 fine I'll conceal, 30.06 or both, I'll take my business elsewhere.

I've never been to a range where customers could un-holster / show off / handle any weapons in a showroom area, unless it was a firearm the range was selling and they were looking at. I've also never seen it happen.

If I ever saw this practice in person, I would be out the door rather quickly.

The range(s) I use prohibit display of your personal handgun or long gun in the common areas and must be carried in a case unloaded and with either the cylinder removed or the slide locked back.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If one does what you are suggesting, in practicality, what does one gain or accomplish? If you force the issue and they put up a compliant sign, you still won't be able to open carry there.

If they can not be persuaded to 'consider' Open Carry with a thoughtful, well written letter, then they will need to do one of two things.

1. Post a compliant sign....which clearly shows their intent, satisfies the LAW and creates an immediate trespass.
2. Post NO sign or a non-compliant sign and be forced to issue notice either verbally or in writing.

What is potentially "gained" is holding merchants to the same compliance standards we are held to and forcing them to consider IF it is worth it to them. If they are adamant about NO OC ....then nothing is 'lost' except some effort and time on our part. As you say...you still can't open carry there, so your point is somewhat moot in terms of OC. There IS something to be gained, but nothing lost.

I disagree that there's no downside. If a business does not prohibit concealed carry, then it is pro-gun. Their response to constant harassment by open-carry supporters coming in with their handguns visible in spite of their legally insufficient signage could well be to prohibit all carry. Also, anyone carrying openly is quite likely to receive a verbal "no guns" warning, not merely "no open-carry." Thus, they would be prohibited from carrying anything.

I disagree also that there is any upside to your proposal. Walking in carrying openly is not going to convince the business owner to allow open-carry. You apparently consider "forcing" a business to post a 30.07 sign, as opposed to providing verbal notice, to be a victory, but I could not disagree more. All you would accomplish would be maintaining the status quo (i.e. no open-carry) while risking the company banning both open and concealed carry. I realize that you strongly support open-carry, but the vast majority of gun owners are not willing to risk concealed-carry to harass a pro-gun company.

Chas.

[Oldgringo]

I seem to remember hearing MDA people saying they would be doing this.

Since a 30.07 sign is something that has the force of law behind it, sounds like a nice thing to add to the code next session - a prohibition against unauthorized placement or tampering.

I would think that would already be against a law of some sort?

[Glockster]

I seem to remember hearing MDA people saying they would be doing this.

Since a 30.07 sign is something that has the force of law behind it, sounds like a nice thing to add to the code next session - a prohibition against unauthorized placement or tampering.

I would think that would already be against a law of some sort?

No clue on my end but I don't see anything in that section of the code that contains any language like that. But whether that would be covered under something else is above my pay grade.

[suthdj]

If walk up to a store an tear down the sign is it any different if i add a sign either way i am defacing the store, if i place a 06/07 sign and they lose 3-4% of revenue am i not liable for that loss?

[flintknapper]

Chas. wrote:

I disagree that there's no downside.

Fine, we have respectfully disagreed before, this is no different.

If a business does not prohibit concealed carry, then it is pro-gun.

Well…..that is quite the presumptuous label “pro-gun”. I would submit it is not possible to know if an establishment is “pro-gun” until we know if the establishment has knowingly refrained from posting any form of a 30.06 sign for the express purpose of allowing concealed carry.

THAT would be “pro-gun”. The mere absence of a sign is not evidence in itself of a pro-gun stance. Folks do not post 30.06 signs for any number of reasons I believe you know that.

Their response to constant harassment by open-carry supporters coming in with their handguns visible in spite of their legally insufficient signage could well be to prohibit all carry.

The persistent exercise of a LEGAL activity with the intent of enlightening an establishment I think falls well short of “harassment”.

But, to your second point….I have already addressed that when ‘Mojo’ expressed essentially the same concern:

Mojo Wrote:

“You do have something to lose though. They could tell tell that they do not want you in their place of business or tell you that they don't want guns at all.”

Flint responded:

This is a possibility. So what you are proposing is a 'loss' of C/C, correct? Why would they do that? It puts them right back at 'square one'.
Except NOW they would have to post TWO compliant signs...OR try to figure out WHO was carrying past a non-compliant sign, double the trouble.
End Quote.


So….IF a supposedly “pro-gun” establishment should now exclude BOTH modes of carry, what would be the impetus for that, retribution? How would they gain from that?

Chas. wrote:

You apparently consider "forcing" a business to post a 30.07 sign, as opposed to providing verbal notice, to be a victory, but I could not disagree more.

Charles, I’m not looking for a ‘victory’, I am looking for something simple and congruent. I am trying to think of ways that we can avoid confusion, meeting the needs of both business and the citizenry without having to involve Law Enforcement.

If the issues are not discussed and hopefully settled now (while there is focus on it), then the business community (through practice), will decide what is the new ‘norm’.

To quickly address what many think to be a ‘pro-gun’ stance of the business world:

We will see. Open Carry has for the time being….spotlighted carry (of all forms). So like it or not, some businesses are going to revisit their policies. We will find out soon enough who is/was ‘pro-gun’ and who were just letting you ‘fly under the radar’.

As I see it, there are certain aspects of OC and the attendant Law that are worth fighting for and some that are not. IMO, compliant signage is worth visiting.

By encouraging the posting of compliant signage (clearly the easiest thing to do) I seek to avoid misunderstanding and unnecessary ‘second steps’, not create them!

If we choose to do nothing….(just let it all settle down) with no clarification, then OC will exist in such a neutered fashion as to be practically worthless. Maybe that is what the masses want? Then what will you settle for next time?

[mojo84]

If one does what you are suggesting, in practicality, what does one gain or accomplish? If you force the issue and they put up a compliant sign, you still won't be able to open carry there.

If they can not be persuaded to 'consider' Open Carry with a thoughtful, well written letter, then they will need to do one of two things.

1. Post a compliant sign....which clearly shows their intent, satisfies the LAW and creates an immediate trespass.
2. Post NO sign or a non-compliant sign and be forced to issue notice either verbally or in writing.

What is potentially "gained" is holding merchants to the same compliance standards we are held to and forcing them to consider IF it is worth it to them. If they are adamant about NO OC ....then nothing is 'lost' except some effort and time on our part. As you say...you still can't open carry there, so your point is somewhat moot in terms of OC. There IS something to be gained, but nothing lost.

You do have something to lose though. They could tell tell that they do not want you in their place of business or tell you that they don't want guns at all.

This is a possibility. So what you are proposing is a 'loss' of C/C, correct? Why would they do that? It puts them right back at 'square one'.
Except NOW they would have to post TWO compliant signs...OR try to figure out WHO was carrying past a non-compliant sign, double the trouble. You really can't see that?

You keep saying they would have to put up compliant signs. No they will not. They can continue to use the noncompliant signs as a warning or heads up and then verbal notice to those that do not honor the sign. There is a strong chance you will be told they don't want guns in their business. You then have been given notice for both concealed and open carry.

Bottom line, you gain nothing in practicality by trying to force the issue. You can get hung up on principle but it gains you nothing.

In reading your posts I get the distinct impression you want it your way without compromise and you want it now. The problem is, there are two different perspectives and you can't for people to see it your way and do it your way. Nothing you've said is going to force someone to put up compliant signs. In other words, you seem to be willing to cut your nose off to spite your face. That's fine but don't screw it up for the rest of us.

[flintknapper]

You keep saying they would have to put up compliant signs.

No, I keep saying they would need to put up 'compliant' signs in order to avoid the necessary LEGAL 'next step' of informing with respect to force of law.

I don't know how to get you to read with more comprehension? I will endeavor to be abundantly clear.

Thanks,

Flint.

Edited to add 'force of law'

[mojo84]

You keep saying they would have to put up compliant signs.

No, I keep saying they would need to put up 'compliant' signs in order to avoid the necessary LEGAL 'next step' of informing.

I don't know how to get you to read with more comprehension? I will endeavor to be abundantly clear.

Thanks,

Flint.

I'm not going to respond to the insult as I comprehend your attitude and posts just fine.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that they must be okay with the "second step" as you call it. Therefore you are just going to have to deal with it.

[mojo84]

You keep saying they would have to put up compliant signs.

No, I keep saying they would need to put up 'compliant' signs in order to avoid the necessary LEGAL 'next step' of informing.

I don't know how to get you to read with more comprehension? I will endeavor to be abundantly clear.

Thanks,

Flint.

I changed my mind. I'm not going to let the smartelec militant remark go as I am getting fed up with people that want to make themselves feel superior by trying to belittle others.

Is this or is it not a direct quote of you?

If businesses are not challenged/required to place COMPLIANT signs up, then they effectively dictate what is acceptable (not to be confused with legal). If you do not walk past a non-compliant sign and force a verbal or written notice, then the sign thing will continue.

I added some emphasis to help you comprehend some of the dribble you've been spewing. Whether you or anyone else finds this post edifying, I don't care.

[flintknapper]

I'm not going to respond to the insult as I comprehend your attitude and posts just fine.

That's good Sir, as no insult was issued or intended, just an observation.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that they must be okay with the "second step" as you call it. Therefore you are just going to have to deal with it.

I do get that, I don't know why you insist I do not, but I don't want to mention that C word again.

It IS their prerogative to employ the verbal or written notification, I can even see why certain businesses might want/need to. The danger in that... has already been discussed and what it might ultimately lead to . Hence the need to better educate ALL parties so that the best decisions can be made (read informed decision).

[Winchster]

You keep saying they would have to put up compliant signs.

No, I keep saying they would need to put up 'compliant' signs in order to avoid the necessary LEGAL 'next step' of informing with respect to force of law.

I don't know how to get you to read with more comprehension? I will endeavor to be abundantly clear.

Thanks,

Flint.

Edited to add 'force of law'

The problem is, if you/I make it a point to receive verbal notification in place of an invalid sign, there is a strong possibility that the notice you/I receive will be sufficient to prevent any type of carry forever in that establishment for you/I.
Verbal notice is permanent.
Why ask for it when covering up prevents it?

[Charles L. Cotton]

By encouraging the posting of compliant signage (clearly the easiest thing to do) I seek to avoid misunderstanding and unnecessary ‘second steps’, not create them!

There's absolutely no misunderstanding about what's required to prohibit open-carry and clarity is not your goal. There's a reason some businesses didn't post a compliant §30.07 and you're hoping that reason is strong enough for them not to do so, even in response to repeated harassment by people openly-carrying. Your true goal is to force those businesses to allow open-carry.

Rather than letting open-carry become the non-issue it potentially can be, you and a very small number of over-the-top OC supporters want everything now. You call for actions that amount to nothing less than harassment of private property owners. Ironically, you'll get what you claim is your goal, i.e. many more 30.07 signs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you agree with OCT's demand that TPC §30.06 be amended to apply to both open and concealed carry?

Chas.

[flintknapper]

The problem is, if you/I make it a point to receive verbal notification in place of an invalid sign, there is a strong possibility that the notice you/I receive will be sufficient to prevent any type of carry forever in that establishment for you/I.

Yes Sir, I concede that is a possibility. The likelihood....I don't know, but you might be correct.

Verbal notice is permanent.

Not entirely convinced of this yet, but I am pondering it.