Another casualty of Open Carry

[Bullitt]

I understand your frustration. Other than just because carrying of weapons was brought to light, why did your company decide 30.06 signs were needed at this point? There is a pretty good 20 year track record that shows they are not needed for improved safety.

The passage of open carry has brought the signs to the forefront and the open carry goons did public relations damage. However, it seems your employer is making an irrational decision by deciding now to put up 30.06 signs. Shouldn't you be more frustrated with your employer instead?

First of all, who says I am not frustrated with my employer over this? Again, you are living in the conceptual world, not the practical world. Second, corporations have lawyers. They get wind of 30.07 and then decide they better put up 30.06 as well just to cover their asses. These are corporations we are talking about, and if you think they are Conservative because they are oil companies, guess again amigo.

[BoFlo61]

I'm afraid the backlash will continue gaining some momentum, knowing how the public reacts to things. They hop on board so willingly to be "popular" and hip with the soft liberal sentiments of the day, caving like fearful cowards. It's a big mistake though as they seem to not remember the times crazies shot unarmed people like scared rabbits in businesses like theirs (restaurants here in San Antonio) with no one around to prevent the loss of innocent lives. I for one will not support these businesses and will let them know it.

One immediate problem is those of us that carry most of the time are forced to leave our firearms in our vehicles every time we pull up to a place with 30.06 and 30.07 signs (that we need to go into for business) and that creates yet another risk to everyone. Leaving firearms in vehicles always presents a possible break-in danger. Perhaps that point should be taken by the business owners so quick to slam up both signs.

How strong is the boycott of these businesses in Texas and where can we bolster it?

[mojo84]

I understand your frustration. Other than just because carrying of weapons was brought to light, why did your company decide 30.06 signs were needed at this point? There is a pretty good 20 year track record that shows they are not needed for improved safety.

The passage of open carry has brought the signs to the forefront and the open carry goons did public relations damage. However, it seems your employer is making an irrational decision by deciding now to put up 30.06 signs. Shouldn't you be more frustrated with your employer instead?

First of all, who says I am not frustrated with my employer over this? Again, you are living in the conceptual world, not the practical world. Second, corporations have lawyers. They get wind of 30.07 and then decide they better put up 30.06 as well just to cover their asses. These are corporations we are talking about, and if you think they are Conservative because they are oil companies, guess again amigo.

Lumping everyone in with the open carry goons just because we support open carry is wrong, inappropriate, offensive and obnoxious. Your perspective is not everyone's. I live in reality every day and my reality does not involve me being a corporate minion.

Since you indicated you are also frustrated with your employer, have you brought your concerns to their attention and addresses them as bozos?

[Bullitt]

Since you indicated you are also frustrated with your employer, have you brought your concerns to their attention and addresses them as bozos?

I'm not accountable to you for what I discuss with my employer. However, they will be getting some healthy advice from me on the matter. Fortunately I am a manager and will be listened to, though I doubt I will get my way. That's not the point...

The point is once again you (or others) are conceptualizing based on what you feel is right or wrong, instead of living in the practicalities of the real world in having to deal with this issue. If open carry results in even one restriction of concealed carry, which it has, then the passing of open carry has served no purpose whatsoever. It is a Pyrric victory, and y'all have egg over your faces. Just admit it has been nothing more than a law passed to satisfy the egos of those who wanted to advertise that they carry a gun. It was stupid. THANKS A LOT!

[VMI77]

My employer just announced 30.07 signage and also 30.06 signage since all this open carry crap brought it to their attention. To those of you living in the "conceptual" world instead of the "practical" world, THANKS FOR NOTHING!

Oh! And I forgot to mention we are having layoffs because oil prices are in the _______, now more than ever is when CHL is needed. Thanks Bozos!

How is it the fault of those that support open carry that your place of employment is now posted not only 30.07 but 30.06 as well? When a business takes advantage of something like open carry in order to fully express their anti-gun views I don't necessarily blame those that are for open carry, rather I blame the business that decided they could get away with finally expressing their views. When I can go to a liberal place like Trader Joes and see a 30.07 sign right next to a sign saying CC is good to go it really makes me think that those now posting both were just anxiously waiting for an opportunity to post without backlash. Can we blame OC for this? Sure, but I'd rather redirect the blame onto the businesses that would rather see patrons die in their store than have someone defend themselves, otherwise the pro-gun movement in Texas is just going to tear itself apart.

If you feel your place of employment is now at greater risk of a shooting from a disgruntled employee maybe you should voice your complaints to management. What's the harm in doing so especially when they've already got legal signs up?

It happened with my employer too and my company is about as conservative as a company can get. I don't think they were looking for an excuse as CC had been explicitly endorsed by the company for years. I think he's right that 30.07 precipitated lawyer involvement and lawyer involvement led to banning everything...just in case.

I don't think the risk of workplace violence at my place of employment is any different that it always has been (neglecting possible acts of terrorism which I consider unlikely) but should one occur my ability to defend myself has definitely been greatly diminished.

[mojo84]

Since you indicated you are also frustrated with your employer, have you brought your concerns to their attention and addresses them as bozos?

I'm not accountable to you for what I discuss with my employer. However, they will be getting some healthy advice from me on the matter. Fortunately I am a manager and will be listened to, though I doubt I will get my way. That's not the point...

The point is once again you (or others) are conceptualizing based on what you feel is right or wrong, instead of living in the practicalities of the real world in having to deal with this issue. If open carry results in even one restriction of concealed carry, which it has, then the passing of open carry has served no purpose whatsoever. It is a Pyrric victory, and y'all have egg over your faces. Just admit it has been nothing more than a law passed to satisfy the egos of those who wanted to advertise that they carry a gun. It was stupid. THANKS A LOT!

Are you always this emotional and angry? Saying if one place restricts carry because open carry passed is a rational and logical as saying all guns should be banned if it saves just one life.

Open carry is not the cause of your employer posting a 30.06 sign. It is the result of a few loud and obnoxious morons bringing negative attention to the carrying of guns and companies making irrational decisions that they now need to to ban concealed carry.

Lumping everyone in the bozo group is not productive. When you do that you come across as irrational as the people for whom you work.

[VoiceofReason]

Mr business owner, why did you put up a 30.06 sign?
Who does it apply to? (HINT: Only LTC)
You realize it does NOT apply to criminals?
What does a LTC have to do before he licensed?
So you disarmed the LTC but did nothing to disarm the criminal? To protect the LTC?

Well, they probably would not want me on the jury either. :)

This is at the core of requiring businesses that post 30.06 signs to have metal detectors.

[mojo84]

My employer just announced 30.07 signage and also 30.06 signage since all this open carry crap brought it to their attention. To those of you living in the "conceptual" world instead of the "practical" world, THANKS FOR NOTHING!

Oh! And I forgot to mention we are having layoffs because oil prices are in the _______, now more than ever is when CHL is needed. Thanks Bozos!

How is it the fault of those that support open carry that your place of employment is now posted not only 30.07 but 30.06 as well? When a business takes advantage of something like open carry in order to fully express their anti-gun views I don't necessarily blame those that are for open carry, rather I blame the business that decided they could get away with finally expressing their views. When I can go to a liberal place like Trader Joes and see a 30.07 sign right next to a sign saying CC is good to go it really makes me think that those now posting both were just anxiously waiting for an opportunity to post without backlash. Can we blame OC for this? Sure, but I'd rather redirect the blame onto the businesses that would rather see patrons die in their store than have someone defend themselves, otherwise the pro-gun movement in Texas is just going to tear itself apart.

If you feel your place of employment is now at greater risk of a shooting from a disgruntled employee maybe you should voice your complaints to management. What's the harm in doing so especially when they've already got legal signs up?

It happened with my employer too and my company is about as conservative as a company can get. I don't think they were looking for an excuse as CC had been explicitly endorsed by the company for years. I think he's right that 30.07 precipitated lawyer involvement and lawyer involvement led to banning everything...just in case.

I don't think the risk of workplace violence at my place of employment is any different that it always has been (neglecting possible acts of terrorism which I consider unlikely) but should one occur my ability to defend myself has definitely been greatly diminished.

Blaming the concept of open carry is like blaming the gun for violence. It's the few loudmouth morons that brought a negative light on it and the lawyers and execs that are making illogical and irrational decisions by banning concealed carry at this point in time.

[VMI77]

My employer just announced 30.07 signage and also 30.06 signage since all this open carry crap brought it to their attention. To those of you living in the "conceptual" world instead of the "practical" world, THANKS FOR NOTHING!

Oh! And I forgot to mention we are having layoffs because oil prices are in the _______, now more than ever is when CHL is needed. Thanks Bozos!

How is it the fault of those that support open carry that your place of employment is now posted not only 30.07 but 30.06 as well? When a business takes advantage of something like open carry in order to fully express their anti-gun views I don't necessarily blame those that are for open carry, rather I blame the business that decided they could get away with finally expressing their views. When I can go to a liberal place like Trader Joes and see a 30.07 sign right next to a sign saying CC is good to go it really makes me think that those now posting both were just anxiously waiting for an opportunity to post without backlash. Can we blame OC for this? Sure, but I'd rather redirect the blame onto the businesses that would rather see patrons die in their store than have someone defend themselves, otherwise the pro-gun movement in Texas is just going to tear itself apart.

If you feel your place of employment is now at greater risk of a shooting from a disgruntled employee maybe you should voice your complaints to management. What's the harm in doing so especially when they've already got legal signs up?

It happened with my employer too and my company is about as conservative as a company can get. I don't think they were looking for an excuse as CC had been explicitly endorsed by the company for years. I think he's right that 30.07 precipitated lawyer involvement and lawyer involvement led to banning everything...just in case.

I don't think the risk of workplace violence at my place of employment is any different that it always has been (neglecting possible acts of terrorism which I consider unlikely) but should one occur my ability to defend myself has definitely been greatly diminished.

Blaming the concept of open carry is like blaming the gun for violence. It's the few loudmouth morons that brought a negative light on it and the lawyers and execs that are making illogical and irrational decisions by banning concealed carry at this point in time.

But I didn't blame the concept of OC. I think the in your face tactics of OCT are counter productive but I've made several posts on various threads saying that in the long run OC is better for retaining gun rights because it will accommodate more of the public to seeing guns and remove some of the mystery and hysteria promoted by the media and the anti gun crowd. 40 years ago seeing a rifle or shotgun in public didn't generate the hysteria it does today. A gradual and considerate exposure to OC may regain some of that lost ground.

I actually don't know why my company policy changed but I suspect it was due to getting a lawyer involved and the lawyer advocating that banning both was the safest play. Our company got new legal representation, and from a larger firm that is probably more cautious than one man operations like they've used in the past, and from what I can tell, the company is involving lawyers in areas that were previously handled in house by management (principally, engineers). So, it wasn't OC per se, but OC required a policy adaptation and where it may have been addressed solely by management in the past it is now being vetted by lawyers.

[txblackout]

The Perot Museum has posted, another place my family enjoyed. Top Golf... another place that posted 30.06 after OC became a discussion. We have even seen gas stations posting in our area. Sprout's grocery posted when OCT began doing their marches and going into businesses...

Great that you have not been affected, but many in the DFW area have.

I only go to ipic and they havent posted yet so I dont know about the theaters. However, top golf has been posted for a long time in most locations

[SA-TX]

Since you indicated you are also frustrated with your employer, have you brought your concerns to their attention and addresses them as bozos?

I'm not accountable to you for what I discuss with my employer. However, they will be getting some healthy advice from me on the matter. Fortunately I am a manager and will be listened to, though I doubt I will get my way. That's not the point...

The point is once again you (or others) are conceptualizing based on what you feel is right or wrong, instead of living in the practicalities of the real world in having to deal with this issue. If open carry results in even one restriction of concealed carry, which it has, then the passing of open carry has served no purpose whatsoever. It is a Pyrric victory, and y'all have egg over your faces. Just admit it has been nothing more than a law passed to satisfy the egos of those who wanted to advertise that they carry a gun. It was stupid. THANKS A LOT!

I understand how the posting of your workplace is frustrating. Welcome to my world since at least 1999. My employer is as anti-gun as they come. Speaking of this, I need to check and see if they have updated the signage (I travel and work from home now so I'm rarely at the office).

Yes the news around OC has prompted some new signs to go up including 30.06. I compare this to 1997 when the 30.06 sign was introduced and being widely discussed. Any time gun carry is in the news this can and usually does happen. It will be the same with campus carry. Unfortunately the only way to avoid it is to not expand gun rights in the state. Freedom is a messy thing. This is driven by irrational fear not actual experience with OCers or CCers.

And this too shall pass. When the newness of OC wears off and the news stories are a distant memory, minds may change and signs may come down. Note that I'm not promising that this will happen but it has before. When the fears aren't realized - and when some LTCs stop doing business with newly posted places - minds can change. It sounds like you are trying to assist that process and I applaud you for it.

As for wanting to advertise that I carry a gun, that may be true for some but certainly not all. I support the new law even though I haven't OCed and have no immediate plans to do so. I sympathize with the practical vs. conceptual argument but ultimately avoiding it by staying with the status quo was the greater of the evils for me.

SA-TX

[mojo84]

VM, I hear you and saw your other posts.

It's just that there is quite a few that are lashing out blaming open carry itself and not the morons that put it in such a negative light. Yeah, there have been some negative reaction by companies, but, it is irrational and illogical for them to decide now that concealed carry is bad and should be banned. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[switch]

The point is once again you (or others) are conceptualizing based on what you feel is right or wrong, instead of living in the practicalities of the real world in having to deal with this issue. If open carry results in even one restriction of concealed carry, which it has, then the passing of open carry has served no purpose whatsoever. It is a Pyrric victory, and y'all have egg over your faces. Just admit it has been nothing more than a law passed to satisfy the egos of those who wanted to advertise that they carry a gun. It was stupid. THANKS A LOT!

The Moms that Demand action fought two things in the last session. They did not want OC and they did not like the restrictions on 30.06 signs. They wanted companies to be able to post/enforce 'gun buster' signs. They lost the OC fight. :) They forced the lege to look at 30.06. The lege realized that walking past a 30.06 sign was a Class A, was to severe a punishment and lowered it to a Class C, will NOT affect your LTC. :) They also decided that local governments that posted 30.06 signs could be fined $10,500 per day. :)

All in all, I think those changes are a big deal and well worth it. Even if there are 10 times many 30.06 signs. Sorry your employer is being so negative.

Arguing w/i the gun community is stupid. If you think that you just duck hunt so you don't care if they take machine guns, you don't care if they take my handgun, you don't care if they take my sniper rifles... Eventually, they will get around to your shotgun. :(

[Charles L. Cotton]

This thread is one more nasty comment away from being locked. Discuss issues without the personal attacks and venom.

This is the last warning folks.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The Moms that Demand action fought two things in the last session. They did not want OC and they did not like the restrictions on 30.06 signs. They wanted companies to be able to post/enforce 'gun buster' signs. They lost the OC fight. :) They forced the lege to look at 30.06. The lege realized that walking past a 30.06 sign was a Class A, was to severe a punishment and lowered it to a Class C, will NOT affect your LTC. :) They also decided that local governments that posted 30.06 signs could be fined $10,500 per day. :)

I may be wrong, but it appears that you are crediting the open-carry groups, MOMs, etc. with reduction of an initial violation of TPC §30.06 from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor. It also appears that you give them credit for SB273 "Fines for Signs" passing. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, you could not be more wrong. SB273 was HB508 in 2013. There has been an effort to reduce initial TPC §30.06 violations to a Class C long before the counterproductive open-carry groups were even formed. I've stated that need for quite some time.

Again, I may be wrong so please correct me if I am.
Chas.