Almost went to jail!!!

[Ruark]

This is only getting started. I suspect a legislative approach is going to be needed. Would anybody care to suggest what kind of language could be in a proposed bill that would address this situation? This sort of thing has to be started EARLY - contacts and visits made, drafts written up, etc. before the next session's committees start meeting.

Ruark - You don't have a band nor do you have a wagon to jump on to.

Gosh yes, Bill, it's so nice to see people willing to step up to the plate and take the lead. I'll stand down and let you take point.

[WildBill]

This is only getting started. I suspect a legislative approach is going to be needed. Would anybody care to suggest what kind of language could be in a proposed bill that would address this situation? This sort of thing has to be started EARLY - contacts and visits made, drafts written up, etc. before the next session's committees start meeting.

Ruark - You don't have a band nor do you have a wagon to jump on to.

Gosh yes, Bill, it's so nice to see people willing to step up to the plate and take the lead. I'll stand down and let you take point.

It's your "cause" not mine.

[TexasTornado]

So is verbal notice effective forever?
I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

This is an interesting question....if he goes back I suppose we'll get our answer. I sure wouldn't be willing to be the test case!

So is verbal notice effective forever?

Yes.

I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

It would be, but not for anyone who received verbal notice.

Chas.

Is there a case study or penal code that states the notice is permanent? Might be the college student talking, but I need refferences to substantiate facts vs opinions.

[Papa_Tiger]

...my preferred fix, which I've argued for many times here separate and apart from OC, is to remove the ability of a business open to the public to exclude licensed concealed carriers. Given that that is essentially a political impossibility at this point, I would settle for elimination of the 30.06 sign and a requirement that a business owner must orally request a concealed handgun carrier to leave the premises, with penalties only applicable if the licensed carrier refuses. If we're going to allow ourselves to be discriminated against, I want that business owner to have to look us in the eye when they turn down our business.

I'm still sorting out the OC arguments in my mind, but right now I think I'm OK keeping the 30.07 sign, or even giving a gunbuster sign the status of legal notice with respect to open carry, with the current penalty structure in place (Class C if you carry past a sign, Class A if you refuse to leave when asked).

I like it, but only if signs no longer have the force of law and the owner or someone with apparent authority for the owner must give oral notification each time. One oral notification being a permanent bar seems excessive to me, but then again, I'm not a business owner nor have I had to deal with someone habitually trespassing on my property.

[TexasTornado]

So is verbal notice effective forever?
I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

This is an interesting question....if he goes back I suppose we'll get our answer. I sure wouldn't be willing to be the test case!

So is verbal notice effective forever?

Yes.

I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

It would be, but not for anyone who received verbal notice.

Chas.

Is there a case study or penal code that states the notice is permanent? Might be the college student talking, but I need refferences to substantiate facts vs opinions.

Based on my limited research time at the moment, Dallas Library as well as Austin city buildings require that the verbal notice include a duration. While this is policy not law, the fact that major cities implement this into their statement shows at the very least that it is a best policy if not a grey area within the criminal trespass legislation.

http://content.austin.ynn.com/ausconten ... lletin.pdf
https://www.dallascounty.org/department ... 092015.pdf

[WildBill]

So is verbal notice effective forever?
I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

This is an interesting question....if he goes back I suppose we'll get our answer. I sure wouldn't be willing to be the test case!

So is verbal notice effective forever?

Yes.

I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

It would be, but not for anyone who received verbal notice.

Chas.

Is there a case study or penal code that states the notice is permanent? Might be the college student talking, but I need refferences to substantiate facts vs opinions.

IANAL, but here is one case where the original oral notice was given on June 2, 2001 and the arrest was made Sept 16, 2001. Upon appeal his conviction was affirmed.

http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/twelf ... /6374.html

Another interesting point about this case is that when the police officer gave the initial oral notice he documented it on a police report.
That left no doubt that the defendant had been warned.

[TexasTornado]

So is verbal notice effective forever?
I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

This is an interesting question....if he goes back I suppose we'll get our answer. I sure wouldn't be willing to be the test case!

So is verbal notice effective forever?

Yes.

I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

It would be, but not for anyone who received verbal notice.

Chas.

Is there a case study or penal code that states the notice is permanent? Might be the college student talking, but I need refferences to substantiate facts vs opinions.

IANAL, but here is one case where the original oral notice was given on June 2, 2001 and the arrest was made Sept 16, 2001. Upon appeal his conviction was affirmed.

http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/twelf ... /6374.html

Much appreciated!

[OneGun]

They may have had an "incorrect" sign up . . . but the intent of the sign was to notify oc folk to not oc in the restaurant. If you know the businesses intent I think that means one has been notified to not oc there. I wonder what pushing the envelope will really accomplish.

It does not accomplish anything positive! The OP knows the property owner's feelings on openly carrying in his/her establishment. The officer's gave the OP verbal notice. Returning to the restaurant while openly carrying will not have a positive outcome for the OP.

[flintknapper]

My wife gets frustrated with me because I have a direct way of making a point. And my reply to her is that I am simply communicating what needs to be done about some subject and that it goes without saying that it should be delivered in a compassionate, Christian, but unmistakable way so that at the end of the matter proper communication has been delivered.

My point with this subject is similar. We need to hold businesses accountable for their non-compliance to the same degree we are held for ours. Yes we have the right to walk past a non-compliant sign and we should be able to, indeed we are able to. But that is not the best way to solve the problem.

The problem needs to be addressed...everywhere we see it...(read these words carefully) in a mature, proper, effective way. Not an in-your-face, catch-me-if-you-can, I'll show you, you can't make me sort of way. That will probably require support from legislation, discussions with owners, police departments, local DAs, etc.

If we don't address the issue eventually a gun-buster sign will become the defacto 30.07 sign because 'we don't want to make waves'.

We need to make waves, in a professional, mature way and solidify the right we have been given by the state of Texas.

One school of thought is to not bring to much attention to this or it might generate more .06s or .07s. That's is no way to stand up for our right. How is that different from the policy that we shouldn't offend Radical you know whats lest we give them a recruiting tool?

The other school of thought is that expecting and requiring .06 and .07 compliance is not too much to ask.

I fall into the later. There is still work to be done and we should do it...professionally, maturely, calmly, but with resoluteness. Causing a scene is not the way to go. Taking your money elsewhere when you have a RIGHT to the public accommodation by law and according to the law (ie, if they want me to leave then I should expect it to be done by law) is a temporary and probably ineffective way to secure our right.

Then there is the thought that if it is non-compliant and we complain for a change, the change will be to a compliant sign equaling the same result. My answer to that is that is this. If you don't want me in your establishment, show me and the rest of the law abiding gun-carrying citizens the courtesy of respecting the very law you use as your tool to keep me out . They expect us to follow the law, IMPECCABLY, and they should be held to the same standard. We are the only ones with an interest in this. No one else has a dog in the fight.

Professionally, non confrontationally, maturely, resolutely, and always showing gun carriers in the best light.

To quote Forest..."and that's all I have to say about that".

tex

^^^^^^^^

This is my position as well.

[K5GU]

And folks pressing the edges of the carry laws in Texas must also know that it does not have to be a business owner, manager or employee to cause you grief - In Texas, any person who suspects you are committing an offense ( other customers, etc.) and has witnesses and/or proof, can file a sworn Class C misdemeanor complaint against you.

[RW19]

They may have had an "incorrect" sign up . . . but the intent of the sign was to notify oc folk to not oc in the restaurant. If you know the businesses intent I think that means one has been notified to not oc there. I wonder what pushing the envelope will really accomplish.

It does not accomplish anything positive! The OP knows the property owner's feelings on openly carrying in his/her establishment. The officer's gave the OP verbal notice. Returning to the restaurant while openly carrying will not have a positive outcome for the OP.

I thought the intent with the way the law was written about letter sizing, placement and color scheme was to prevent owners from hiding their 30.06/30.07 sign in tiny font, hidden from plain view and expecting police to pursue violators. Well, when the OP allegedly saw the sign, and walked right past it, he got the message. That's the distinguishing factor about this one. Had the OP not seen the sign and walked in, I'm sure there wouldn't have been an altercation with the police. The police would have just said that there is a sign, and you're not welcome here. I'm sure the police really hate responding to idiots that intentionally do something they know will get a rise out of the police, then getting there to listen and argue about semantics of a sign.

I went to IHOP this weekend and they had a 30.07 sign posted on 8.5X11 on the door walking in. Not a "legal" sign, but I got the message.

[ScooterSissy]

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

Totally agree with you.

If you agree, then you won't go back OC to test it again, since the letter of the law is that they must give notice. The sign (the legally compliant sign) is only one method. The other is a verbal notice.

You've been given a verbal notice, have you not? If you have, then you are breaking the LETTER of the law if you OC in there again.

[zero4o3]

And folks pressing the edges of the carry laws in Texas must also know that it does not have to be a business owner, manager or employee to cause you grief - In Texas, any person who suspects you are committing an offense ( other customers, etc.) and has witnesses and/or proof, can file a sworn Class C misdemeanor complaint against you.

in Houston HPD has already made it clear anyone who makes a false claim along those lines will be the ones who end up getting a fine.

[K5GU]

And folks pressing the edges of the carry laws in Texas must also know that it does not have to be a business owner, manager or employee to cause you grief - In Texas, any person who suspects you are committing an offense ( other customers, etc.) and has witnesses and/or proof, can file a sworn Class C misdemeanor complaint against you.

in Houston HPD has already made it clear anyone who makes a false claim along those lines will be the ones who end up getting a fine.

That's a good thing for sure. That's why if they do file, they better have at least one witness and some good proof of their sworn complaint.

[wrinkles]

Still waiting for the youtube vid.