Tell me where I was in the wrong...

[wgoforth]

wgoforth.... maybe you should start a thread on this issue since it is somewhat a topic of it's own. Title it... new teaching requirements for CHL instructors. Seriously!!! If the DPS is actually teaching CHL instructors to tell students to stay out of places with gun buster signs if they are carrying concealed, we have a HUGE problem. Instead of rolling over, you should be writing letters and raising several kinds of hadies on this. You took the class that this was happening in... YOU ARE WHO NEEDS TO REPORT IT!!! You are failing to do your civic duty to not report it. Myself or others can complain but it means nothing as we are talking third parties. What are we suppose to do... say we read it on the internet??? After they get done laughing, they will hang up the phone!

If this really happened, file a complaint. PLEASE!!! At the very least... start a thread about this or maybe email Mr. Cotton... Somebody with pull needs to do something. This is complete and total crappola!!!

I only got back yesterday afternoon and still dead tired. I'll start a new thread later. Also, another forum member was there, I'll see if he wants to chime in as well.

[03Lightningrocks]

It was stated that if we wanted changes, the TSRA is our advocate/lobby, that we need to contact them. It will not do good to contact DPS as this is what they have decided the law is. Feel free to contact the CHL offices if you have doubts to their interpretations of these matters. In fact, I know at least one of them is a forum member. Don't get me wrong, these were very likeable men, and one of them may not have agreed with the official interpretation, but had to teach it per DPS policy. However, these matters were incorrect.

WOW!!! That is nothing short of dispicable!!! I have no reason to believe you are not telling it the way it is. It is shameful that the DPS is back dooring us all and getting away with it. Meanwhile... I will be carrying concealed anywhere the law does not forbid it. I will be more than happy to be a "test case" if I am forced to shoot in self defense while in one of these establishments. Hopefully the TSRA takes it seriously. Please keep us updated on how they respond to you on this matter. Thanks for bringing it up in here.

[03Lightningrocks]

[03Lightningrocks]

...I can't read his post to you...I'm not that computer literate... (I'm bored...I'm dangerous...don't mess wit' me!!!)

I think I found it... I had to weed through all your fannin' to find it...LOL. Contacting the TSRA is not enough. He needs to open a vein or something to get attention on this issue.

...now don't go promotin' violence just yet...I'm sure we can work somethin' out...

He would be known as a suicide bleeder....instead of a suicide bomber. They would immediatly assume he was an aggie!

[Kabong30]

So a sack boy can tell me not to carry? I would have to KNOW they had that authority or be told by management. 30.05 says it has to be someone with authority or apparent authority. For all I know the sack boy has heard the boss tell EMPLOYEES not to bring guns to work as company policy. I didn't clearly state the instructors comment. He stated that ANY employee can tell you. When he was asked "wouldn't it have to be someone with authority?" he replied ANY employee. That is not what 30.05 states.

But if the law states "someone with authority" certainly even a bag boy has more authority in that business than you do, correct? I think it would also be safe to assume that if the bag boy is gonna run you out, he's willing to go get a manager that will tell you the same? I think that what you quote relates to other patrons more than it does employees of the business you are patronizing.

Another point that I had thought of while reading this thread, I understand that the instructors are teaching this "all signs count" thing, but it needs to be combated. I had a situation where someone in my family got in a car accident and the other party refused to provide contact/insurance info, the responding officer explained in no uncertain terms that the other party involved did NOT have to provide insurance information at the scene and that we could find that information in the accident report. A letter to this officer's direct supervisor quoting the statute and explaining my position and that I had no desire for any action to be taken against that officer resulted in a phone call in which I was also told the same thing even though I had quoted verbatim the statute that applied. However, approximately on month after that I received a letter from that same supervisor apologizing for the confusion and affirming my assertion and stating that they would train their officers to ensure that this doesn't come up again. Kind of a long winded story, but it illustrates that if we are in the right and we push the issue we can get something done.

[wgoforth]

So a sack boy can tell me not to carry? I would have to KNOW they had that authority or be told by management. 30.05 says it has to be someone with authority or apparent authority. For all I know the sack boy has heard the boss tell EMPLOYEES not to bring guns to work as company policy. I didn't clearly state the instructors comment. He stated that ANY employee can tell you. When he was asked "wouldn't it have to be someone with authority?" he replied ANY employee. That is not what 30.05 states.

But if the law states "someone with authority" certainly even a bag boy has more authority in that business than you do, correct? I think it would also be safe to assume that if the bag boy is gonna run you out, he's willing to go get a manager that will tell you the same? I think that what you quote relates to other patrons more than it does employees of the business you are patronizing.

Another point that I had thought of while reading this thread, I understand that the instructors are teaching this "all signs count" thing, but it needs to be combated. I had a situation where someone in my family got in a car accident and the other party refused to provide contact/insurance info, the responding officer explained in no uncertain terms that the other party involved did NOT have to provide insurance information at the scene and that we could find that information in the accident report. A letter to this officer's direct supervisor quoting the statute and explaining my position and that I had no desire for any action to be taken against that officer resulted in a phone call in which I was also told the same thing even though I had quoted verbatim the statute that applied. However, approximately on month after that I received a letter from that same supervisor apologizing for the confusion and affirming my assertion and stating that they would train their officers to ensure that this doesn't come up again. Kind of a long winded story, but it illustrates that if we are in the right and we push the issue we can get something done.

No, I am sorry...but a sack boy has no more authority in a store than do I. If the manager or he has told someone on his behalf to tell me, that is fine. But lets say I am getting out of my car and a sack boy in the parking lot sees the butt of my gun as I get out, and says "My boss says no guns in here." I am not going to do it on his say-so. Maybe he heard his boss say no unlicensed guns, or none for employees, or maybe he just made it up. I have no way of knowing. The manager can tell me.

[Kabong30]

No, I am sorry...but a sack boy has no more authority in a store than do I. If the manager or he has told someone on his behalf to tell me, that is fine. But lets say I am getting out of my car and a sack boy in the parking lot sees the butt of my gun as I get out, and says "My boss says no guns in here." I am not going to do it on his say-so. Maybe he heard his boss say no unlicensed guns, or none for employees, or maybe he just made it up. I have no way of knowing. The manager can tell me.

It's cool, we disagree. I'm new, I'm not trying to make waves. But I do think that as an employee of the business that a certain bit (however small) of authority is imparted and again it is more authority than you have as a patron. He is an agent of that establishment, he acts on their behalf in whatever miniscule way and that means that he has authority even if it's only over bags. Remember, that if you get your butt in a crack legally this is the kind of discussion that is going to occur.

On the other side of the coin, if a place has bag boys (or butchers, or whatever) that would speak for management without knowing the rules, I might consider not spending my money there.

[wgoforth]

No, I am sorry...but a sack boy has no more authority in a store than do I. If the manager or he has told someone on his behalf to tell me, that is fine. But lets say I am getting out of my car and a sack boy in the parking lot sees the butt of my gun as I get out, and says "My boss says no guns in here." I am not going to do it on his say-so. Maybe he heard his boss say no unlicensed guns, or none for employees, or maybe he just made it up. I have no way of knowing. The manager can tell me.

It's cool, we disagree. I'm new, I'm not trying to make waves. But I do think that as an employee of the business that a certain bit (however small) of authority is imparted and again it is more authority than you have as a patron. He is an agent of that establishment, he acts on their behalf in whatever miniscule way and that means that he has authority even if it's only over bags. Remember, that if you get your butt in a crack legally this is the kind of discussion that is going to occur.

On the other side of the coin, if a place has bag boys (or butchers, or whatever) that would speak for management without knowing the rules, I might consider not spending my money there.

I understand, I am not angry here, just trying to explain my view. We have to be careful or we will let every Tom, Dick and Harry talk us out of our rights is the issue.

[Kabong30]

I hear you! :)

[speedsix]

...been doin' the thing for over 48 years, even while home on leave in the Corps...and NEVER been spotted...that's the answer to 99.9% of the "what-if" situations...if you REALLY HAVE TO use it...and you do it right...there's a SLIGHT chance it could bite you...it's kinda like briefs or boxers...it just don't need to come up in the conversation...if ya do it right...

[03Lightningrocks]

......it's kinda like briefs or boxers...it just don't need to come up in the conversation...if ya do it right...

[wgoforth]

...been doin' the thing for over 48 years, even while home on leave in the Corps...and NEVER been spotted...that's the answer to 99.9% of the "what-if" situations...if you REALLY HAVE TO use it...and you do it right...there's a SLIGHT chance it could bite you...it's kinda like briefs or boxers...it just don't need to come up in the conversation...if ya do it right...

Reporters asked John McCain "Boxers or briefs?" He said "Depends!"

[pcgizzmo]

I'm curious is Charles is following this and has anything to say about what's being taught?

[Oldgringo]

The good folks at Bullet Trap teach CHL classes and work under the assumption that you know the laws. That sign does not apply to you if you have a CHL. That sign is to keep folks from coming in with loaded(UNCONCEALED) firearms. It is amazing how many well meaning folks will walk in with a loaded gun, whip it out of the box and ask them what it is worth or if they can "fix it". Again... this is NOT speculation... they don't mean for folks with a CHL to disarm in the parking lot or anywhere else.

Well, that's a bit irritating. The sign should then read "Unless you are a CHL holder, no loaded weapons." or something similar. The sign is misleading.

I am not trying to be a wise cracker but we should all know that the sign does not apply to us as CHL holders. The signage issues are covered in all CHL classes. There is only one sign that applies to us. All others don't. For me, there is nothing misleading about a "no loaded guns allowed" or a "gun busters" sign at any business. This one is no different.

Ehh, not so much I am afraid. I had no idea until going through CHL instructor training this week that instructors are being taught that all no gun signage tells you the intent and should be obeyed. During breaks, I talked with various other students about the matter and most seemed to have agreed that you have been served notice. In fact, the Captain went as far as to say that if a sign is non-compliant, call it in to the DPS... and that even if the business did not do what was proper, you are to respect their signage intent. While I do not agree, it is incorrect to assume that "the signage issues are covered in all CHL classes" to the correct view. What is disturbing, is that there were 81 instructors coming out of this class...and many more been/being taught this view.

Wow...that is more than disturbing. The instructer of that class should be reported for teaching improper training. I am surprised that they will just let any old goof ball teach CHL classes.

C'mon 03, not "any old goof ball" can teach CHL classes. It takes money to get an Instructors license just as that medium is also required to obtain a CH license. Understanding the various signs and notifications must be optional?

BTW, has anyone mentioned that "concealed is concealed" over the duration of this thread?

[wgoforth]

OldRingo said: C'mon 03, not "any old goof ball" can teach CHL classes. It takes money to get an Instructors license just as that medium is also required to obtain a CH license. Understanding the various signs and notifications must be optional?

BTW, has anyone mentioned that "concealed is concealed" over the duration of this thread?

Yes, it has been said by most of us...but are you noticing that this is NOT the CHL instructor saying this, but rather the DPS INSTRUCTORS CERTIFICATION school teaching this TO instructors? Thus the concern is NOT the keeping of it concealed, but that the DPS is TELLING instructors to teach that all gun signs are binding. Thus this isn't about the practice of carrying, but of TEACHING...and if the DPS teaches this today, instructors leave believing it, teach it to their classes...it becomes law without a shot fired.