TexasCHLforum.com

I guess the bad guys didn't see the 30.06 sign on the door. Imagine that! I emailed their corporate office a couple years ago about the 30.06 signs and their form letter response was "They're trying to keep their employees and customers safe" I watched the local Houston news coverage and the camera actually showed the 30.06 sign. This is why I quit shopping at Jared's and won't let my wife go there.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Sourc ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sources told KPRC Local 2’s Phil Archer the store was filled with Christmas shoppers Tuesday afternoon when four or five armed men walked through the door.

Sources must have been mistaken, their is a 30.06 sign at the door. Couldn't have happened as sources said.

The shopper they interviewed said he felt safe inside. "They got a guy".

And when that "guy" was done changing his underwear, he proudly went back to his post.

SATX-Scrub wrote:The shopper they interviewed said he felt safe inside. "They got a guy".

And when that "guy" was done changing his underwear, he proudly went back to his post.

That guy?

Hmmmm (pitting on my tin foil hat)....

Jared's - anti CHL carriers
AMC (fake 911 call) - anti CHL carriers
Knowing LE response times?

Either the bad guys have done some deep research on CHL, or it was a CHL trying to make a statement?

(Removing tin foil hat) disregard this post, I felt dumber as I typed it.

Jared's has been off our shopping list for some time, due to their posted doors policies. I wonder where "their guy" was during this incident ? Having both methods of protection for their customers--signage and "their guy" didn't help much this time.
We stopped by at one of the stores several years ago. It had the proper signage then. Wife went in. I waited out by the car. I guess she told the sale person I was waiting outside. One of the managers came out to invite me in. I told her that I wouldn't shop at her store because of the posted no firearms signage and that my wife was just looking so we could go somewhere else to purchase. She indicated she didn't know what I was referring to. *shaking head*

/soapbox
Once these businesses realize a 30.06 signage policy is an advertisement for robberies, perhaps these types of instances will stop. Having the ability to remove the perps' ability to continue, if you get my drift..., is part of the answer. /off

Piney wrote:/soapbox
Once these businesses realize a 30.06 signage policy is an advertisement for robberies, perhaps these types of instances will stop. Having the ability to remove the perps' ability to continue, if you get my drift..., is part of the answer. /off

To be fair, the sign probably did not apply to these robbers, I would be surprised to learn any of them had a CHL.

/soapbox
Once these businesses realize a 30.06 signage policy is an advertisement for robberies, perhaps these types of instances will stop. Having the ability to remove the perps' ability to continue, if you get my drift..., is part of the answer. /off[/quote]

A lot of these corporations are composed of liberals that don't have a clue and are agenda driven. They could care less until the business really drops off and unless there's a large response from their customers saying why they won't shop there any more, they refuse to figure it out. Typical Democrat, head in the sand, way of life.

Jaguar wrote:

Piney wrote:/soapbox
Once these businesses realize a 30.06 signage policy is an advertisement for robberies, perhaps these types of instances will stop. Having the ability to remove the perps' ability to continue, if you get my drift..., is part of the answer. /off

To be fair, the sign probably did not apply to these robbers, I would be surprised to learn any of them had a CHL.

You see, that's the problem with the 30.06 signs. They need to modify it.

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), or any other person or felon not licenced to carry a handgun or rifle may not enter this property with a concealed or unconcealed handgun or rifle"

See, that solves the problem.

Well my stand on this is not going to set well here probably. First, let me see I am very pro gun and 2A. I am also all for knowing when to pull my weapon and when it is better to be a good witness.
Had I been in that store (I am aware it is not CHL friendly), wearing my weapon and someone enters the store to rob it, I am not risking turning that situation into a hostage situation. And before everyone starts to hit the reply button, I am a former LEO, with 3 years in SWAT. I do know something about how to respond.

Had shooting started that would be a game changer as long as in drawing attention to myself I would not endanger my family or other innocent bystanders, when you decide to shoot back you still have to be aware of where your bullets go and where the bad guys will go if they start to shoot at you due to your response.
When outnumbered it is better to be a good witness. Not many, if any LEO's would respond to this in any different manner if they were in the store off duty in plain clothes.
The guard in the store, in my opinion, responded properly by not responding. He was out numbered, probably out gunned.

JJVP wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

Piney wrote:/soapbox
Once these businesses realize a 30.06 signage policy is an advertisement for robberies, perhaps these types of instances will stop. Having the ability to remove the perps' ability to continue, if you get my drift..., is part of the answer. /off

To be fair, the sign probably did not apply to these robbers, I would be surprised to learn any of them had a CHL.

You see, that's the problem with the 30.06 signs. They need to modify it.

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), or any other person or felon not licenced to carry a handgun or rifle may not enter this property with a concealed or unconcealed handgun or rifle"

See, that solves the problem.

Yeah, then it wouldn't be compliant with the language required and everyone could carry.

jimlongley wrote:

JJVP wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

Piney wrote:/soapbox
Once these businesses realize a 30.06 signage policy is an advertisement for robberies, perhaps these types of instances will stop. Having the ability to remove the perps' ability to continue, if you get my drift..., is part of the answer. /off

To be fair, the sign probably did not apply to these robbers, I would be surprised to learn any of them had a CHL.

You see, that's the problem with the 30.06 signs. They need to modify it.

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), or any other person or felon not licenced to carry a handgun or rifle may not enter this property with a concealed or unconcealed handgun or rifle"

See, that solves the problem.

Yeah, then it wouldn't be compliant with the language required and everyone could carry.

I was referring to a change in the law, not a sign made up by Jarred. The new law/sign would make it so that even felons would not carry pass the sign, since we all know felons would obey the law. (sarcasm)

jimlongley wrote:

JJVP wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

Piney wrote:/soapbox
Once these businesses realize a 30.06 signage policy is an advertisement for robberies, perhaps these types of instances will stop. Having the ability to remove the perps' ability to continue, if you get my drift..., is part of the answer. /off

To be fair, the sign probably did not apply to these robbers, I would be surprised to learn any of them had a CHL.

You see, that's the problem with the 30.06 signs. They need to modify it.

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), or any other person or felon not licenced to carry a handgun or rifle may not enter this property with a concealed or unconcealed handgun or rifle"

See, that solves the problem.

Yeah, then it wouldn't be compliant with the language required and everyone could carry.

As was referring to a change in the law, not a sign made up by Jarred. The new law/sign would make it so that even felons would not carry pass the sign, since we all know felons would obey the law. (sarcasm)

I was having a hard time finding "the pefect present" for Mamma Bear on Tuesday. I drove past that Jareds about 4 times and each time I asked myself if I it was worth disarming before going in.

Now I know! Jared = gun free zone = armed robbery in progress

Max

Still looking for that perfect gift, BTW...

dac1842 wrote:Well my stand on this is not going to set well here probably. First, let me see I am very pro gun and 2A. I am also all for knowing when to pull my weapon and when it is better to be a good witness.
Had I been in that store (I am aware it is not CHL friendly), wearing my weapon and someone enters the store to rob it, I am not risking turning that situation into a hostage situation. And before everyone starts to hit the reply button, I am a former LEO, with 3 years in SWAT. I do know something about how to respond.

Had shooting started that would be a game changer as long as in drawing attention to myself I would not endanger my family or other innocent bystanders, when you decide to shoot back you still have to be aware of where your bullets go and where the bad guys will go if they start to shoot at you due to your response.
When outnumbered it is better to be a good witness. Not many, if any LEO's would respond to this in any different manner if they were in the store off duty in plain clothes.
The guard in the store, in my opinion, responded properly by not responding. He was out numbered, probably out gunned.

Totally agree. Was thinking that myself. No way I would have drawn in that scenario either. That being said, had things turned nasty, I still would have liked the opportunity to defend myself rather than depending on kindness from the bad guys. It's not always about being the first to escalate but rather to having a card to play should things get bad...