Whataburger's Gun Policy (Ugh)..........

[Taypo]

They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

Let me know how that works out for you. You'll be great lunchtime entertainment for the anti's while you're getting 86'ed out of a burger joint that doesn't want your business.

[cyphertext]

They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

Anybody who is wearing a Whataburger uniform and refuses to serve you and asks you to leave will be acting with the APPARENT authority of the owner.

[Taypo]

They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

Anybody who is wearing a Whataburger uniform and refuses to serve you and asks you to leave will be acting with the APPARENT authority of the owner.

You've grasped what appears to be a difficult concept.

[Charles L. Cotton]

They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you walk past a TPC §30.07 sign, then you have committed a criminal trespass and you need not be given any additional notice. It would be a Class C until/unless you refuse to leave after being told to do so. As for your "apparent authority" argument, you are walking on very thin ice. If someone working for the company tells you to leave and you do not, then it will be up to a jury to decide if employee you ignored "appeared to have the authority" to tell you to leave. (Remember, "apparent authority" focuses on appearances, not actual authority to control the property.) If the jury doesn't agree with you, you will be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor and lose your CHL/LTC for seven years. Win or lose, you will have paid one of my colleagues that handle criminal cases a lot of money.

Chas.

[EEllis]

They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

First the posted policy says they will not serve a person open carrying not that they will ask anyone to leave. Second your statement has zero basis in law. Anyone in a company uniform has apparent authority and you can be arrested and will be convicted. But lets ignore that and create such a disturbance that they do post the store and no one would be able to carry. Make sure you bring your kids, the younger the better, to scream and cry and video you being dragged out by the cops. That will win all kinds of props from CJ and Korey.

[EEllis]

LOL I posted to slow.

[treadlightly]

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

If you already know their wishes I don't think you need to wait for any other form of notification. I'm convinced Whataburger management doesn't want me in their store unless I conceal my weapon. I've been in Whataburger enough while armed to the concealed teeth, if a modest little 9 so qualifies, to have a pretty good idea that's a non-event.

To enter Whataburger, I double-check my concealment. It's their turf.

For the record, if you enter my place of business while openly carrying a pistol, if I have time I'll probably ask how you like it, and if it has a good trigger. A safely carried firearm is not alarming. I guess I don't see the difference between the street and a gun range. An armed stranger, absent reason to think otherwise, is just like anybody else. A friend I haven't met yet, with the added interest of packing a conversation-starter.

I'll also admit to a certain level of hypocrisy. I'm more frustrated by 30.06 than I think I will be by 30.07. My lawfully concealed handgun is a foundation garment. I wouldn't kick an MDA member out of my business for wearing a thong, even if it became accidentally visible.

Never would I kick an MDA member out of my business for wearing a concealed thong. They should be kicked out because they are a threat to society. The thong, that's a personal choice. Boxer or briefs, Glock or 1911, just not my business.

[Salty1]

They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

I notice in your tag line that your a CHL Instructor. Is that what you are going to teach in your classes?

[thetexan]

They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

First the posted policy says they will not serve a person open carrying not that they will ask anyone to leave. Second your statement has zero basis in law. Anyone in a company uniform has apparent authority and you can be arrested and will be convicted. But lets ignore that and create such a disturbance that they do post the store and no one would be able to carry. Make sure you bring your kids, the younger the better, to scream and cry and video you being dragged out by the cops. That will win all kinds of props from CJ and Korey.

First...posted policy is not notification, by law. That is a written document that, I presume, has a policy written on it rather than the prescribed language.

Second...I did not say who has apparent authority, only that it must be someone with apparent authority. That person, by statute, must have APPARENT authority. I make no pronouncements as to who that is. And yes, if someone who meets that qualification asks me to leave then I will be properly notified and I will leave. Your statement which assumes that, by my statement, I would be willing to create a disturbance to make a point is unfounded. I suggest nothing of the sort and, in fact, expect nothing but kind, appropriate adult compliance TO THE PROPER NOTIFICATION.

I'll state it again even though I know folks know the law. Whataburger is well and indeed entitled to their right to ask anyone carrying a gun, concealed or not, to leave. I invite them to please do so. I am happy to comply and love their hamburgers so much that I will even continue to purchase them. I also expect no reasonable adult to make a scene just to make a point, even though he might be tempted to do so if there were improper notification. If I have a beef with the company I will take it to the leaders not to a young kid at the counter trying to pay for his next date!

There's really only two scenarios I can think of that might occur. 1) I go in with a gun (no signage anywhere) and someone asks me to leave which I immediately do. No issue here. or 2) I go in with the improper signage, no one says anything, but someone decides to call the police. When they arrive I will be surprised. When they ask if anyone asked me to leave I will truthfully say no. When they ask if I saw the sign I will say, "you mean that non-compliant thing over there?" Yes sir I did. Then I will ask them if they are familiar with 30.07. The resulting legal inconvenience, if any, will be easily remedied. The alternative is that 30.06 or 30.07 mean nothing as far as our rights to carry a gun.

I expect, as representatives of the CHL and LTC community, and as Christians or kind persons we all should handle these situations with kindness and appropriate decorum.

That does not change the requirements of the statute, our responsibility to comply with the law, or their responsibility to comply with the law.

tex

[Taypo]

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

If you already know their wishes I don't think you need to wait for any other form of notification. I'm convinced Whataburger management doesn't want me in their store unless I conceal my weapon. I've been in Whataburger enough while armed to the concealed teeth, if a modest little 9 so qualifies, to have a pretty good idea that's a non-event.

To enter Whataburger, I double-check my concealment. It's their turf.

For the record, if you enter my place of business while openly carrying a pistol, if I have time I'll probably ask how you like it, and if it has a good trigger. A safely carried firearm is not alarming. I guess I don't see the difference between the street and a gun range. An armed stranger, absent reason to think otherwise, is just like anybody else. A friend I haven't met yet, with the added interest of packing a conversation-starter.

I'll also admit to a certain level of hypocrisy. I'm more frustrated by 30.06 than I think I will be by 30.07. My lawfully concealed handgun is a foundation garment. I wouldn't kick an MDA member out of my business for wearing a thong, even if it became accidentally visible.

Never would I kick an MDA member out of my business for wearing a concealed thong. They should be kicked out because they are a threat to society. The thong, that's a personal choice. Boxer or briefs, Glock or 1911, just not my business.

I completely get the hypocrisy and I'm just as guilty. I hate disarming but I respect the rights of the business to do so. Personally, I'd like some sort of requirement for 30.06 other than "I just don't want guns in here" but that's a pipe dream. Concealed weapons, properly concealed, don't scare anyone.

[Taypo]

They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

I notice in your tag line that your a CHL Instructor. Is that what you are going to teach in your classes?

[thetexan]

They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

I notice in your tag line that your a CHL Instructor. Is that what you are going to teach in your classes?

Do any of you actually read the posts?

[Taypo]

They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

I notice in your tag line that your a CHL Instructor. Is that what you are going to teach in your classes?

Do any of you actually read the posts?

Sure. I'm just curious as to your definition of APPARENT, as its obviously important to you given the repeated uses in all caps. Personally, APPARENT would mean anyone wearing a uniform that identifies them as an employee of the business you choose to walk into knowing full well that they're anti OC.

But I'm just an average guy, so you may have a different definition.

[thetexan]

I can see how that might be taken as being too particular as to who informs me. That is not my intention. I was responding to what seemed to be a willingness to just roll over and play dead to any less than proper notification. My point is that, being a good, try to get along, citizen is an important thing. We are not being too snotty, though, to expect that a business follow the same law as they expect us to follow and exercise their right to keep us off their premises by properly complying with 30.06 and .07.

[Taypo]

I can see how that might be taken as being too particular as to who informs me. That is not my intention. I was responding to what seemed to be a willingness to just roll over and play dead to any less than proper notification. My point is that, being a good, try to get along, citizen is an important thing. We are not being too snotty, though, to expect that a business follow the same law as they expect us to follow and exercise their right to keep us off their premises by properly complying with 30.06 and .07.

This board is filled with examples of businesses with improper signage and folks discussing how to deal with them. I don't see many examples of folks being timid about their 2A rights here.

There have been some folks who appear to have a hard time understanding the difference between protecting their right to OC and respecting the rights of a business not to allow said OC. That may be the cause of the...reactions to your post. If that was not your intent, then I apologise.