Whole Foods Gun Policy

[jamminbutter]

A few more reasons other than posted 30.06 not to shop at WF.

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/11/ ... p=features" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tommyg]

Have your girl friend take a CHL class then buy your groceries someplace else than whole foods
If your gun is not welcome than your $$$ is not needed by them

[Dragonfighter]

The one in Highland Village has a small paper posted out of the way and certainly not prominently. That tells me "carry away".

[drjoker]

My local Whole Foods has a sign that says you cannot open carry because they sell alcohol, but you may carry concealed if you have a ChL. I iwll take a picture of it and post here the next time I shop there. My SO told me not to take a picture because she was in a hurry. Next time when I go there by myself, I'll take a pic.

This sign doesn't seem anti-gun to me. I'll continue to shop there. Their prices are actually not that bad if you buy in case quantities. They give you a 10% discount if you buy a case of any non-alcoholic packaged food.

A Nov. 7 update or not?

The San Antonio WF on Blanco and 1604 has on it's main entrance - no 30.06 but new type of sign that says weapons are forbidden except if you have a CHL (not the old blue sign).

I didn't check the other entrance to see if it still had a 30.06. If they did - that would be contradictory.

Anyone else see this sort of thing?

[dapark71]

Here is a pic of the odd sign posted at the Wholefoods Market in Highland Village

[Right2Carry]

Here is a pic of the odd sign posted at the Wholefoods Market in Highland Village

Looks like whole foods doesn't want my business so I will comply.

[MeMelYup]

Here is a pic of the odd sign posted at the Wholefoods Market in Highland Village

Do they have another sign posted elsewhere in Spanish? That sigh doesn't meet the blue alcohol sign or 30.06.

[dapark71]

Spanish version was right underneath.

[MeMelYup]

Spanish version was right underneath.

To me it's still not a valid 30.06 sign. The requirement is "a sign in both English and Spanish," not a sign in English and another in Spanish.

[LDB415]

The law doesn't say anything about adding to or deleting from the text. I believe it says with the exact text. I'd argue that sign is invalid since it doesn't have the proper wording with all the addition to it.

[rotor]

How picky do you want to be. It's a 30.06 in both English and Spanish. Do you want to be the test case? Shop somewhere else.

[sjfcontrol]

Yeah, if it has the required wording, it meets the legal requirement as far as I'm concerned. The law does NOT read , "contains the following wording, and nothing in addition".

[LDB415]

Actually it reads "with language identical to the following". That sign's language isn't identical. It has been edited. No, I won't be the test case. I didn't shop there. I don't shop there. And I won't be shopping there. But I believe it's a valid argument the sign is nullified by being altered.

[sjfcontrol]

Actually it reads "with language identical to the following". That sign's language isn't identical. It has been edited. No, I won't be the test case. I didn't shop there. I don't shop there. And I won't be shopping there. But I believe it's a valid argument the sign is nullified by being altered.

Did it contain language identical to the following? Yes it did.

[LDB415]

So your argument is going to be that

"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, may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

isn't valid because a few words were removed but adding words to the "must be identical to" doesn't change the wording and make it different than what the law demands it be identical to. That's certainly an available option you are welcome to but I'm going with deleting or adding words being equal errors and both invalidating the sign. Not as a blatant test case, but as my belief.