TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

jimlongley wrote:The problem is that many businesses and their employees think that just about any sign is valid, gun busters, undersize or wrongly worded 30.06, and "Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. bans gun on these premises." included. I have asked many of these folks, managers and employees, if they thought their signage was valid, and almost universally they have stated that it is. Actually one of the funniest is a Home Depot person who says that because HD's employee policy was no weapons allowed, that it also meant that HD bans guns on premises. Her statement was that, due to the employee policy, we could tell anyone that carry was not legal, and they would not be able to ever carry in a HD again.

Doesn't this support fickman's "out of sight, out of mind" position? After all, they think they're gun free but CHL holders know they can carry there legally. So his suggestion to remove all restrictions from CHL holders (after all, who's gonna know anyway?) and apply 30.06 to OC actually makes sense.
. . .

To some extent it does, but the ones who are under the illusion that they are gun free are still a danger to us, like the people in OC states who report a man with a gun, which is legal, and the cops show up and hassle him, even though it's legal. The problem as I see it, which does not match the viewpoint of many, is that, as has happened a person finds out that a CHL is carrying, and they feel that they are properly posted, so they call the police, who show up and through their own ignorance of the law, or just being badge heavy, hassle the CHL.

We have seen too many contacts between CHL holders and LEOs (who should know better) in which the LEO: A) Finds out that the CHL is armed by "normal" means and decides to disarm them (with no good reason) and give them flack about carrying, or; B) Finds out that the CHL holder, who is not carrying and did not therefore present the CHL, and raises all kinds of cain while making preposterous statements about the CHL holder's requirement to present the CHL. We know these situations have happened, and I expect them to increase when OC passes, which is why I would like to see "separate but equal" signage.

Douva wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Her statement was that, due to the employee policy, we could tell anyone that carry was not legal, and they would not be able to ever carry in a HD again.

I'm pretty sure that if the person who told you concealed carry is forbidden in Home Depot has the authority to speak on behalf of all Texas Home Depots, you are legally prohibited from carrying in a Texas Home Depot again.

Actually, one person making such a statement was in apparent authority over a great many HD stores in Texas.

Douva wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Personally I would like to see a sign similar to 30.06, same size and shape, with adequate restrictions on invalid posting, but separate from the 30.06 notice and not cross applicable.

So a business would have to post sixteen square feet of signage at each entrance, in order to ban handguns on the premises? Why not also push for a provision that requires any business wishing to ban guns to keep a qualified gunsmith on sight to clean and lubricate your firearm while you're inside?

Well, I don't see the first as being unreasonable, but I really doubt the second would pass.

TexasCajun wrote:

SF18C wrote:This is all sounds very hypocritical to me, if a business or company doesn’t want the patronage of a 2nd Amendment supporting individual and would put up a sign to restrict the legal carry of a firearm, they can put one up now. It is their right!

If ‘we’ feel that, due to the overt nature of open carry, more companies will throw up a 30.06 well then that just show how that organization feels about the 2ndA.

And then I can choose NOT to spend my money on those that DON’T support legal gun ownership.

Seems like ‘we’ want to be able to go to, have access to AND financially support places that might not be in support of ‘us’!

Like my Daddy use to say, Let’s call a spade a spade and not a trowel, hoe, or a shovel!

Our mantra of "concealed means concealed" works as well for most businesses as it does for us. The current law says that in order to prohibit Concealed Carry, you have to put up a big ugly sign. A lot of businesses don't want that hassle; and as long as our concealed weapons remain that way, they won't have a need or desire to. It's an 'outta sight, outta mind' (or don't ask, don't tell) kind of thing. Open carry would change that dynamic. Texas has a total population of just over 25million. Only 500,000 are licenced to carry concealed. So we're in a VERY distinct minority (only about 2% of the total population). If a business owner/manager is pushed into siding on an issue with a 98% vs 2% split, it's not difficult to predict which side they'll try to cater to.

Lots of work went into the current 30.06 provision & it works really well. Passing an OC bill that would allow 30.06 to be applied to all forms of weapons carry would practically erase all of that hard work.

The problem is that many businesses and their employees think that just about any sign is valid, gun busters, undersize or wrongly worded 30.06, and "Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. bans gun on these premises." included. I have asked many of these folks, managers and employees, if they thought their signage was valid, and almost universally they have stated that it is. Actually one of the funniest is a Home Depot person who says that because HD's employee policy was no weapons allowed, that it also meant that HD bans guns on premises. Her statement was that, due to the employee policy, we could tell anyone that carry was not legal, and they would not be able to ever carry in a HD again.

Personally I would like to see a sign similar to 30.06, same size and shape, with adequate restrictions on invalid posting, but separate from the 30.06 notice and not cross applicable.