TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I again urge everyone who decides to openly carry to be a statesman. If one is asked to leave by an owner, agent or employee of a property owner, it would be prudent to leave. If you ask for a supervisor, then you have legally refused to leave upon being asked to do so. This raises the offense from a Class C to a Class A misdemeanor. Yes, the Code provision requires that oral notice be given by the property owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner, but I would never try to rely a lack of authority as a defense. OCT is going to be doing this kind of thing and responsible gun owners must be viewed in stark contrast to those tactics.

Chas.

Taypo wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:Asking to speak with management is proper and sometimes required. Certainly doing so certainly doesn't equate to OCT type activities.

How exactly is asking to speak with anyone other than the employee that informed you proper? If you speak with a mangager and they tell you the same exact thing, are you going to ask for their boss?

The potential for causing an OCT type scene increases every time someone decides they want to talk to someone more important than the person that asked them to leave. Choosing not to leave when you're asked is never a good thing, in my opinion. Rather than a simple walk out, we're getting into the potential for a 911 call, trespass, etc..

Isn't it just easier to do what the business is asking? Obviously they don't want your money - why try to force them?

mloamiller wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Back when CHL first passed, there was no 30.06 codicil, and so even if some business owner were anti-gun, he would not have been read up on being able to keep people out with a 30.06 sign. But, 30.06 signs have been in existence for a LONG time now, and the one thing that has kept more of them from being posted is simply that if our guns are out of sight, they are out of the business-owner's mind.

However, things are more politically polarized than ever these days, and the debates over open carry did not occur in a vaccum....... including details such as 30.07 signage since it is part of the law that was passed, unlike with original CHL law and 30.06. I wonder what impact that is going to have on the posting of signage. Will people who are motivated to post 30.07 signs also go the extra trouble to post 30.06 if they haven't already? Will they do nothing until the first time someone carries openly into their business? Will they carry on as before and do nothing?

Inquiring minds want to know. I'm guessing that there will be an initial jump in the rate at which sign postings get reported on texas3006.com (has Russell already claimed texas3007.com?), after which things will calm down. The reason I think this is that the sign postings will likely be in response to new open carriers who are doing it for the novelty of it, and that when the novelty wears off and they decide to prefer (not "eliminate", I mean prefer) CC over OC, they will OC less frequently, resulting in less frequent postings.

However, the "damage" will have been done as, once the signs have been posted, they are not likely to be taken down ever again. So the question that interests me is to what extent business owners will react this way.

My wife and I had that exact conversation about a month ago, and one reason I would not have been terribly upset if Open Carry had not passed. Don't get me wrong - I'm not against Open Carry, but I doubt I will ever do it, and am more concerned about the negative impact those practicing it will have on Concealed Carry. I can just hope that those who do chose to carry openly won't be so "in your face" with it that it costs the rest of us dearly.