Search found 2 matches

by TexasCajun
Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:41 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurant question
Replies: 18
Views: 2416

Re: Restaurant question

gringo pistolero wrote:
txnative1951 wrote:As they say, there's "legal" and there's "moral" -- sometimes they even coincide. Some will say that violating a "law" that is an obvious infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights is the moral thing to do.
I disagree. If a statute violates the constitution it is by definition unconstitutional. The unlawful statute is no law.

:patriot:
Until the statute in question is found to be unlawful or unconstitutional, violating said law makes you a criminal by definition. And advocating disregarding a law that we disagree with is still advocating breaking the law - which is a violation of this forum's rules.

If 'concealed means concealed' was in reference to carrying in an establishment that has posted the incorrect TABC signage, then I agree. Don't make a fuss about it & go on about your business. But if that statement was in regard to disobeying whatever law you happen to disagree with, I think you ate going to eventually have a very hard go of it.
by TexasCajun
Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:59 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurant question
Replies: 18
Views: 2416

Re: Restaurant question

The vast majority of places that serve food don't fit the definition of 51%. Besides it's not the sign that crates the prohibition, it's the designation by TABC.

Return to “Restaurant question”