TexasCHLforum.com

I don't disagree and I'll be more thoughtful in the future.

Enough said

Taypo wrote:

thetexan wrote: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.

And I apologize to you and EEllis if I have offended. That certainly is not my intent. As stated earlier here and many times in other threads, I believe in using adult judgement with all of this and an non-confrontational attitude. We all know what the law says. We know about oral, written and signage notifications prescribed in 30.06. The word apparent is used by the state legislature for a reason. Clearly there is a distinction between those with apparent authority and others who do not have apparent authority. I take them at their word. There ARE, according to the legislature, two types of persons who might tell you to get out, persons with apparent authority and those without.

That's my only point.

To restate my position, a company simply having a policy and hanging that policy on the wall is not, as we all know, one of the ways to lawfully notify a gun carrier to not carry a gun inside. The only other way is by one with apparent authority to ask you to leave. Is that person the manager, assistant manager, janitor, kid filling salt shakers, plain clothes owner who is in the store but doesn't identify himself as such? What is the definition of someone who has apparent authority? That's a real good question. The state seems to think that adjective was necessary. Each person has to decide how he will apply that law in his situation. And, for the record, if one doesn't know I recommend one be very cautious in their ignoring a request to leave.

That's my only point.

Again, I apologize to both of you for my poor phrasing.

tex

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 wrote:

Salty1 wrote:

thetexan wrote: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?

EEllis wrote:

thetexan wrote: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

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.

Sigh...

30.07 refers to all three methods of notification.

Policy is not lawfully prohibitive. Just like the old lady in the commercial says

"SHOW ME THE 30.07!!!"

locke_n_load wrote:

thetexan wrote:The only way Whataburger can discriminate against a patron for having a gun is to notify him with a proper 30.06 or 30.07 notification which includes a verbal notification by someone with authority to give it.

tex

Incorrect. If you walk past a proper 30.07 sign and a cop sees you, or if someone calls the police on you (wihout any notification to you) and the police show up, you can be ticketed for a class C misdemeanor. If someone with authority asks you depart and you don't, then you can be given a class A misdemeanor.

That's what I just said...if you walk past a sign you are in violation. If you have been notified by a written document and trespass you are in violation. If you are verbally notified and you continue you are in violation. What I said is that if they wish to LEGALLY discriminate against you and not give you service it had better be due to a LEGAL method or else they run the risk of LEGAL problems. Someone coming up to me and stating the following six words..."sir, you will have to leave" does not LEGALLY verbally notify me according to either 30.06 or 30.07. They would need to be more specific such as for example..."sir, if you want to continue to carry your gun I will have to ask you to leave. Else I could say they didn't like me because I was fat or old or the wrong gender or whatever. A fine point but that's all I was saying.

I don't think they have a problem with a gun they cannot see or that can't be seen. They object to it being visible.



tex

The only way Whataburger can discriminate against a patron for having a gun is to notify him with a proper 30.06 or 30.07 notification which includes a verbal notification by someone with authority to give it.

If a worker were to simply say, for example..."I'm sorry sir, I can not serve you"...and that's all he said that would be walking on very thin ice. They would need to expound on the reason and properly notify me verbally that I can not stay while carrying a weapon. Otherwise their discrimination would be non specific and someone my want to take them to court. They could simply post a 30.07 sign. But why don't they?
There must be some reason they do not want to do so. Ever thought about the why behind the action. I speculate that it is because they do not want to overtly seem anti-gun; that they want their cake (armed patrons to be there in case of trouble) and eat it too (keeping the other patrons from becoming alarmed).

In any case, this is a good reason why open carry will cause more problems than it solves. I have yet to find a good reason to open carry. With one exception...I will do it once at Walmart just because I can! Then I will have it out of my system and continue to carry concealed.

I know a local Whataburger owner and will try to reason with him. That's what I can do.

tex