TexasCHLforum.com

Can you cite some of that case law please.

tex

JALLEN wrote:

thetexan wrote:

Absolutely! For businesses anyway. For private non business property I can see a universal right to ask someone to leave your property but a business that is open to the public and must provide public accommodation is another matter.

tex

Public accommodation is not required to be provided. It may not be denied on the basis of the forbidden criteria, race, sex, religion, etc. You can deny service to a Chinese lesbian Buddhist who open carries.

You're right. I meant business that deal with the public (as opposed to private membership businesses).

GlassG19 wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:The only way to fix this, if you want "businesses to abide by the law" is to remove the oral notification from both 30.06 and 30.07. That would force businesses to comply with the intent of the law and having a proper sign. The problem with removing oral notification is, unless there is a proper sign and you are carrying a handgun under authority of GC 411, there is no way at that point for the police to do anything. No crime has been committed as you aren't criminally trespassing if you haven't received notification per the statue and the police cannot physically remove you from the location as you would be protected from PC 30.05 based on the way it is written.

So, until this is "fixed" any sign that communicates that guns are not welcomed in the business means concealed carry, unless there is a properly posted 30.06 sign, in which case you should disarm or avoid the business entirely.

I'm disappointed that businesses will get away with posting non-legally binding signs and calling the police because THEY don't want to give verbal notice, effectively making the police their armed messengers, but there isn't much can be done about it until the 2017 legislative session.

Last paragraph Papa_tiger for sure.

Absolutely! For businesses anyway. For private non business property I can see a universal right to ask someone to leave your property but a business that is open to the public and must provide public accommodation is another matter.

tex

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:This will self resolve. After LE goes to the same business that has clearly non-compliant signs to act as their enforcer a few times, I'm sure LE will suggest the business owner put up the correct sign as their response will change. Might tell the owner to tell the customer tho leave!

This is exactly what will happen. Some open-carry supporters have referred to business owners not following the law when they post a legally insufficient 30.07 sign. The law does not require them to post proper 30.07 signs, nor does the law prohibit a generic "no open-carry" signs. Any generic "no open-carry" sign is merely a warning to people that they can expect to be asked to leave if they enter with their gun showing. There's nothing illegal about that; it's simply the way the business chose to let folks know their gun policy.

Anyone who enters a business with a legally insufficient 30.07 sign runs the risk of being told "no guns" rather than merely "no openly-carried guns." If/when that happens, then that person has been given notice under §30.06 and 30.07 so they better not enter the property again with a handgun.

Chas.

Exactly.

My wife gets frustrated with me because I have a direct way of making a point. And my reply to her is that I am simply communicating what needs to be done about some subject and that it goes without saying that it should be delivered in a compassionate, Christian, but unmistakable way so that at the end of the matter proper communication has been delivered.

My point with this subject is similar. We need to hold businesses accountable for their non-compliance to the same degree we are held for ours. Yes we have the right to walk past a non-compliant sign and we should be able to, indeed we are able to. But that is not the best way to solve the problem.

The problem needs to be addressed...everywhere we see it...(read these words carefully) in a mature, proper, effective way. Not an in-your-face, catch-me-if-you-can, I'll show you, you can't make me sort of way. That will probably require support from legislation, discussions with owners, police departments, local DAs, etc.

If we don't address the issue eventually a gun-buster sign will become the defacto 30.07 sign because 'we don't want to make waves'.

We need to make waves, in a professional, mature way and solidify the right we have been given by the state of Texas.

One school of thought is to not bring to much attention to this or it might generate more .06s or .07s. That's is no way to stand up for our right. How is that different from the policy that we shouldn't offend Radical you know whats lest we give them a recruiting tool?

The other school of thought is that expecting and requiring .06 and .07 compliance is not too much to ask.

I fall into the later. There is still work to be done and we should do it...professionally, maturely, calmly, but with resoluteness. Causing a scene is not the way to go. Taking your money elsewhere when you have a RIGHT to the public accommodation by law and according to the law (ie, if they want me to leave then I should expect it to be done by law) is a temporary and probably ineffective way to secure our right.

Then there is the thought that if it is non-compliant and we complain for a change, the change will be to a compliant sign equaling the same result. My answer to that is that is this. If you don't want me in your establishment, show me and the rest of the law abiding gun-carrying citizens the courtesy of respecting the very law you use as your tool to keep me out . They expect us to follow the law, IMPECCABLY, and they should be held to the same standard. We are the only ones with an interest in this. No one else has a dog in the fight.

Professionally, non confrontationally, maturely, resolutely, and always showing gun carriers in the best light.

To quote Forest..."and that's all I have to say about that".

tex

tomtexan wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote: I will prove it. I will do it again, and post it on youtube

I just can't believe someone would risk their license that cost so much time and money to obtain, just to prove a point.

I do think this person is a troll and is bluffing.

So. He is going to go back in to where ever he claims he was, with the same of newer sign, walk in after having been scolded by police, with a police record of the visit, and prove to the rest of us that, what, it CAN be done??? Sure it CAN be done.

I look forward to that youtube! Should make for a great party video.

Ladies and Gentlemen.....Paaaaaaaaalace your bets!

tex

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:I like to give people a chance to redeem themselves. If and when a person validates what and who they are then that is their business. The piling on just seemed a little excessive to me. If that makes me look deficient in your eyes so be it. I am entitled to my opinion.

Thanks guy... But its funny how Im getting attacked here by being called these names, but nobody is telling them anything... I simply told my story and thats it. This will be my last post, too many bullies on here.....IM OUT!!!!

I am reminded of a scene from the movie Tombstone, where Wyatt Earp played by Kurt Russell is riding out of town and passes William Brocius played by Powers Boothe.

Earp says "I just want you to know it's over"

and Brocius says "Well.......bye".

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mayor wrote:looks like an 8.5x11. I'd have told them i didn't notice something so small, apologized and left.

They gave me no warning when I went in. Cops got there beforwe I was able to order...

You said 20 minutes later. Was the line that long? I haven't seen a line that long in Luby's in many years.

Manager might of called the police. So they didnt bother cooking my food since they already knew police was on the way Im guessing

OP stated...

1. He went to Luby's
2. They didn't bother cooking his food
3. He didn't get a chance to order

Observation...

1. Luby's is a cafeteria, where you select from a cornucopia of already prepared food (and quite good I might add)
2. Except in the rarest of cases you don't ORDER food
3. Except in those rare cases Luby's doesn't COOK your ORDERED food, it's already cooked and in front of you.
4. This does not sound like a trip to Luby's

tex

I did several errands today and found no change to any signs and I OC'd with no so much as even a stare.

One gas station I went into the girl said guns made her nervous but not me(because I go in there all the time). She didn't like being there by herself with people carrying guns.

That was the only comment from 5 stops.
The regal cinema has made it official and posted 06 and 07 signs but that's the only place in Longview I have found.

Tex

karatedad wrote:A lot of people seem to be concerned about the legality of the sign. My guess would be that even as they allowed the OP to leave without further incident, they also informed restaurant management that their sign should be upgraded to meet legal requirements. A new one will be in its place soon.

I would hope and bet that's true.

IsraelisJewish wrote:They may have had an "incorrect" sign up . . . but the intent of the sign was to notify oc folk to not oc in the restaurant. If you know the businesses intent I think that means one has been notified to not oc there. I wonder what pushing the envelope will really accomplish.

No, it doesn't!!!!

The very same rule that uses language like "identical" states..."you have been notified WHEN..."

It does not say you have been notified when you get the feeling they don't want you in there because of some legally non compliant sign or sheet of paper.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mayor wrote:looks like an 8.5x11. I'd have told them i didn't notice something so small, apologized and left.

They gave me no warning when I went in. Cops got there beforwe I was able to order...

You have been verbally warned now, so when you enter carrying openly again, you will have committed a Class A Misdemeanor. Something tells me Luby's, the police and the DA will prosecute to the full extent of the law. You will face one year in jail, a $4,000 fine and loss of your LTC for seven years.

Chas.

Now there's an interesting thought!

You walk into a place OCing and they tell you verbally you can't wear a gun in there! Have you been 06 notified, 07 notified or both? And is it possible to be notified as to one but not the other? What would that look like?

tex

I guess I have mixed feelings about all of this.

It irks me that one half of the parties in the contract (so to speak), the sign posting establishments, do not have to post compliant signs. If someone can call the police on OCers why isn't there a way to do something about their non-compliance?

We are expected to live by the specifics of the law, but they don't have to. And, when it comes down to a contest between the two, the establishment is given the benefit of the doubt the offender, who technically is not offending, is scolded, arrested, or worse as if the burden of fulfilling the contract (the law that specifies requirements to both parties) rest solely on the OCer.

That's a sad system.

How many of us are afraid to risk the ride rather than to insist that establishments are just as responsible to follow the compliance law as we are to follow compliant notices? Do we fear they, whoever they are, may take our freedom away from us if we protest too much?

Why should a LEO have anything to say at all to a OCer when he is being completely lawful. IN FACT, IT IS THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS FAILING TO ABIDE BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE LAW!!! Of all people the LEO should know that the OCer has done nothing wrong and rather than making him to feel like a criminal why not advise the establishment to get ITS act together?

The LEO should, if asked by the establishment, give his verbal 30.06 or 30.07 notice and be on his way. I almost want to say how dare they presume to admonish the OCer for doing nothing but following the law as written. That requires the LEO to be solidly clear on the law which most are. Fairness in the application of a law written to and for both parties is not too much to ask.

So I am torn about how to feel about this kind of situation.

To quote Hamlet...."...Thus, conscience, does make cowards of us all. And thus the native hue of resolution, is sullied ore' the pale cast of thought."

And let me add, I am one of those who would rather retreat and fight on another battlefield of legislation than try to make a point in front of a family eating their dinner at a restaurant and make life more difficult for the rest of OCers.

BUT IT TICKS ME OFF THAT IS SHOULD BE THIS WAY!!!

tex