TexasCHLforum.com

Unocat wrote:Didn't the new law change the penalty for CC past a 30.06 sign to a Class C max $200 penalty (essentially making it a traffic ticket)? Please correct me if I am incorrect here.

If this is the case, then one could knowingly choose to CC past a 30.06 because they value their life and livelihood more than $200. So let's say the worst happens and you have to draw or even shoot in defense. You may walk away with a ticket to appear in court or even be arrested and have to pay your $200, but you get to walk away with your life.

Just posing this as philosophical thought for discussion. I am not advocating breaking any law. and by the way, driving over the speed limit is breaking a law as well.

As each of us do our homework and study the rules, and we should...each of us should be subject matter experts to the degree we can...we have to be sure to first read any statute with a clinical sterility of statutory interpretation, free from any self-interpretation or rumor or unintended context. The words say what they say. The penalties are what they are. Legal is legal and illegal is illegal. All of us who are licensed have a responsibility to each of the rest of us to be sure and not endanger the collective reputation by sloppy or cavalier actions.

There is a lot of stuff from various sources that is just plain wrong when it comes to LTC, signs, etc. And there's alot of good stuff. Stay alert to the difference. I teach very technical subjects in very serious domains of knowledge. I would be rich if I had a dollar for every time I said to students who think they know a rule, "what does the book say". The book (the law or regulation or case determination) is the great argument stopper...the final source that trumps all other sources.

The secret service famously trains their anti-counterfeit agents by studying only authentic bills. They never study the counterfeit. This is because there are too many counterfeits....but just ONE real bill. The way you spot an counterfeit is by knowing the real thing so well that you immediately recognize the imposter when you see it. This can be applied to the law or the regulation. With 30.06 or 30.07 just for example, the statute says what and only what it says. When you hear someone say that 30.06 must be posted at each entrance, for example, the rule does not say that. .07 does but not .06. You may want it to say that but it does not. Notice I am not adding any interpretation one way or the other when I say this. It is what it is. If you want to interpret it one way then you must label that for what it is...an interpretation (assuming absent any official interpretation to go by). When you start using words like "have to", "supposed to", "got to", "must" you are saying there is a law or official interpretation that stands behind and gives authority to those imperatives. Usually there is not and those words are casually passed down from one unsuspecting, naive recipient to another. Then we sometimes end up with a lot of adults playing the children's telephone game.

tex

cb1000rider wrote:

Unocat wrote:Didn't the new law change the penalty for CC past a 30.06 sign to a Class C max $200 penalty (essentially making it a traffic ticket)? Please correct me if I am incorrect here.

As I've said before, I've got no real issue with a $200 fine, but as long as employers ask questions like "have you been convicted of any non-traffic offense" - that conviction is very much likely to cost a *lot* of money in my lifetime. I suspect that many people are in the same boat...

Yes, but as stated it is a Class C non-traffic misdemeanor which which will disqualify you from a presumptive attribution of reasonable necessity which you might otherwise qualify for because the nature of the Class C is non-traffic offense, should you need to use force to defend yourself while carrying a gun past the sign.

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

...

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
...
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

In (e) you would be trespassing thus not where you have a right be be at the time force is used and thus would have to retreat before using it.

The result of this will be that you will have to defend your claim of reasonable belief of immediate necessity against the prosecutor's claim that it was unreasonable...where otherwise the jury would receive instructions from the court to mandatorily find your belief reasonable.

The prosecutor's narrative would almost certainly be that no one forced you to eat at that restaurant and carry past the 30.06 and your desire to stay armed for defensive purposes is no excuse. You might be alive but you would be in deep doo doo.

tex

Ruark wrote:

3dfxMM wrote:Those numbers indicate how many people have their LTC. I suspect there are no real statistics for how many people who have their LTC actually carry, nor how many people who have their LTC care enough about it to not patronize a business over the issue.

This is the statistical crux of the matter. It's not like a restaurant with an 06 is going to lose 2% of its customers. Probably not even a tenth of that. Say 2% of the population have CHLs. Out of that 2%, how many CC regularly? Many stop, once the thrill wears off. Out of that, how many eat regularly at that restaurant? Then out of that, how many would stop eating there because they have an 06? There's not much left. And it's not like they eat there every day. For example, my wife and I love Applebee's, but even then we eat there maybe once every couple of months.

So far the most part, I have a hard time accepting that "boycotts" will have any effect on most businesses, at least to the point that they would take down the 06.

I think we are complaining about the wrong thing, publicly anyway. Maybe we should address a non-anti-gun subject. Here it is...

"We don't want to come into your store because you are advertising to the world in a big, in your face way (via the signage) that everyone in your establishment is a defenseless sitting duck for any crazy person who wishes to attack. That makes your place dangerous to me and my family. You may not want guns in here BUT DON'T TELL THE CRIMINALS THAT YOU ARE ENSURING THEIR ATTACK WILL BE MET WITH LITTLE OR NO RESISTENCE!!! So until you stop bringing public attention to the defenseless condition of your patrons I will be patronizing other, safer establishments"

This tact has nothing to do with whether I carry a gun or not, or even if I like guns. I can be completely against guns but not be willing to suffer the stupidity of publicly painting a bulls eye on your establishment's front door! This way the complainants can't be pigeon holed into a group of gun crazy zealots who have a gun agenda purpose for requesting the signs be taken down.

For me, yes, I want to stay armed...but if I can't I'm certainly not going into a place that advertises a building full of innocent, unarmed, defenseless victims perfectly situated to be slaughtered.

Maybe, on that level, more people can come together and leave the gun agenda out of it and emphasis the practical dangerous nature of the signage.

Especially in the face of the logic that the people you are excluding with signs are the vetted, trained, investigated, good guys you shouldn't fear, and the dangerous bad guys you hope to exclude laugh at your signs with complete disregard.

tex

Tracker wrote:

G26ster wrote:There are lots of threads running on signs, signs, everywhere signs, anti-gun businesses, taking your business elsewhere, etc. This is what smokers have been putting up with for years. Now, I'm not condoning or promoting smoking at all. But I am simply pointing out that I believe that banning approx 2% of the Texas population is not going to affect a businesses bottom line. Before municipalities passed blanket bans on smoking in stores, restaurants, hotels, etc., those businesses had no problem banning 25 - 30% of the population from exercising their preference. So why would one believe that 2% of the population being banned is going to change their minds about CC or OC? I just believe it's a useless exercise to state your qualifications and LTCs track record, and/or telling them you'll take your money elsewhere will change their minds. JMHO

Added: In my little area of Texas (mid-cities, DFW) my 30.06/07 notifications are coming in droves. Last two were Redneck Heaven in Arlington that just posted 30.06 (sounds more now like Redneck Heck now), and one 7-11 in Hurst posted 30.07.

This is going to be rough stats but here goes.....

according to the following article (published April 2015) 841,500 texans have a LTC and that represents 5% of the population over age 21. Roughly 1 out of 20 Texans have a license. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20150417-texas-on-the-verge-of-allowing-open-carry-of-handguns.ece

I'm guessing a lot of those LTC come with immediate family members that don't have an LTC. I would bump that 5% up higher on that. Seems to me that's getting into numbers that would matter to a lot of retailers and restaurants who risk losing those customers. I doubt many of Whole Foods customers have a LTC....but a restaurant like Cracker Barrel would be more conservative and supportive 2a rights to carry.

This is basic marketing 101. Stores rely on these very principals. I know because when I worked in major market radio 30 years ago (Dallas, San Antonio and Houston markets) we used this very kind of strategy in both active and passive research and ad rate combines.

First. A dissatisfied customer does not count as just one. He counts as many...his family...his friends. Bad word of mouth is a killer. Businesses don't want bad word of mouth and dissatisfied customers. Especially in restaurants. So the Chl stats aren't the way to figure this.

Second and as I tried to say before. A individual customers can be dealt with individually. Given a free dinner, an extra 20% off, anything, as an appeasement to their dissatisfaction. There is no psychological connection between the multiple dissatisfied customers. This is why it's much easier to talk to a million people over a radio microphone than stand up in front of a concert of 20000 people. Because when I talk thru a mic I am talking to just one person...you. Not 1 million listeners. There is no connection between the million. Just one person. When I talk at a collisium there is a connection between the masses. That is one big crowd of 20000 people all staring at me, reacting to me and what I do.

So. When a business ticks off a few people that's a manager's office slap on the wrist. When a thousand people act in unison that's a gigantic public relations problem.

Third. It's the unknown that bothers them. A dozen or two ticked off customers doesn't indicate a societal pandemic or behind the scenes effort...a single letter signed by several hundred is much more threatening. It indicates coordination. It indicates a behind the scenes plot the extent of which can not be known. It is the very strategy unions, and marketers have used for a hundred years.

But one thing is sure...the number of dissatisfied customers can not be based on the number in a class of people. If you had a business that had 10 unhappy customers in one day do you think only ten people are effected? Of course not. Those ten won't shop there any more. Their immediate families won't shop there. Anyone they give bad word of mouth to won't shop there. And the effects cascades from there.

The irony of all of this is that this is the precise reason they believe they can put up signs. They rest in the comfort of a belief that they are making their patrons happy. They take a lack of complaint or their silence about their .06 and .07 signs as support in the affirmative and reinforcement that they are "satisfying" their customer base when in fact they almost certainly have no feedback at all. It is the classic marketing mistake...if there aren't any complaints we must be doing good.

Businesses are much more afraid of dissatisfaction than they are of satisfaction. Their purpose in making satisfied customers is to avoid dissatisfied customers. Which results in profit.

All we have to do is actually, effectively, collectively, consistently express our disapproval to the unsafe condition a gun free zone creates, and it will get action.


Tex

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

thetexan wrote:But, I've got to wonder. . . . Why hasn't something like this already been done, or has it?

This is pure speculation on my part, but experienced activists know that the only thing worse than not starting a grassroots campaign is starting one and having only a minuscule response. I'm reminded of the old Lone Star CDL group that called for an open-carry demonstration at the Capitol. Three people showed up and they couldn't find each other.

Chas.

I agree with that. When I was in broadcasting, it was imperative to have a successful turn out. If we couldn't guarantee that we wouldn't do it. Because, as you say, there is nothing worse than demonstrating a flop to the outside world. Just look at the democrat presidential candidate the other day (I can't even remember his name, he is such a nobody) who had a BIG campaign meeting for a city and only one guy turned out! AND HE WAS UNDECIDED AND THIS WAS ON THE NEWS!!!!!

That had to hurt.

tex

JALLEN wrote:I wonder if listing on 30.06.com might become "Effective notice?"

One cannot access the site without registering. If you are registered, could it be claimed you had notice at least of the signs in the areas you requested notice of?

That's a depressing thought. If I were a prosecutor I would certainly use that against someone claiming they had no idea the place was posted. Yeah, that would put each respondent on record.

Ok, how do you fix that? A 1000 people in Longview send a message to Appleby's. And all that might be accomplished is that those 1000 people are now on record as knowing about the notification. That's one advantage of autonomous cards. So autonomy might need to be a factor??? But now we're back to playing around the edges and ending up being ineffective.

tex

But, I've got to wonder.

Surely I'm not the first one to think of this sort of thing. I hear about leaving cards. I don't want something that is just a glorified version of leaving a card. There needs to be a way to easily facilitate the masses to respond effectively. The key is "the masses".

Why hasn't something like this already been done, or has it?

tex

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

thetexan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have two questions and one observation.

Q: The subject line is vague. Are you talking about §30.06 signs, §30.07 signs, or both?
Q: Are you suggesting that the Forum be the website for this information?

If I were a business owner who receive these letters, I'd look to my income statement to see if I was losing business. That would determine my response.
Chas.

Either sign. And no not this site. I was merely suggesting that some sort of web site or technology could be used effectively to facilitate the process of having individuals send letters individually or collectively. For example as the repository for the downloadable letter or collections of member names who wish too participate etc.

Then I think your effort will be a waste of time because most gun owners aren't adverse to a company posting a §30.07 sign. Look at the results of my poll here on the Forum were over 90% said they will still eat at Whataburger in spite of their open-carry prohibition. If you were to limit it to businesses posting §30.06 signs, you would have a much larger percentage of LTCs willing to participate.

I have no idea if Russell would be interested, but if http://www.texas3006.com would add a feature to automatically send a canned email to a business when it is listed on the website, that might be a good way to notify them that their gun ban is being seen by many thousands of LTCs in Texas. The automated email could contain information about our track record, eligibility requirements, etc. This would require the person posting the location to include a valid email so Russell wouldn't have to find them and enter the data.

Chas.

Jerry Falwell got in a lot of hot water from his friends when he supported an abortion bill that allowed exceptions for rape and incest. His followers were horrified that he would accept that. His response what that he would rather do something and save 90% of the babies than stand dogmatically firm and accomplish nothing.

I didn't think about the 30.07 sign. Yes, the hill to fight on is the 30.06 sign for now and I agree.

tex

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have two questions and one observation.

Q: The subject line is vague. Are you talking about §30.06 signs, §30.07 signs, or both?
Q: Are you suggesting that the Forum be the website for this information?

If I were a business owner who receive these letters, I'd look to my income statement to see if I was losing business. That would determine my response.
Chas.

Either sign. And no not this site. I was merely suggesting that some sort of web site or technology could be used effectively to facilitate the process of having individuals send letters individually or collectively. For example as the repository for the downloadable letter or collections of member names who wish too participate etc.

As to individually or collectively, there are arguments both ways. The deciding factor is what means the most to an owner. To figure that out ask yourself how you would like to be notified. If you kept your yard in a mess and the neighborhood wanted to work together to get you to change what would take more seriously. A bunch of letters from individuals expressing their displeasure and threatening to take you to the city council or a single letter signed by all of you letters expressing their collective displeasure and collectively, as a group, threatening to take you to the city council? Each individual threat is just that, an individual working alone making threats. The individual may be serious, but do YOU take him seriously. If you get 40 of these letters do you then begin to take notice? If you receive one BIG letter, does that get your attention?

I'm being rehetorical here. Although my past experience tells me collective. Individual letters would be great if you could ensure that large numbers would commit to doing it.

Here is an example, just an example of a letter...

John Smith, owner
Cajun’s Catch Grill
2016 Piermont Rd
Anyplace, Texas, 76442

Dear Sir,

Recently I had the opportunity and looked forward eating in your restaurant. As I began to enter your establishment I observed your display of a 30.06 and 30.07 sign near the entrance. I have received training for, and am the possessor of a Texas License to Carry Handgun permit. To receive this permit I have passed an extensive FBI background investigation. It is important to me to be able to provide protection for myself and my family so I choose to avail myself of the right to carry my handgun.

I am disappointed that you have decided to restrict those of us who have submitted ourselves to the investigations of the State and Federal authorities, and who have been trained, from being armed while patronizing your establishment. The disappointment is only minor in contrast to the real effect of your decision.

By posting your signage, and thus prohibiting law abiding, trained, investigated, vetted and armed citizens from enjoying your place of business, you have effectively created a clearly marked target for lawless criminals should they decide to act violently against you and your patrons. It’s not so much that the armed citizens who would otherwise be present might deter or stop an attack, as it is that you have publicly announced to any lawless criminal or terrorist that your patrons inside are incapable of defending themselves against a violent armed attack.

This makes your establishment unsafe for me and my family. So, with respect, I want you to know that, with regret and as long as you continue to prohibit legally armed customers, I will no longer patronize your restaurant because I feel much more vulnerable from the threat of the violent criminals who will, in any case, disregard your signage than I do from other law abiding, trained, investigated, vetted and licensed gun owners who, were it not for your prohibition, might otherwise be present.

With respect,

Bill Thompson
4366 Broadway
Anyplace, Texas 76445


These are just ideas but we have a tremendous resource of citizenry that can effect change in our communities as well as educate. I can see having letters for two or three categories of businesses.

tex

zero4o3 wrote:Tex I like the idea and was thinking something similar recently. the only thing I would do differently is instead of one letter with 200 signatures I think 200 letters would have a bigger impact.

Maybe we can come up with some well worded templates for comments (the key is to be respectful) and bombard companies with feedback.

this next part may not be well received but I would also suggest tackling the 30.06 signs first

Great idea. To make it simple there would be a single letter that anyone can download from as a pdf from a server which is addressed to the right person at a business. Then each person sends off the letter from his email.

There's just one problem. This is nothing more than each individual leaving a card at a business. It depends, passively, that there will be hoards of CHLers who will eventually send in their individual letter. Now we are back at the same place. Folks are more likely to work together than separately. But there must be a solution.

It needs to be collective. A single letter, or a single mass mailings at the same time, and we need to ensure that the masses send it in. For example, I would not send it if I could only generate 5 signatures. We might not send it unless we can get 200 sigs. Any thing less just emphasizes that the effort of rag tag and not respectable.

tex

I've been giving this a lot of thought. How to make our opinions known to businesses who wish to post signs.

Most people state they will take their business elsewhere. Which is good. Each of us might choose to take out drop in the bucket and go somewhere else. The problem is that the action is just that, a drop in the bucket. And if you take the trouble to write a letter then your letter is just one letter. Big deal, at least in the eyes of the business.

The business owner usually posts a sign for either personal ideology or he falsely believes that he is acting according to the desires of all of his patrons. Almost certainly he has no idea what his patrons believe, and if he does it is most probably one or two patrons.

The solution seems obvious. Every time we see a business with a sign the business needs to see all of our drops in the bucket, COLLECTIVELY. So how to do that.

Here is one solution. The logistics shouldn't be too difficult and conceptually it should be relatively easy.

1. In each locality someone (and I don't know how to go about this, minor detail) needs to write a letter to the business that has been endorsed by the hundreds or thousands of license holders expressing how, because of the inability to defend themselves, they feel that the business creates an unsafe environment for their patrons. And, that because of that, they feel they do not feel safel patronizing their establishment.

2. The business needs to feel, COLLECTIVELY, the weight of the many drops in the bucket to feel the seriousness of their decision, and the only way to do that is to hear from the many drops collectively.

3. So we should create a professional, polite, concerned letter and have a easy mechanism to attach the many endorsements to that letter. With internet technology, server databases, etc. this would be relatively simple. One way of doing this would be to create a web page (simple) with individual pages for each business with signs. The members of the website can endorse an open letter to the business which would be sent via email to the business at the completion of the endorsement process. With hundreds of endorsements this would be eye opening for the business.

Receiving a letter from several hundred person's expressing their concerns, (along with the knowledge that with each signatory there will be numerous other persons incidentally attached to that such as family and close friends,) will be a sobering reality check to a decision to post.

4. Once it has been decided to send a letter, a letter can be drafted and displayed online to the writers of the letter. The signatories can attach their names and the letter physically delivered to the business. Online transmittal may be a more efficient way. The problem is that we don't want the business to believe that a letter with 500 names was somehow contrived so the process would have to ensure authenticity in the eyes of the receiver.

We used to do this same sort of thing in the broadcasting business. Collective action is always more effective than individual action, and always taken more seriously.

Please give me your comments or ideas.

tex