TexasCHLforum.com

I'm very sad to report another bank, and probably another one yet, have posted 30.06/30.07 in my tiny little town.

I just left my old bank because of 30.06.

The branch manager and I spoke about why I was opening an account, and had a nice discussion. This afternoon we had another nice discussion in which he said he would not make any complaint about formerly lawful concealed handguns in his bank.

I reiterated a statement about how law abiding CHL holders were and assured him I would never carry past a 30.06, whether or not I would get into trouble for it.

Sounds like I'm bank-shopping once again.

I last went into my bank in February, when I got my CHL. It is the only bank in town with a 30.06 sign.

Yesterday I had to clear up a little situation with a customer who had written me a hot check. Since I hadn't had any contact with the branch manager in 8 months, I brought up the subject of the 30.06 sign again and said I wished he didn't have an anti-gun policy.

He said the bank was very firearms-friendly, and that the bank President was known to have a CHL and carried a gun.

I probably ripped my pants a little when I mentioned that with the signs up it would be criminal trespass if he did so on bank property. At that point the branch manager stressed that the anti-gun signs are never coming down.

When I asked if it felt odd being the only bank in town posted with 30.06, his assured me at least one other bank in town would be posted by January 1.

Then, the kicker. He said, with a hint of bitterness, "We just feel safer with those signs in place."

I confess I've long become bored with schoolyard insults. Call me names, it doesn't bother me. I have opinions, I have to be respectful of those who wish to call me a moron.

But this got to me. He feels safer in his place of business if he takes an active step to disarm me. He perceives me as a threat. I'm flummoxed.

Maybe it's not too late for the other bank. Our local Sheriff sits on their board of directors, and I believe he's pretty level-headed about licensed carry.

I shall reach out to him. Maybe I can do a little good - and I'm moving the rest of my banking out of the rights-hostile bank.

I think they will still be a minority. I sat down with one bank manager and asked about their gun policy, and if they had any problem with customers waltzing in with their lawful concealed handguns. No problem. Another bank's executive staff includes a former minor star in IPSC. I bet he has a reasonable view, too.

Wow - with all the baggage of carrying pictures of what I presume was a workplace subordinate, I wonder if he would qualify for employment as a regular officer? Would APD hire him with his past?

Austin seems to really like him. I found a curious report in The Austin Chronicle, dismissing claims Acevedo sometimes releases false information:

Indeed, Acevedo has occasionally released misinformation. In October 2010, Officer Derrick Bowman shot and killed 16-year-old Devin Contreras during a botched break-in at a South Austin Big Lots. Shortly after the early morning incident, Acevedo told reporters that Bowman shot Contreras after the teen fired two rounds at him; Bowman had seen the muzzle flash, Acevedo had said, based on Bowman's first statements. It turns out that was not true; Contreras did point a gun at Bowman, but he never fired.

Acevedo says that he corrected the mistake quickly and argues that his handling of the incident in fact reflects APD's credibility and openness. Had the department wanted to cover the mistake and sustain the initial story, it would've been easy enough to take the .38 Contreras carried to the lab and fire a couple shots. The initial mistake, he says, reflects "the spirit of transparency and the spirit of giving people as much information as possible."

If that indirect quote is anything close to accurate, that he said it would have been easy enough to fake evidence, that's a pretty quick segue from an understandable pressure-of-the-moment misstatement to suggesting a godawful breach of ethics, particularly in light of Acevedo's service in California in CHP's Internal Affairs.

From that Deadly Toxin, er, Daily Texan article:

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

If I'm to believe what he actually said, the 2nd is causing bloodshed and eventually we'll get rid of it, presumably to stop the bloodshed.

In other words, those who keep and bear under the 2nd are berserkers filling the gutters with innocent blood? The law-abiding are to blame?

Maybe he's on to something. Maybe his officers should give speeding tickets to drivers obeying posted limits. After all, if they weren't there within the constraints of the law, they wouldn't be inconveniencing those who would speed, forcing them to exceed the limit at the first opportunity.

Perfect sense.

My own response to open carry is changing, at least by a little. This morning I was in a rush to get stuff to some property we own and carried my handgun (of course!) under a tee shirt. Normally I don't do that. This time I was leaving my home for another bit of property we own, going from one place I don't need a license to another.

My concealment was OK, just not up to my personal standards.

Then I got to thinking. What if it were after Jan. 1? What if I were on my bike and my shirt flew up?

And, I have to confess, I started thinking "So what?"

I'll always prefer concealed carry, I'm certain of that. On the other hand, it would be nice to see guns freed of emotional baggage. I drive a car at 60 MPH and aim 24,000 foot pounds of energy within feet of fellow citizens who are doing the same thing to me.

I drive a Kahr that could release around 350 foot pounds of energy - except I fortunately never do that.

And the gun is the bigger deal?

mojo84 wrote:

treadlightly wrote:

I don't know this OCing guy. For all I know he's a powder keg ready to explode when told to leave his gun outside.

If so, he's very unlikely to be a license holder. I believe one might rightly assume 30.07 signs don't apply to smoldering powder kegs. 30.07 will only apply to license holders, whose fusing circuitry has long been known to be stable by nature.

Just playing devil's advocate. What if he isn't a license holder?

If he isn't a license holder, he don' need no steekin' 30.07 sign.

Seriously, if he's not licensed, then the 30.06/30.07 signs will apply to him no more than gunbuster signs apply to you or I. He's already banned under different provisions of the law, and is not more banned because 30.06/30.07 is in place.

The signage, like most gun law, sometimes slips its traction against the people it really needs to apply to. Smoldering powder kegs will do what smoldering powder kegs do. If one walks in with a gun, it's a good idea (and potentially risky, to boot) to shoo him off whether or not there's a sign in the window.

'Course, I'm not a lawyer. My wife is, after her own fashion. She does not often lay down the law, but when she does she prefers compliance in the company of a nice floral arrangement. Stay gentlemanly, my friends.

I don't know this OCing guy. For all I know he's a powder keg ready to explode when told to leave his gun outside.

If so, he's very unlikely to be a license holder. I believe one might rightly assume 30.07 signs don't apply to smoldering powder kegs. 30.07 will only apply to license holders, whose fusing circuitry has long been known to be stable by nature.

I sure wish average folks could learn that 30.06 and 30.07 signs affect ALMOST NOBODY, only a few who belong to the strongest class of law abiding citizens the state has to offer.