TexasCHLforum.com

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.

flintknapper wrote:Ruark wrote:

This is awkward.

Yes, for all involved.

I wouldn't OC past that sign, yet at the same time it's not legal. I don't want to get into a face-to-face with a cop.

Not legal/compliant is correct, so it is each person's choice to take it to the next level (Verbal or Written notice). No one (including LEO wants this interaction) but it might be necessary...in order to get Merchants to comply.

But if we take that approach, we won't OC past ANY no-guns sign, 30.07 or gunbuster or whatever.

Correct, as I posted previously, herein lies the danger and it will affect both CC and OC. We shouldn't be in two different 'camps' but apparently that is the sad case. What is going to happen if this isn't sorted out RIGHT NOW while there is focus on it....is this:

Merchants will quickly learn that they can display any type of non-compliant sign, then call LEO to 'notify' (which is NOT the job of law enforcement, but the responsibility of the establishment). OR....someone acting with apparent authority for the establishment will simply say we don't want ANY guns in here" which drags CC into the mix. This does not need to happen.

IF law abiding citizens are required to COMPLY with all applicable law, then MERCHANTS should be too!

There has been a huge failure on the part of pro-gun advocates to EDUCATE or help facilitate the education of businesses prior to OC becoming law. I believe this to be the root of our problems.

And just a message to those who CC...but look down on OC. You'd better get on board...and start supporting ALL pro-gun issues. IF you don't....you are going to quickly find that with certain businesses, you've just been 'flying under the radar'. Let's do all we can to promote OC in the same way we did CC.

tomtexan wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

RedOdonnell wrote:

IF the law is not enforced on these non-compliant signs, then they can just stick up anything in the window like this one.

Out of curiosity, exactly which laws need enforcing here?

There are almost 1.8 million small businesses alone here in the State of Texas. When you stop and consider there has been virtually no direction from the legislature or DPS on how to properly handle OC, the overwhelming majority of these businesses have no clue what to due or where to get the proper signs.

What? Resources are everywhere.

It's not difficult to put up a compliant sign.

There is even a CHL instructor that advertises and sells 30.07 signs on his web site. Seems like somewhat of a conflict of interest to me.
http://www.stateoftexaschl.com/

tomtexan wrote:

Ruark wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Isn't this fixation on signs a bit misplaced?

In the case of 30.06, it makes some sense, as the business owner ordinarily would not know you had your weapon.

With open carry, the business owner/manager/security/whoever in apparent authority can hand you a card with the notice, or verbally advise you to the same effect, and you have effective notice. No sign required. You leave or face consequences.

But if it's going to be like this, what's the point in even having 30.07? I can see a lot of business owners, afraid to approach an armed stranger, calling the cops, then the cop comes out and gives the verbal notice. If that ball keeps rolling, the police are going to start running a "verbal notice service." "Hey, I gotta nut in here with a gun, can you come out and tell him to leave?" "Uh, yes sir, take a number, please."

IF the law is not enforced on these non-compliant signs, then they can just stick up anything in the window like this one.

JALLEN wrote:Isn't this fixation on signs a bit misplaced?

In the case of 30.06, it makes some sense, as the business owner ordinarily would not know you had your weapon.

With open carry, the business owner/manager/security/whoever in apparent authority can hand you a card with the notice, or verbally advise you to the same effect, and you have effective notice. No sign required. You leave or face consequences.

jmra wrote:

GlassG19 wrote:

carlson1 wrote:

cbr6864r wrote:

Greybeard wrote:Quote: "Stunts like this are what give a bad name to open carriers. "

Yep, I am with Keith on this one. If you go looking for trouble (or ATTENTION), you CAN find it. Such behavior is NOT representative of the holders I know - or want to be affiliated with.

So when exactly does one cross the line? The signs were clearly not compliant what if it is a hand written note simply stating no guns? Or a picture of a gun with an X through it? Are you required to treat all anti gun signs as if they were compliant? The law needs to work both ways not just a single path. If business owners do not want OC or CC they need to properly post the correct sign.

I don't think it was illegal to walk past what looks like an "illegal sign." It then became legal notice when the police told him verbally don't OC. If he decides he will go back and try again if the signs are still there it is a Class A misdemeanor because he received LEGAL VERBAL NOTICE.

So the first time through the doors no law broken (if signs are actually what they appear to be), but he has now been warned verbally. Then he says, Iam going back." Now it is a Class A misdeamnor and deserves to be prosecuted if he returns not because of the signs, but because he was verbally warned.

This is not complicated.

First, 2nd, I'm wondering why the police didn't scold the business for NOT having the correct sign?? If a business doesn't want you to OC, then they need to pony up & pay the few extra $'s (legal sign) like we all have for "our rights" to be "legal" where's the hard part??

Because it's not the place of LEO to scold anyone who hasn't committed a crime. I may be in the minority here but I don't blame the business. I blame anyone who walks past a 30.07 sign with 1/2" letters (since they know their actions will cause a confrontation) and I blame the responding officers. IMHO, once the officers determined that the sign was non-compliant they should have required whoever called actually give the customer verbal notice. The call center should also be trained to ask if compliant signs are posted before dispatching officers. If the business claims the signs are compliant and it turns out they are not then the caller should be scolded for making a false claim in a 911 call.
IMHO, education starts with LEO in these situations.

carlson1 wrote:

cbr6864r wrote:

Greybeard wrote:Quote: "Stunts like this are what give a bad name to open carriers. "

Yep, I am with Keith on this one. If you go looking for trouble (or ATTENTION), you CAN find it. Such behavior is NOT representative of the holders I know - or want to be affiliated with.

So when exactly does one cross the line? The signs were clearly not compliant what if it is a hand written note simply stating no guns? Or a picture of a gun with an X through it? Are you required to treat all anti gun signs as if they were compliant? The law needs to work both ways not just a single path. If business owners do not want OC or CC they need to properly post the correct sign.

I don't think it was illegal to walk past what looks like an "illegal sign." It then became legal notice when the police told him verbally don't OC. If he decides he will go back and try again if the signs are still there it is a Class A misdemeanor because he received LEGAL VERBAL NOTICE.

So the first time through the doors no law broken (if signs are actually what they appear to be), but he has now been warned verbally. Then he says, Iam going back." Now it is a Class A misdeamnor and deserves to be prosecuted if he returns not because of the signs, but because he was verbally warned.

This is not complicated.

cbr6864r wrote:

Greybeard wrote:Quote: "Stunts like this are what give a bad name to open carriers. "

Yep, I am with Keith on this one. If you go looking for trouble (or ATTENTION), you CAN find it. Such behavior is NOT representative of the holders I know - or want to be affiliated with.

So when exactly does one cross the line? The signs were clearly not compliant what if it is a hand written note simply stating no guns? Or a picture of a gun with an X through it? Are you required to treat all anti gun signs as if they were compliant? The law needs to work both ways not just a single path. If business owners do not want OC or CC they need to properly post the correct sign.