TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

Bitterclinger wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

adl713 wrote:Question:

If there is only a valid 30.06 sign posted, is open carry still permissible on the premises? Going further, by not posting a valid 30.07 sign has the owner invalidated their 30.06 signage?

The two signs are completely independent of one another. 30.06 only covers concealed carry while 30.07 only covers open.

If the 30.06 is the only one posted, legally you may open carry on the premises; however, more than likely you will be given a verbal notice that carry is not permitted.

The two "Bitter Clingers" are completely independent of one another as well

In the interest of full disclosure, the OP did register the name before I did, and I did not search to see if there was anyone who had already claimed it. I will leave it up to the moderators to tell me if there is a need for me to change my handle.

That's up to you, but since the other bitterclinger has posted something that only Bloomberg could love, you may want to change your username. When I read the OP's post, I thought it was you and wondered what in the world had gotten into you!

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I'm not sure how you were able to misconstrue anything I posted into something that would warrant your harsh and insulting comparison of me to the tyrant Bloomberg. If you would care to elaborate on the point in my post where you became confused, I would be happy to correct your misunderstanding. I have reviewed this post, as well as my previous posts and I can not for the life of me understand what I did to provoke such an attack on my character. I am deeply offend by your calumny, and in a bygone era, I would be compelled to visit your countenance with the back of my glove.

The condescension is quite heavy in this post.

The idea of uniform signs of a certain size are a benefit to both the business and licensee. Do you really want to be subjected to having to search out a small non-uniform sign everyone you enter a place? What if you missed the small sign and then had to spend a significant amount of money defending yourself against criminal charges and the lose because you didn't see a small no gun or gunbuster sign behind a rack?

Seems like you are here just to stir the pot.

If business owners have a problem with signage requirements, they are free to post any sign they want that conveys their desires. Those signs just don't equate to a legal trespass warning, so the owner would need to verbally inform a customer that they don't want them carrying in their store, after they see that someone is carrying (either OC or a sloppy CC). This is precisely the approach that Whataburger is taking, absent any signage at all.

Most businesses banning guns say they are doing this to calm the fears of those who don't want to "see" guns. Those businesses can easily accomplish this goal by posting a gun buster sign, or no sign at all, and then politely letting people know that exposed guns are not welcome if and when they see one.

The signage provisions just provide another way for businesses owners to keep guns away from the delicate eyes of their anti customers. If they don't like those provisions, they don't need to post any signs at all (ala Whataburger).

adl713 wrote:Thanks. Perhaps one could then discretely open carry, i.e. not visible enough to attract attention.

You would have to be very careful with this. "Discreet" open carry could start to get really close to concealed carry, and there is a risk that you could end up on the wrong side of a legal interpretation, especially if by discrete you mean covering part of the weapon or holster with clothing, etc.

That said, I am in the camp that thinks the property owner may not be ignorant and may actually have intended to only ban CC. I also think there is nothing to lose by OC'ing in these stores. If the intent was to only ban CC, then the store owner will be fine. If their intent was to ban all carry, then they may give verbal notice, and you end up in the same position as if you had never entered the store in the first place (can't carry there). The only downside is if the store owner was exceedingly ignorant and actually intended to ban only OC. In that rare case, hopefully they will be open to some education. This last one is probably a moot point, though since the store likely won't be in business long.

If I owned a retail business, I would be much more likely to have a problem with CC than with OC. I believe this was the prevailing view back when everyone carried. It was considered a bit "sneaky" and potentially nefarious to conceal your firearm.

I know that if I am in an altercation with someone I would much rather know right at the start whether or not they have any weapons on them, and I would adjust my approach accordingly.

That's why this outcry against OC is so crazy. Don't the gun haters understand that a criminal is much more likely to conceal their gun right up until the moment they stick it in your face and demand your money (or worse)? Having people OC'ing around you only minimizes the risk of harm to you and your family. It is a great deterrent to criminals, who tend to be dumb, but are also likely to pick the easiest target around.