TexasCHLforum.com

KLB wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Interesting article, but not really on point, IMHO.

In the Erik Scott case, Costco had no policy against guns (they still don't BTW), so this wasn't a case of someone walking past any signage.

Correct that Costco had no signs. So poor Erik Scott had no notice. In the case of a standalone 30.06 sign, we have practical if not legal notice that open carry will not likely be welcomed. Who among us wants to risk setting in motion a sequence of events similar to what happened to Scott? Some may, and they are free to do so. I will not.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:That case is an example of extreme negligence on the part of the LEO's that shot him, in my opinion.

No doubt, but Scott's still dead. "The LEO's were negligent" is a heckuva thing to have on your tombstone.

2 Things. First, Eric Scott was carrying concealed, not openly. He accidently exposed his weapon, but he definitely did not intentionally carry openly. So this whole discussion is a bit of a red herring on the topic of the OP.

Second, yes it is a heckuva thing to have on your tomb stone, as is every other thing that can be put on a tombstone. But I refuse to limit my freedoms solely because some ignorant and negligent individual may cause me harm. And even if I was solely motivated by fear, and nothing else, I would still be better off carrying wherever I legally can do so. The odds of being killed by a LEO while legally armed are much, much lower than the odds of being killed by a criminal if I decided to be unarmed.

jkurtz wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

KLB wrote:Before deciding to make a point with people who most likely don't want you in their premises, consider this:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-dow ... g-firearm/

Interesting article, but not really on point, IMHO.

In the Erik Scott case, Costco had no policy against guns (they still don't BTW), so this wasn't a case of someone walking past any signage. That case is an example of extreme negligence on the part of the LEO's that shot him, in my opinion. The only fault I have for Mr. Scott is his choice to carry even though he was taking prescription pain meds that most likely contributed to the outcome by dulling his senses and slowing his reaction to the LEO's conflicting commands.

I think if you Google Costco firearm policy you will find that they do have a no gun policy. They may not have their stores posted but apparently it is part of their membership agreement. If you want to shop there that is your business. I shop at Sam's Club.

I just joined the local Costco this past August. I read the membership agreement closely, specifically looking for any mention of a firearms policy, and saw nothing. So unless it changed in the last 4 months, there is no prohibition.

This is obviously a Texas specific statement. To be fair, I have not read their membership agreement for Nevada.

Costco's policy regarding firearms states, "Costco policy prohibits firearms to be brought into the warehouse, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers." It can be found under the "General Policies" heading at http://www.costco.com/member-privileges-conditions.html. The policy does not comply with 30.06 or 30.07 requirements, therefore it does not have any force of law, but they are prohibited by policy. I would not be surprised if they ask you to leave if they discover that you are carrying.

That's interesting. I would think that if they really cared they would put it in the membership agreement. I haven't read their policies, so I have no idea what may or may not be in there.

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

KLB wrote:Before deciding to make a point with people who most likely don't want you in their premises, consider this:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-dow ... g-firearm/

Interesting article, but not really on point, IMHO.

In the Erik Scott case, Costco had no policy against guns (they still don't BTW), so this wasn't a case of someone walking past any signage. That case is an example of extreme negligence on the part of the LEO's that shot him, in my opinion. The only fault I have for Mr. Scott is his choice to carry even though he was taking prescription pain meds that most likely contributed to the outcome by dulling his senses and slowing his reaction to the LEO's conflicting commands.

I think if you Google Costco firearm policy you will find that they do have a no gun policy. They may not have their stores posted but apparently it is part of their membership agreement. If you want to shop there that is your business. I shop at Sam's Club.

I just joined the local Costco this past August. I read the membership agreement closely, specifically looking for any mention of a firearms policy, and saw nothing. So unless it changed in the last 4 months, there is no prohibition.

This is obviously a Texas specific statement. To be fair, I have not read their membership agreement for Nevada.

KLB wrote:Before deciding to make a point with people who most likely don't want you in their premises, consider this:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-dow ... g-firearm/

Interesting article, but not really on point, IMHO.

In the Erik Scott case, Costco had no policy against guns (they still don't BTW), so this wasn't a case of someone walking past any signage. That case is an example of extreme negligence on the part of the LEO's that shot him, in my opinion. The only fault I have for Mr. Scott is his choice to carry even though he was taking prescription pain meds that most likely contributed to the outcome by dulling his senses and slowing his reaction to the LEO's conflicting commands.

twomillenium wrote:If it is an old sign and they called LEO and the LEO wrote you the Class C misdemeanor for it. You would probably have a defense to prosecution, but you would probably spend more time and money fighting it than it is worth.

Your "defense to prosecution" would be that the behavior is not in fact illegal. It's the exact same defense to prosecution that you would have if you were charged with anything else that is not illegal, like wearing shorts on a golf course, or wearing socks with sandals, or having a hole in your T-shirt, or drinking wine instead of beer while watching a football game at your home. An ignorant LEO might think that any of these things are illegal, and "you would probably spend more time and money fighting it than it is worth." So I guess you are better off just never getting out of bed.

Yes, there is a risk that some LEO might arrest you for something that isn't even a crime. They aren't perfect. There is also a risk that you will get hit by lightning.

AshMan wrote:Hi all,

I tried searching for this topic, but couldn't find anything regarding my question. I recently went to a Domino's Pizza after work to grab dinner & there they were on the front doors... a legit 30.06 & a 30.07. My question though is... If you post a 30.06 which states you can't bring a concealed carry gun into the facility in the 1st place... WHY would you need to post a 30.07? Logic dictates to me that you don't want me bringing a weapon that's concealed into your place, why would I bring it in openly?! That would be WAY worse to me... That's how I'm reading it anyway. Is that Texas law? You have to post both if you don't want any guns what so ever on premises? If anyone could clear that up for me, I'd appreciate it.

Sorry If it's a confusing question, I personally still can't get over a Domino's take out place not wanting anyone to carry in the 10' front area you stand in when waiting to pick up your pizza...

A couple comments in no particular order.

First, I would not assume that anyone who posts 30.06 also does not want open carry. To me, open carry is a lot less "sneaky" than concealed carry, and for me, I would prefer that a visitor to my property make it clear whether they are armed. I think I am in the minority with this opinion, and to be clear I am not against someone CC'ing in my home, I would just prefer that they OC. I also strongly prefer that any adult visitors bring their own SD weapons with them as long as they are legally and physically able to carry. I will loan them a weapon if needed, but it is a bit rude, IMHO, to show up at someone's home and then expect them to take care of something as basic as your own personal security.

Second, you may want to double check the wording on that sign. It could be a hold-over from before OC, and if it has the old wording, then it is not valid.

Third, if the owner doesn't want "any guns whatsoever on the premises" they have to do a whole lot more than post a couple signs. They also need to bar on and off-duty police officers from entering the premises, along with posting some type of signage prohibiting long guns (concealed or openly carried). They also need to install metal detectors and hire armed security to ensure that no one illegally carries a firearm through their doors. Actually since the metal detectors and security will be needed regardless of signage, the simplest approach would be to just forego any signage and verbally tell anyone with a gun that they need to leave.