TexasCHLforum.com

OlBill wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:52 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:58 am Actually the term "civilian" can also be used to describe someone who is not part of a group. Like professional poker players might refer to casual tourists as "civilians". This might be more of a slang term, though. I'm not sure how this relates to the topic of this thread, though.

It sounds like a term of derision. Like a mark.

In the case I cited, it could be taken that way. It means someone who is not very good at the game, and who will play in a pretty straightforward manner. I'm not sure whether that would be considered a term of "derision" though. Personally, I think it is more derisive to say that someone is a habitual gambler. Saying that they are a tourist who is not a regular poker player is not an insult. It's just a statement of fact.

I think this falls under the "outsider" part of the definition that someone quoted above.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:09 pm

OlBill wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:47 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:48 pm My view of the term civilian always included LEOs too unless they were currently serving on active duty in the uniformed armed services of the United States. Cops are civilians, Marines are not... FBI, civilian. US Army, not.

That is correct. Subject to UCMJ.

Countdown till somebody posts the dictionary.com, Wikipedia, or google definition of civilian that excludes cops,,firefighters, military, paramedics, nurses, and home health care aides....

Actually the term "civilian" can also be used to describe someone who is not part of a group. Like professional poker players might refer to casual tourists as "civilians". This might be more of a slang term, though. I'm not sure how this relates to the topic of this thread, though.

Abraham wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:37 am With all due respect: You can read and I don't cafe to argue.

There's plenty there.

We're at an all time ebb (fashionable even) where even decent people (such as yourself) are cop bashing and if and when it happens it passes you by, well all I can say is support your local police...because one day when the chips are quite possibly down, you'll be really, really be glad they there to help you.

You'll probably want to buy them a cup of coffee and a meal and won't want to hear an anti-cop smearing.
Cop hugging and hand shaking, but anti...never.

I do completely respect you and your opinion. All of my comments should be taken with that in mind. I can read. You are correct in that assessment. I'm assuming you can read as well. So if I'm not missing anything that was posted in this thread, then the difference must be in our definition of "cop bashing".

I do not believe that you need to have a complete and total allegiance to someone in order to not "bash" them. Stating that the police work for the people is not " cop bashing" IMHO. It is rather, the basic fundamental premise on which our country was founded. The government works for the people. This includes the police. Police officers do not get to ignore your rights as a property owner (I'm assuming you own property). They just don't. If you run a business and you want someone to leave, you should be able to politely ask them to leave, and they should do so. Period. This is true whether they are government employees who work for you, and it is also true if they are your fellow citizens.

I'm not sure why you perceive this as "cop bashing". I have very good friends who are LEO's and I regularly buy them coffee or other drinks. They do a job that I could not do, because I do not have the patience that it requires. It is a thankless job, and I appreciate everything they do. But I don't think they are gods, and I don't think they should have more rights than the people they work for.

I'm also leaving open the possibility that there is some post in this thread that really is "cop bashing" in nature. I just haven't seen it. But as I said, it is a long thread. And you clearly don't want to explain your position by actually citing any examples of what you consider to be "cop bashing" posts.

Abraham wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 am I wish the cop bashing would stop.

Mods, if more cop bashing posts are posted please delete!

With one exception: The FBI dancing fool, shooting an innocent bystander with his hideous display of the Elaine Benice/Seinfeld school of dance/terpsicorian ugliness go anywhere bullet shooting. That one should go on into perpetuity or until he's either fired or banished to Nome, Alaska...where they'll probably shoot back, not once buy many times....

I read almost all of the posts in this thread, but it is pretty long. Did I miss the "cop bashing"? All I am seeing are posts saying that the police should not have more rights to carry than we all, as free citizens, should have. That, and posts saying that private property rights should trump the right of anyone (including police officers) to be on your property. None of those denigrate police officers.

Can you do me a favor and quote one of the "cop bashing" posts so I can see what you are referring to?

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:46 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:21 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:56 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:25 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:35 am

OlBill wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:30 am Police have no more rights than any other person in this country. . . . What they have are specified delegated authorities to perform the functions of their assigned tasks.

You are correct. However, in order to bar any citizen that is not carrying under the authority of their LTC from private property, the property owner must rely upon TPC §30.05. Subsection 30.05(i) reads as follows:

(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Chas.

So a property owner could prohibit police officers in general, but if they want to bar guns, then that prohibition would not apply to a police officer (unless the property owner separately barred LEO's on the basis that they are LEO's). In a sense this seems like a bit of a moot point. I see a potential interaction going something like this:

Property owner (PO): "Hey, you need to leave because we don't allow guns in here".

LEO: "Sir, I don't need to leave because that prohibition does not apply to me as a police officer."

PO: "OK, then I am now deciding that you need to leave because I don't want you here, with or without a gun."

The property owner would still be able to decide at any point that they don't want that specific officer there, or don't want LEO's, or tall people, or whatever. As long as the reason for the prohibition was not only related to the LEO having a gun.

Yep, if the property owner was prone to lie.

Chas.

But in my hypothetical exchange it wouldn't necessarily be a lie. If I don't like X object (for whatever reason) and tell people that they can't bring X onto my property, and someone rightly points out that they can bring X into my store if they want to because they are ______ (fill in the blank), I might reasonably decide that, you know what, you are technically correct, but I really don't want you here at all if you are going to be that disrespectful of my wishes. That's what I meant by it being a moot point at the end of the day.

In your hypothetical the LEO would be subject to a Class A misdemeanor (armed) trespass charge at the point that you notified him that you no longer wished him specifically on the property. On the other hand, good luck getting a prosecuting attorney to accept the charges...

He wouldn't be guilty of anything unless he refused to leave for some reason. Plus it might be kind of hard to have him arrested regardless if you are prohibiting all LEO's from your property....

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:56 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:25 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:35 am

OlBill wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:30 am Police have no more rights than any other person in this country. . . . What they have are specified delegated authorities to perform the functions of their assigned tasks.

You are correct. However, in order to bar any citizen that is not carrying under the authority of their LTC from private property, the property owner must rely upon TPC §30.05. Subsection 30.05(i) reads as follows:

(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Chas.

So a property owner could prohibit police officers in general, but if they want to bar guns, then that prohibition would not apply to a police officer (unless the property owner separately barred LEO's on the basis that they are LEO's). In a sense this seems like a bit of a moot point. I see a potential interaction going something like this:

Property owner (PO): "Hey, you need to leave because we don't allow guns in here".

LEO: "Sir, I don't need to leave because that prohibition does not apply to me as a police officer."

PO: "OK, then I am now deciding that you need to leave because I don't want you here, with or without a gun."

The property owner would still be able to decide at any point that they don't want that specific officer there, or don't want LEO's, or tall people, or whatever. As long as the reason for the prohibition was not only related to the LEO having a gun.

Yep, if the property owner was prone to lie.

Chas.

But in my hypothetical exchange it wouldn't necessarily be a lie. If I don't like X object (for whatever reason) and tell people that they can't bring X onto my property, and someone rightly points out that they can bring X into my store if they want to because they are ______ (fill in the blank), I might reasonably decide that, you know what, you are technically correct, but I really don't want you here at all if you are going to be that disrespectful of my wishes. That's what I meant by it being a moot point at the end of the day.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:35 am

OlBill wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:30 am Police have no more rights than any other person in this country. . . . What they have are specified delegated authorities to perform the functions of their assigned tasks.

You are correct. However, in order to bar any citizen that is not carrying under the authority of their LTC from private property, the property owner must rely upon TPC §30.05. Subsection 30.05(i) reads as follows:

(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Chas.

So a property owner could prohibit police officers in general, but if they want to bar guns, then that prohibition would not apply to a police officer (unless the property owner separately barred LEO's on the basis that they are LEO's). In a sense this seems like a bit of a moot point. I see a potential interaction going something like this:

Property owner (PO): "Hey, you need to leave because we don't allow guns in here".

LEO: "Sir, I don't need to leave because that prohibition does not apply to me as a police officer."

PO: "OK, then I am now deciding that you need to leave because I don't want you here, with or without a gun."

The property owner would still be able to decide at any point that they don't want that specific officer there, or don't want LEO's, or tall people, or whatever. As long as the reason for the prohibition was not only related to the LEO having a gun.

BBYC wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:30 pm "If you want a military style rifle, join the military."

"If you want to carry a handgun, become a cop."

And so it goes.

If you want to express your opinions, become a reporter. If you want a say in who governs you, join the government.

Pretty soon we will have a totalitarian utopia!

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:41 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:01 am . . . I agree with others in this thread that the same policy should apply to LEO's, especially plain clothes.

Are you saying you think stores should bar armed LEOs in uniform?

Chas.

No. My comment was specifically about plain clothes officers.

For the record, I think that stores should not bar anyone for carrying (openly or concealed). But I was trying to get into the mind of the business owners who do bar OC. Most often, I hear the idea that the sight of a gun will scare their customers. Presumably, these customers aren't so skittish that they would panic at the sight of a uniformed LEO who is armed. But if their customers are really this irrational in the first place then they would likely not be able to distinguish between a plain clothes officer and a mere civilian who is legally OC'ing. So following along this thought process, it would make sense to require everyone not in an obvious LEO uniform to untuck their shirt so as to not scare the snowflakes.

mojo84 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:13 am

mayor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:07 am

I like the idea of just leaving and report a theft.

Give this a shot and let us know how it works out for you.

It should work out the exact same way that it works out for a shopkeeper who calls 911 to report a theft (e.g. shoplifting). In this case, the business took a person's cash then refused to deliver the promised goods because they person was wearing something they disagreed with, and which they could clearly see before they took the cash.

But I agree that it might not work out as well. Unfortunately, the laws do not apply equally to us all.

mojo84 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:23 am
Here's a twist, I disagree with the idea that one should be required to orally or verbally as some advocate in order to have them not open carry in the place of business. I believe it should be up to the property owner to decide how they want to interact and notify the customer.

OK, just curious. How else would a property owner notify someone that they don't like open carry, if they don't post a sign and also don't tell them orally or verbally? Are you thinking about posting a notice in the newspaper or something?

I would point out that currently a property owner is NOT required to orally or verbally notify anyone of anything. If a property owner doesn't like something, they can let people know however they want. If someone misses (or ignores) the notice, the property owner can ask them to leave. But if they want to be able to use the police that we all pay for (including the person they are having arrested), then the notification requirements should be extremely clear and unambiguous.

mayor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:35 am

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:37 am

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:32 pm

Liberty wrote: ↑Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:25 pm If they would toss me or any other citizen out for wearing a gun, why shouldn't they kick out gun-toting cops without a uniform? Cop can either cover it or leave it in the car, just like the rest of us. Seems like he is just looking for special treatment. We've known how so many of them get turned off about the "Do you know who I am?" defense. This time the shoe is on the other foot.

So because they don't respect our constitutional rights they should treat law enforcement just as poorly? I can see us having the same rights to carry as law enforcement and I don't think a LTC holder or LEO should be asked to leave especially when there is no posting. Dump Whataburger. If they don't want open carry they should post. This has been covered many times on this forum.

Sure, they have property rights, but how about they have enough respect for their customers to post 30.07 signs, to save their customers the embarrassment of being kicked out of one of their stores? This stuff cuts both ways. Whataburger does have a right to enforce its dress code, but it ALSO has a moral duty to inform its paying customers of that dress code, via the mandated-by-law signage .......then everybody is happy, no employee is placed in the position of having to eject an armed person, and no LTC holder will be publicly embarrassed. There’s rights, and then there’s “the right thing to do”. Whataburger has rights, but they’re not doing the right thing.

In ‘N Out is better anyway.

I wasn't embarrassed by being asked to leave. I was ticked because, I'd already ordered and was there with friends. I asked for my refund and left. No drama, no rudeness. So did several of my friends. The situation could have been avoided with a 30.07 sign.

Instead of asking for a refund (which meant that you did not immediately leave upon receiving verbal notice), you could have just walked out and then reported the theft of your money to the police. That would have been interesting. Or if you had paid via credit card, and didn't want the drama, a credit card charge back would have been appropriate. In any event, if someone asks me to leave, I leave. I don't stick around for any reason at all.

I agree with others in this thread that the same policy should apply to LEO's, especially plain clothes. If private property rights trump the right of a fellow citizen to carry, then why would they not also trump the rights of your employees, the local LEO's? If anything, you should have more stringent requirements for those who actually work for you.

I am split on the signage. Some sign would be nice, but it doesn't necessarily need to be a compliant 30.07 sign. A simple "please cover up your guns" gets the message across and can be followed up with verbal notice if needed.