TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:

Jusme wrote:

That's just it, they don't "have" to post signs to provide effective notice. It can be verbal, or written. It also leaves open the possibility for it to be arbitrary. Example: I walk in wearing a "Come and Take It" shirt, camo pants, and a 2A tactical cap, with my gun clearly visible in a skull and crossbones kydex holster, there is no signage so I haven't violated any laws yet. I'm met at the door by a security guard/manager who tells me " You can't bring your gun in here" I have been given effective notice. You come in right after I leave, and you are wearing a button down shirt, slacks and have your gun in a high and tight leather holster that matches you belt and shoes, the same guard/manager also knows you are carrying but you don't appear to be as scary looking so he doesn't say anything to you as you conduct your business. Discrimination? The only defining characteristic between us was the way we were dressed, but he uses the effective notice only on one of us. I don't know of that scenario occurring, but the possibility is there. JMHO

Public accommodations cannot discriminate on the basis of of race, color, religion, or national origin. The Americans with Disabilities Act adds disabilities to those. Appearance isn't a prohibited basis. You can discriminate based on weird appearance all you like.

vjallen75 wrote:

Jusme wrote:That's just it, they don't "have" to post signs to provide effective notice. It can be verbal, or written. It also leaves open the possibility for it to be arbitrary. Example: I walk in wearing a "Come and Take It" shirt, camo pants, and a 2A tactical cap, with my gun clearly visible in a skull and crossbones kydex holster, there is no signage so I haven't violated any laws yet. I'm met at the door by a security guard/manager who tells me " You can't bring your gun in here" I have been given effective notice. You come in right after I leave, and you are wearing a button down shirt, slacks and have your gun in a high and tight leather holster that matches you belt and shoes, the same guard/manager also knows you are carrying but you don't appear to be as scary looking so he doesn't say anything to you as you conduct your business. Discrimination? The only defining characteristic between us was the way we were dressed, but he uses the effective notice only on one of us. I don't know of that scenario occurring, but the possibility is there. JMHO

Thanks for your clarification, I now understand what you mean. I believe, until you take away the human aspect of effective notice, there will always be the possibility of discrimination. I haven't heard of any situation like this happening, but I think something like this would cause a change in the way verbiage works. Unfortunately my idea would only take car of the question of is this sign legal or not.

vjallen75 wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

Jusme wrote:It becomes a slippery slope due to the fact that the left wants to do the same thing to gun manufacturers. The only way I could see something like this working were if it was a location that a person must enter by law, but those would usually be government facilities. If a person has a choice not to enter a posted business, then it would be hard to hold them liable for someone else's actions. So far I have not run across a 30.06 posted business, that I don't have another option as to where to take my business.
What I think would be a better option would be as a discrimination issue whereby someone with an LTC, was being discriminated against, just like a licensed beautician would not be allowed to carry scissors, or a chef not being able to carry their knife. Either of those things could be used as a defensive weapon and they would obviously be trained to use them, so why only licensed handgun carriers?JMHO

Good point. "Equality" is what got the LGBTBBQOMG group what they wanted. I am going to start screaming "discrimination" based on my exercising an established civil right.

But would that be considered discrimination? We did pass qualifications to have a CHL/LTC, but the law clearly states that IF they don't want us to carry they have to post 30.06/07 signs. I just want to know your idea of discrimination.

I have an idea, why not have stores take down all their gunbuster/invalid or valid 30.06/06 signs. To obtain one you have to apply to the state with proof of business insurance. This business insurance must have a certain amount of liability insurance to be approved before the sign is processed and mailed. The sign could have an expiration date just as our licenses do, as well as a fee. That way, there is no confusion as to if it's valid/invalid. And businesses rates are not increased/decreased. FYI I work for an insurance company

AJSully421 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Would not fly as the business is not liable for 3rd parties destructive acts.

Sure, right now... but if the law changes, and now says that you are liable if you post signs... then you are liable if you post signs.

Liability insurance rates would go up for any location that posted signs, because it would result in greater potential risk of loss to the insurance company... so signs would come down at all but the most venomously anti-gun places.