thetexan wrote:I guess I have mixed feelings about all of this.
It irks me that one half of the parties in the contract (so to speak), the sign posting establishments, do not have to post compliant signs. If someone can call the police on OCers why isn't there a way to do something about their non-compliance?
We are expected to live by the specifics of the law, but they don't have to. And, when it comes down to a contest between the two, the establishment is given the benefit of the doubt the offender, who technically is not offending, is scolded, arrested, or worse as if the burden of fulfilling the contract (the law that specifies requirements to both parties) rest solely on the OCer.
That's a sad system.
How many of us are afraid to risk the ride rather than to insist that establishments are just as responsible to follow the compliance law as we are to follow compliant notices? Do we fear they, whoever they are, may take our freedom away from us if we protest too much?
Why should a LEO have anything to say at all to a OCer when he is being completely lawful. IN FACT, IT IS THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS FAILING TO ABIDE BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE LAW!!! Of all people the LEO should know that the OCer has done nothing wrong and rather than making him to feel like a criminal why not advise the establishment to get ITS act together?
The LEO should, if asked by the establishment, give his verbal 30.06 or 30.07 notice and be on his way. I almost want to say how dare they presume to admonish the OCer for doing nothing but following the law as written. That requires the LEO to be solidly clear on the law which most are. Fairness in the application of a law written to and for both parties is not too much to ask.
So I am torn about how to feel about this kind of situation.
To quote Hamlet...."...Thus, conscience, does make cowards of us all. And thus the native hue of resolution, is sullied ore' the pale cast of thought."
And let me add, I am one of those who would rather retreat and fight on another battlefield of legislation and try to make a point in front of a family eating their dinner at a restaurant and make life more difficult for the rest of OCers.
BUT IT TICKS ME OFF THAT IS SHOULD BE THIS WAY!!!
tex
I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point. Everyone should follow the law, whether it is the property owner or the person carrying a handgun. If it had been a legally insufficient 30.06 sign, then one could enter without causing a scene. However, the OP knew or should have known that walking in showing his gun to everyone was going to result in a confrontation of some sort. Obviously, he didn't care. He didn't care if his action was a blight on open-carry on its first day in Texas.
Although walking in in spite of a legally insufficient sign was not unlawful because Luby's didn't comply with the law, he was given verbal notice by the officers. You take offense at the way they talked to him, but there are two issues you need to consider. First, you don't know what was said or how the message was delivered. The OP has his story and I'm sure the LEOs have theirs also. One must consider that the OP has stated on an open forum that he plans to go back and reenter the same restaurant, if a legally sufficient 30.07 sign is not posted, in spite of having received verbal notice. That attitude gives significant insight to his personality and I suspect he was equally unstatesmanlike with the officers as he was with Luby's.
Chas.
