TexasCHLforum.com

IANAL, but here is some case law that says that a person is not required to be given oral notice each time.

The original oral notice was given on June 2, 2001 and the arrest was made Sept 16, 2001. Upon appeal his conviction was affirmed. The court did not address any time restrictions.

http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/twelf ... /6374.html

That is a very good read WildBill, certainly an airtight case, possibly applicable to our concerns as well.

Thank You.

Quit making ridiculous comments such as, "you following me around" and some of the other junk you spew and I will have no reason to respond to you.

Sigh....so this is a no? Mojo I can't possibly know what you are going to find offensive or inciting. Or for that matter what you consider 'junk' that I am "spewing". To that end....I have offered a solution (we just agree to disagree) and let it go.

As long as you advocate creating problems and forcing business owners to put up compliant signs,

I have suggested possible solutions or tactics (to address what might become a problem) to be implemented if needed. You don't have to agree with that.

I will feel compelled to respond.

Fine, I appreciate your passion and if compulsion is driving you....that's OK too. Just saying there is no obligation on your part to respond to everything I post that you happen to disagree with. I have offered to do the same.

Don't deny it either as I've already shown you a direct quote of you saying that is what you want

You've shown me nothing.
I want simplicity, clarity and accountability, nothing more. How that is achieved (or not) we will see.

Not much to ponder, once it's been said and heard, notice has been given. You can't unhear it.

Yes, I am not arguing the mechanics of the notice, just not certain that notice given is 'permanent' or would not be required each time a person entered an establishment that has no sign or a non-compliant sign since one element required to make it an arrest-able offense is refusal to 'leave'.

I don't want to take this thread off course and discuss that here, but I can certainly imagine some savvy lawyers being able to make a good case for that.

No doubt, this will eventually end up in court. I will NOT be present, I can assure you.

You pondering has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is or isn't.

Mojo, rather than you following me around exchanging what you now believe to be posts that are 'tit for tat' lets just refrain from engaging one another's ideas. Clearly, there is nothing to be gained by it. You OK with that or not?

Chas. wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you agree with OCT's demand that TPC §30.06 be amended to apply to both open and concealed carry?

I honestly don't remember Charles. If you have some quote or post of mine suggesting the same, I am happy to discuss it.

The problem is, if you/I make it a point to receive verbal notification in place of an invalid sign, there is a strong possibility that the notice you/I receive will be sufficient to prevent any type of carry forever in that establishment for you/I.

Yes Sir, I concede that is a possibility. The likelihood....I don't know, but you might be correct.

Verbal notice is permanent.

Not entirely convinced of this yet, but I am pondering it.

I'm not going to respond to the insult as I comprehend your attitude and posts just fine.

That's good Sir, as no insult was issued or intended, just an observation.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that they must be okay with the "second step" as you call it. Therefore you are just going to have to deal with it.

I do get that, I don't know why you insist I do not, but I don't want to mention that C word again.

It IS their prerogative to employ the verbal or written notification, I can even see why certain businesses might want/need to. The danger in that... has already been discussed and what it might ultimately lead to . Hence the need to better educate ALL parties so that the best decisions can be made (read informed decision).

You keep saying they would have to put up compliant signs.

No, I keep saying they would need to put up 'compliant' signs in order to avoid the necessary LEGAL 'next step' of informing with respect to force of law.

I don't know how to get you to read with more comprehension? I will endeavor to be abundantly clear.

Thanks,

Flint.

Edited to add 'force of law'

Chas. wrote:

I disagree that there's no downside.

Fine, we have respectfully disagreed before, this is no different.

If a business does not prohibit concealed carry, then it is pro-gun.

Well…..that is quite the presumptuous label “pro-gun”. I would submit it is not possible to know if an establishment is “pro-gun” until we know if the establishment has knowingly refrained from posting any form of a 30.06 sign for the express purpose of allowing concealed carry.

THAT would be “pro-gun”. The mere absence of a sign is not evidence in itself of a pro-gun stance. Folks do not post 30.06 signs for any number of reasons I believe you know that.

Their response to constant harassment by open-carry supporters coming in with their handguns visible in spite of their legally insufficient signage could well be to prohibit all carry.

The persistent exercise of a LEGAL activity with the intent of enlightening an establishment I think falls well short of “harassment”.

But, to your second point….I have already addressed that when ‘Mojo’ expressed essentially the same concern:

Mojo Wrote:

“You do have something to lose though. They could tell tell that they do not want you in their place of business or tell you that they don't want guns at all.”

Flint responded:

This is a possibility. So what you are proposing is a 'loss' of C/C, correct? Why would they do that? It puts them right back at 'square one'.
Except NOW they would have to post TWO compliant signs...OR try to figure out WHO was carrying past a non-compliant sign, double the trouble.
End Quote.


So….IF a supposedly “pro-gun” establishment should now exclude BOTH modes of carry, what would be the impetus for that, retribution? How would they gain from that?

Chas. wrote:

You apparently consider "forcing" a business to post a 30.07 sign, as opposed to providing verbal notice, to be a victory, but I could not disagree more.

Charles, I’m not looking for a ‘victory’, I am looking for something simple and congruent. I am trying to think of ways that we can avoid confusion, meeting the needs of both business and the citizenry without having to involve Law Enforcement.

If the issues are not discussed and hopefully settled now (while there is focus on it), then the business community (through practice), will decide what is the new ‘norm’.

To quickly address what many think to be a ‘pro-gun’ stance of the business world:

We will see. Open Carry has for the time being….spotlighted carry (of all forms). So like it or not, some businesses are going to revisit their policies. We will find out soon enough who is/was ‘pro-gun’ and who were just letting you ‘fly under the radar’.

As I see it, there are certain aspects of OC and the attendant Law that are worth fighting for and some that are not. IMO, compliant signage is worth visiting.

By encouraging the posting of compliant signage (clearly the easiest thing to do) I seek to avoid misunderstanding and unnecessary ‘second steps’, not create them!

If we choose to do nothing….(just let it all settle down) with no clarification, then OC will exist in such a neutered fashion as to be practically worthless. Maybe that is what the masses want? Then what will you settle for next time?

flintknapper,

Correct me if I wrong.

As I understand your post, you're stating that if a business posts a non-compliant 30.07 sign, you'll OC and then expect if/when the cops show up, they'll correct/reprimand/instruct the business owners that the sign doesn't comply?

Hi Abraham,

I am not stating at all what "I" might do, simply pointing out (possibly suggesting a tactic) the legality of the situation. Until it is challenged and brought to court in order to establish case law on the matter, I believe it perfectly legal to walk past a NON-COMPLIANT (30.06 or 30.07/other) sign or to enter where NO sign is present. At which point....you must be given notice (verbally or written) that the establishment does not allow whichever mode of carry they choose.

Now as to whether or not Law Enforcement is involved and what their actions will be, remains to be seen. It is my hope that LEO will tire of responding to calls that could have been avoided by posting a COMPLAINT sign in the first place and then being asked to assume the responsibility of the establishment (which is to inform).

I do not think it incumbent that police 'educate' businesses, but IF they are there anyway...then non-partisan 'scolding' would seem appropriate. In reality...I suppose it depends on which side LEO comes down on (businesses clearly posting non-compliantly) or citizens having broken no laws by walking past one.

I'll go a step further: The cops aren't called, but the business owner tells you to leave. Are you going to argue because the 30.07 signage isn't up to par, you don't have to comply with their demand you leave?

NO, absolutely NO argument! Nothing I have posted....has suggested that when given 'notice' that...that isn't lawful and binding. So yes...you misunderstand me if you thought I was proposing anything else.

IF/When asked to leave....you need to do so with no comment, be respectful, accommodating... and leave as expediently as is possible. Folks...it is entirely possible to be proactive, make a point, be courteous and non-threatening all at the same time. IF anyone lacks these skills...PLEASE stay at home or learn them.

If one does what you are suggesting, in practicality, what does one gain or accomplish? If you force the issue and they put up a compliant sign, you still won't be able to open carry there.

If they can not be persuaded to 'consider' Open Carry with a thoughtful, well written letter, then they will need to do one of two things.

1. Post a compliant sign....which clearly shows their intent, satisfies the LAW and creates an immediate trespass.
2. Post NO sign or a non-compliant sign and be forced to issue notice either verbally or in writing.

What is potentially "gained" is holding merchants to the same compliance standards we are held to and forcing them to consider IF it is worth it to them. If they are adamant about NO OC ....then nothing is 'lost' except some effort and time on our part. As you say...you still can't open carry there, so your point is somewhat moot in terms of OC. There IS something to be gained, but nothing lost.

You do have something to lose though. They could tell tell that they do not want you in their place of business or tell you that they don't want guns at all.

This is a possibility. So what you are proposing is a 'loss' of C/C, correct? Why would they do that? It puts them right back at 'square one'.
Except NOW they would have to post TWO compliant signs...OR try to figure out WHO was carrying past a non-compliant sign, double the trouble. You really can't see that?

It's better for me, and for all of us, when seeing an undersized or incorrectly posted 30.07 sign, to obey it as if it were posted validly. Simply walking by an invalid 30.07 sign has a lot more implications than walking past an invalid 30.06 sign (which many of us do on a regular basis).

You're right, improper 30.07 means that they have at least enough knowledge of the law to post something, clearly indicating that they don't want anyone carrying on the premises. Not worth the fight over semantics in my personal opinion. I'll either conceal or go elsewhere.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Disagree, I think this is the worst thing we can do. If businesses are not challenged/required to place COMPLIANT signs up, then they effectively dictate what is acceptable (not to be confused with legal). If you do not walk past a non-compliant sign and force a verbal or written notice, then the sign thing will continue.

IF police are summoned....then it is the perfect time for THEM to explain to the establishment what is required by LAW and if the business refuses to comply (signage)....then they must opt for the Verbal/Written notice. Inconvenient for all involved.

Of course, it goes without saying, be respectful.