TexasCHLforum.com

GlassG19 wrote:

carlson1 wrote:

cbr6864r wrote:

Greybeard wrote:Quote: "Stunts like this are what give a bad name to open carriers. "

Yep, I am with Keith on this one. If you go looking for trouble (or ATTENTION), you CAN find it. Such behavior is NOT representative of the holders I know - or want to be affiliated with.

So when exactly does one cross the line? The signs were clearly not compliant what if it is a hand written note simply stating no guns? Or a picture of a gun with an X through it? Are you required to treat all anti gun signs as if they were compliant? The law needs to work both ways not just a single path. If business owners do not want OC or CC they need to properly post the correct sign.

I don't think it was illegal to walk past what looks like an "illegal sign." It then became legal notice when the police told him verbally don't OC. If he decides he will go back and try again if the signs are still there it is a Class A misdemeanor because he received LEGAL VERBAL NOTICE.

So the first time through the doors no law broken (if signs are actually what they appear to be), but he has now been warned verbally. Then he says, Iam going back." Now it is a Class A misdeamnor and deserves to be prosecuted if he returns not because of the signs, but because he was verbally warned.

This is not complicated.

First, 2nd, I'm wondering why the police didn't scold the business for NOT having the correct sign?? If a business doesn't want you to OC, then they need to pony up & pay the few extra $'s (legal sign) like we all have for "our rights" to be "legal" where's the hard part??

zero4o3 wrote:

baldeagle wrote: I believe there should be a reporting procedure for improper signage, perhaps only for 30.07, that allows gun carriers to report businesses that are out of compliance. Then perhaps the law can impose a fine on a business that uses improper signage and then calls the police to enforce their desires, so that they can be given a specific amount of time to either come into compliance or remove the signs. Or they can simply pay the police every time they call them, much like the charge for false alarms on alarm systems.

I wonder how they are contacting the police? If they call 911 to report the person without posting a sign (or multiple times with an invalid sign) they would likely be fined /prosecuted for a false report.

mayor wrote:

TomsTXCHL wrote:Yikes nine pages, for a troll!!!



It seems to me this signage thing is pretty simple though: if you're carry a firearm, whether concealed or open, you are always on the lookout for signage. So if you see a sign, ANY sign including one that says simply "no guns", if you walk-in OC you are asking for trouble. If you walk-in anyway, CC, then you must be very confident that you are concealed.

My understanding of the standard signs, especially the 1" tall letter requirement, is that this is intended so people see the sign! And since carriers are looking in the first place, they will surely see it unless it is simply not present near the door they enter. Very small signs, or hand-written signs should be obeyed if you can see-and-read them, but if you don't/can't then the law protects you from prosecution.

then 30.07 is irrelevant. Any gun buster sign will do to prevent open carry. so far, that is what I've gotten from this thread.

mojo84 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:I like to give people a chance to redeem themselves. If and when a person validates what and who they are then that is their business. The piling on just seemed a little excessive to me. If that makes me look deficient in your eyes so be it. I am entitled to my opinion.

When one kicks the antpile, one does not get to choose by how many ants he gets bit by.

He got exactly what he was seeking.

cbr6864r wrote:

jmra wrote: Depends on what type of line you are referring to. I'd say in regards to OC that the stupidity line is crossed when you know that entering a business is going to result in a confrontation but you do it anyway because you "can". Sounds a whole lot like OCT tactics which means it is detrimental to the 2A cause.
The legal line has not technically been crossed unless he follows through on his threat to return.
It is important to remember that "compliant signs" are not the only means the law gives business owners by which to limit carry in their stores. The business does not "need" to properly post if they do not want OC, they can do exactly what this business did which was all perfectly legal and ultimately effective.

So what if a business has a sign that just says no guns tucked in a corner window? The public should have been educated far better. The irony of these signs is that the ones I have seen have all been on ghetto type gas stations which always get held up. why wouldnt they want legally armed law abiding citizens?

cbr6864r wrote:

Greybeard wrote:Quote: "Stunts like this are what give a bad name to open carriers. "

Yep, I am with Keith on this one. If you go looking for trouble (or ATTENTION), you CAN find it. Such behavior is NOT representative of the holders I know - or want to be affiliated with.

So when exactly does one cross the line? The signs were clearly not compliant what if it is a hand written note simply stating no guns? Or a picture of a gun with an X through it? Are you required to treat all anti gun signs as if they were compliant? The law needs to work both ways not just a single path. If business owners do not want OC or CC they need to properly post the correct sign.

thetexan wrote:

IsraelisJewish wrote:They may have had an "incorrect" sign up . . . but the intent of the sign was to notify oc folk to not oc in the restaurant. If you know the businesses intent I think that means one has been notified to not oc there. I wonder what pushing the envelope will really accomplish.

No, it doesn't!!!!

The very same rule that uses language like "identical" states..."you have been notified WHEN..."

It does not say you have been notified when you get the feeling they don't want you in there because of some legally non compliant sign or sheet of paper.

thetexan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mayor wrote:looks like an 8.5x11. I'd have told them i didn't notice something so small, apologized and left.

They gave me no warning when I went in. Cops got there beforwe I was able to order...

You have been verbally warned now, so when you enter carrying openly again, you will have committed a Class A Misdemeanor. Something tells me Luby's, the police and the DA will prosecute to the full extent of the law. You will face one year in jail, a $4,000 fine and loss of your LTC for seven years.

Chas.

Now there's an interesting thought!

You walk into a place OCing and they tell you verbally you can't wear a gun in there! Have you been 06 notified, 07 notified or both? And is it possible to be notified as to one but not the other? What would that look like?

tex

jed wrote:I'm confused.....for the passed few weeks, probably longer, I have read an awful lot of posts about proper wording, letter size and such about both .06 and .07 signs. IIRC, a lot of posters were saying walk on in if signage is not 100% correct. Now, everyone seems to be all riled up because someone did just that.
seems to me people are upset because the OP stated he would return to the same location and OC again even though it is obvious he received notice
Like I have said several times, if the business knows enough to include the numbers 30.06 and or 30.07 in any kind of sign, they don't want guns in their business. Why would you want to patronize a business that does not want a law abiding, licensed gun carrier in their establishment?

Oldgringo wrote:

thetexan wrote:
{snip}
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?
{snip}

That would be moi, for one.

I spent a few hours in the Nashville jail on a Saturday night back in '62. That experience has held me for lo these many years.