TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:In another thread, we are rehashing the endless debate over whether a "no weapons" sign should lead to a trespassing charge against someone who walks past it carrying a weapon. By that same logic, a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign could lead to a trespassing charge against a barefooted customer.

If this is true, then why would a man not be guilty of trespassing when he walks through a doorway that is clearly marked "women"?

Good point, except that in this case the property owner - Target - has made it known that they don't expect their customers to acknowedge that sign, so I don't see how that could be considered trespassing at a Target store. Plus, for all I know, Target might have taken down the "Men" and "Women" signs altogether.

mojo84 wrote:Scott, it could simply be he was making a point.

Fair enough. I'll leave it at that.

I'm not trying to start another private property/30.06 discussion. I just don't understand what Paxton intends to gain from this.

So if he's not asking under any specific consumer safety or code enforcement regulation or something, then Target can basically tell him to go pound sand? Because I assume that's what they'd tell me, in much softer words of course, if I asked about it. But I'm not the Attorney General of Texas, and can't really do anything to make their life miserable other than not shop there.

What is he going to do with the information if he gets it? Post it on-line for the world to see? Opine and/or critique it as to whether he believes it's sufficient or not? He can't really give it his "blessing", I wouldn't think, because then if something does happen in one of the restrooms, they'll just hold up his letter and say "well, the Texas AG said our policies were good", not to mention I'm sure they'd use that in court if they were subsequently sued by the victim.

I mean, I could see if this was, for example, the Railroad Commission, or OSHA or somebody like that, demanding to review the safety policies of an oil drilling company. I assume (but don't know for sure) that they would have that authority. And maybe some other agency does have such authority over retail stores. But I don't see how the Attorney General would, and as I mentioned, if we go down this path, where does it end? My agenda would be 30.06 signs. Some liberal's agenda might be climate change - in fact they are already attacking Exxon about that. Or genetically modified foods. Or any number of things.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what this is supposed to accomplish.

I get his point, and I think what Target is doing is stupid and wrong, but under what authority is Paxton requesting this information?

If we're going to go down this road, I'd much rather he ask to see the safety policies of every business that posts a 30.06 sign. How do they plan to protect the customers they've disarmed from a potential illegally armed assailant?