Manager at Texas Whataburger denies service to detective because of his gun

[I Hate Dry Counties]

. . . I agree with others in this thread that the same policy should apply to LEO's, especially plain clothes.

Are you saying you think stores should bar armed LEOs in uniform?

Chas.

I definitely think stores should fear the government more than we the people.

[Grundy1133]

I think LEOs should be able to carry anywhere because they are the authority that uphold the law. Just like I feel that citizens should be able to carry anywhere because we are the immediate authority of our own well being. a LEO wouldn't want to be caught in a situation without his gun wishing he had it, just as a citizen wouldn't. Some people can argue well LEOs have had training. so have we as citizens. granted LEOS have had much more extensive training than we have, but we are both recognized by the state as capable and competent firearm carriers and I don't think LEOs or civilians should have to disarm. If the state trusts us with a gun, I feel that 30.06 30.07 companies should have to trust us too. Yeah, I know that business owners have the right to not allow guns on their property. UNLESS you're a LEO. That's where the whole "special treatment" issue crops up for me. we are both recognized by the state as being responsible gun owners so why can't I carry places that only LEOs can? We've both gone thru the process of taking the tests and traning to be able to carry a handgun as per the state requirements. I don't feel as tho LEOs should get special treatment when it comes to carrying a gun. I feel at this point im kinda repeating myself, its 1AM cut me some slack haha. I think i'll end this rant now.

[Liberty]

I think LEOs should be able to carry anywhere because they are the authority that uphold the law. Just like I feel that citizens should be able to carry anywhere because we are the immediate authority of our own well being. a LEO wouldn't want to be caught in a situation without his gun wishing he had it, just as a citizen wouldn't. Some people can argue well LEOs have had training. so have we as citizens. granted LEOS have had much more extensive training than we have, but we are both recognized by the state as capable and competent firearm carriers and I don't think LEOs or civilians should have to disarm. If the state trusts us with a gun, I feel that 30.06 30.07 companies should have to trust us too. Yeah, I know that business owners have the right to not allow guns on their property. UNLESS you're a LEO. That's where the whole "special treatment" issue crops up for me. we are both recognized by the state as being responsible gun owners so why can't I carry places that only LEOs can? We've both gone thru the process of taking the tests and traning to be able to carry a handgun as per the state requirements. I don't feel as tho LEOs should get special treatment when it comes to carrying a gun. I feel at this point im kinda repeating myself, its 1AM cut me some slack haha. I think i'll end this rant now.

I would most likely allow any of the local LEO forces into my home, Including state DPS or Rangers. I wouldn't let any Feds into my home or speak a word to them other than to claim 5th amendment rights. Including the FBI, Marshals Secret Service BATFE, ICE, BP or IRS. They are the enemy and are out to destroy anyone in their path. But I suppose this has nothing to do with open carrying because I wouldn't want them my property armed or unarmed, on or off duty.

[OlBill]

A right is a possessed power of a freedom to do or freedom from.

Police have no more rights than any other person in this country. Nor should they refer to us as civilians, as they are themselves.

What they have are specified delegated authorities to perform the functions of their assigned tasks.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Police have no more rights than any other person in this country. . . . What they have are specified delegated authorities to perform the functions of their assigned tasks.

You are correct. However, in order to bar any citizen that is not carrying under the authority of their LTC from private property, the property owner must rely upon TPC §30.05. Subsection 30.05(i) reads as follows:

(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Chas.

[OlBill]

Yes sir, I understand.

[Soccerdad1995]

Police have no more rights than any other person in this country. . . . What they have are specified delegated authorities to perform the functions of their assigned tasks.

You are correct. However, in order to bar any citizen that is not carrying under the authority of their LTC from private property, the property owner must rely upon TPC §30.05. Subsection 30.05(i) reads as follows:

(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Chas.

So a property owner could prohibit police officers in general, but if they want to bar guns, then that prohibition would not apply to a police officer (unless the property owner separately barred LEO's on the basis that they are LEO's). In a sense this seems like a bit of a moot point. I see a potential interaction going something like this:

Property owner (PO): "Hey, you need to leave because we don't allow guns in here".

LEO: "Sir, I don't need to leave because that prohibition does not apply to me as a police officer."

PO: "OK, then I am now deciding that you need to leave because I don't want you here, with or without a gun."

The property owner would still be able to decide at any point that they don't want that specific officer there, or don't want LEO's, or tall people, or whatever. As long as the reason for the prohibition was not only related to the LEO having a gun.

[carlson1]

I think LEOs should be able to carry anywhere because they are the authority that uphold the law. Just like I feel that citizens should be able to carry anywhere because we are the immediate authority of our own well being. a LEO wouldn't want to be caught in a situation without his gun wishing he had it, just as a citizen wouldn't. Some people can argue well LEOs have had training. so have we as citizens. granted LEOS have had much more extensive training than we have, but we are both recognized by the state as capable and competent firearm carriers and I don't think LEOs or civilians should have to disarm. If the state trusts us with a gun, I feel that 30.06 30.07 companies should have to trust us too. Yeah, I know that business owners have the right to not allow guns on their property. UNLESS you're a LEO. That's where the whole "special treatment" issue crops up for me. we are both recognized by the state as being responsible gun owners so why can't I carry places that only LEOs can? We've both gone thru the process of taking the tests and traning to be able to carry a handgun as per the state requirements. I don't feel as tho LEOs should get special treatment when it comes to carrying a gun. I feel at this point im kinda repeating myself, its 1AM cut me some slack haha. I think i'll end this rant now.

What training have you had?

[Grundy1133]

I think LEOs should be able to carry anywhere because they are the authority that uphold the law. Just like I feel that citizens should be able to carry anywhere because we are the immediate authority of our own well being. a LEO wouldn't want to be caught in a situation without his gun wishing he had it, just as a citizen wouldn't. Some people can argue well LEOs have had training. so have we as citizens. granted LEOS have had much more extensive training than we have, but we are both recognized by the state as capable and competent firearm carriers and I don't think LEOs or civilians should have to disarm. If the state trusts us with a gun, I feel that 30.06 30.07 companies should have to trust us too. Yeah, I know that business owners have the right to not allow guns on their property. UNLESS you're a LEO. That's where the whole "special treatment" issue crops up for me. we are both recognized by the state as being responsible gun owners so why can't I carry places that only LEOs can? We've both gone thru the process of taking the tests and traning to be able to carry a handgun as per the state requirements. I don't feel as tho LEOs should get special treatment when it comes to carrying a gun. I feel at this point im kinda repeating myself, its 1AM cut me some slack haha. I think i'll end this rant now.

What training have you had?

the same written and proficiency exams that all LTC holders go thru.

[carlson1]

I think LEOs should be able to carry anywhere because they are the authority that uphold the law. Just like I feel that citizens should be able to carry anywhere because we are the immediate authority of our own well being. a LEO wouldn't want to be caught in a situation without his gun wishing he had it, just as a citizen wouldn't. Some people can argue well LEOs have had training. so have we as citizens. granted LEOS have had much more extensive training than we have, but we are both recognized by the state as capable and competent firearm carriers and I don't think LEOs or civilians should have to disarm. If the state trusts us with a gun, I feel that 30.06 30.07 companies should have to trust us too. Yeah, I know that business owners have the right to not allow guns on their property. UNLESS you're a LEO. That's where the whole "special treatment" issue crops up for me. we are both recognized by the state as being responsible gun owners so why can't I carry places that only LEOs can? We've both gone thru the process of taking the tests and traning to be able to carry a handgun as per the state requirements. I don't feel as tho LEOs should get special treatment when it comes to carrying a gun. I feel at this point im kinda repeating myself, its 1AM cut me some slack haha. I think i'll end this rant now.

What training have you had?

the same written and proficiency exams that all LTC holders go thru.

Sorry, but the proficiency (or qualifying) with a handguns is definite not training and in here lies the problem.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Police have no more rights than any other person in this country. . . . What they have are specified delegated authorities to perform the functions of their assigned tasks.

You are correct. However, in order to bar any citizen that is not carrying under the authority of their LTC from private property, the property owner must rely upon TPC §30.05. Subsection 30.05(i) reads as follows:

(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Chas.

So a property owner could prohibit police officers in general, but if they want to bar guns, then that prohibition would not apply to a police officer (unless the property owner separately barred LEO's on the basis that they are LEO's). In a sense this seems like a bit of a moot point. I see a potential interaction going something like this:

Property owner (PO): "Hey, you need to leave because we don't allow guns in here".

LEO: "Sir, I don't need to leave because that prohibition does not apply to me as a police officer."

PO: "OK, then I am now deciding that you need to leave because I don't want you here, with or without a gun."

The property owner would still be able to decide at any point that they don't want that specific officer there, or don't want LEO's, or tall people, or whatever. As long as the reason for the prohibition was not only related to the LEO having a gun.

Yep, if the property owner was prone to lie.

Chas.

[Grundy1133]

I think LEOs should be able to carry anywhere because they are the authority that uphold the law. Just like I feel that citizens should be able to carry anywhere because we are the immediate authority of our own well being. a LEO wouldn't want to be caught in a situation without his gun wishing he had it, just as a citizen wouldn't. Some people can argue well LEOs have had training. so have we as citizens. granted LEOS have had much more extensive training than we have, but we are both recognized by the state as capable and competent firearm carriers and I don't think LEOs or civilians should have to disarm. If the state trusts us with a gun, I feel that 30.06 30.07 companies should have to trust us too. Yeah, I know that business owners have the right to not allow guns on their property. UNLESS you're a LEO. That's where the whole "special treatment" issue crops up for me. we are both recognized by the state as being responsible gun owners so why can't I carry places that only LEOs can? We've both gone thru the process of taking the tests and traning to be able to carry a handgun as per the state requirements. I don't feel as tho LEOs should get special treatment when it comes to carrying a gun. I feel at this point im kinda repeating myself, its 1AM cut me some slack haha. I think i'll end this rant now.

What training have you had?

the same written and proficiency exams that all LTC holders go thru.

Sorry, but the proficiency (or qualifying) with a handguns is definite not training and in here lies the problem.

call it what you want it's good enough for the state of texas. ive legally passed allt he requirements as defined by the state of texas to legally carry a handgun. i shouldn't be kept from doing so, same as LEOs. regarless of what you consider "traning" the leo has met his requirements, as have I. It's the fact that LEOs get special treatment. "here in lies the problem"

[Soccerdad1995]

Police have no more rights than any other person in this country. . . . What they have are specified delegated authorities to perform the functions of their assigned tasks.

You are correct. However, in order to bar any citizen that is not carrying under the authority of their LTC from private property, the property owner must rely upon TPC §30.05. Subsection 30.05(i) reads as follows:

(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Chas.

So a property owner could prohibit police officers in general, but if they want to bar guns, then that prohibition would not apply to a police officer (unless the property owner separately barred LEO's on the basis that they are LEO's). In a sense this seems like a bit of a moot point. I see a potential interaction going something like this:

Property owner (PO): "Hey, you need to leave because we don't allow guns in here".

LEO: "Sir, I don't need to leave because that prohibition does not apply to me as a police officer."

PO: "OK, then I am now deciding that you need to leave because I don't want you here, with or without a gun."

The property owner would still be able to decide at any point that they don't want that specific officer there, or don't want LEO's, or tall people, or whatever. As long as the reason for the prohibition was not only related to the LEO having a gun.

Yep, if the property owner was prone to lie.

Chas.

But in my hypothetical exchange it wouldn't necessarily be a lie. If I don't like X object (for whatever reason) and tell people that they can't bring X onto my property, and someone rightly points out that they can bring X into my store if they want to because they are ______ (fill in the blank), I might reasonably decide that, you know what, you are technically correct, but I really don't want you here at all if you are going to be that disrespectful of my wishes. That's what I meant by it being a moot point at the end of the day.

[ScottDLS]

Police have no more rights than any other person in this country. . . . What they have are specified delegated authorities to perform the functions of their assigned tasks.

You are correct. However, in order to bar any citizen that is not carrying under the authority of their LTC from private property, the property owner must rely upon TPC §30.05. Subsection 30.05(i) reads as follows:

(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Chas.

So a property owner could prohibit police officers in general, but if they want to bar guns, then that prohibition would not apply to a police officer (unless the property owner separately barred LEO's on the basis that they are LEO's). In a sense this seems like a bit of a moot point. I see a potential interaction going something like this:

Property owner (PO): "Hey, you need to leave because we don't allow guns in here".

LEO: "Sir, I don't need to leave because that prohibition does not apply to me as a police officer."

PO: "OK, then I am now deciding that you need to leave because I don't want you here, with or without a gun."

The property owner would still be able to decide at any point that they don't want that specific officer there, or don't want LEO's, or tall people, or whatever. As long as the reason for the prohibition was not only related to the LEO having a gun.

Yep, if the property owner was prone to lie.

Chas.

But in my hypothetical exchange it wouldn't necessarily be a lie. If I don't like X object (for whatever reason) and tell people that they can't bring X onto my property, and someone rightly points out that they can bring X into my store if they want to because they are ______ (fill in the blank), I might reasonably decide that, you know what, you are technically correct, but I really don't want you here at all if you are going to be that disrespectful of my wishes. That's what I meant by it being a moot point at the end of the day.

In your hypothetical the LEO would be subject to a Class A misdemeanor (armed) trespass charge at the point that you notified him that you no longer wished him specifically on the property. On the other hand, good luck getting a prosecuting attorney to accept the charges...

[Soccerdad1995]

Police have no more rights than any other person in this country. . . . What they have are specified delegated authorities to perform the functions of their assigned tasks.

You are correct. However, in order to bar any citizen that is not carrying under the authority of their LTC from private property, the property owner must rely upon TPC §30.05. Subsection 30.05(i) reads as follows:

(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Chas.

So a property owner could prohibit police officers in general, but if they want to bar guns, then that prohibition would not apply to a police officer (unless the property owner separately barred LEO's on the basis that they are LEO's). In a sense this seems like a bit of a moot point. I see a potential interaction going something like this:

Property owner (PO): "Hey, you need to leave because we don't allow guns in here".

LEO: "Sir, I don't need to leave because that prohibition does not apply to me as a police officer."

PO: "OK, then I am now deciding that you need to leave because I don't want you here, with or without a gun."

The property owner would still be able to decide at any point that they don't want that specific officer there, or don't want LEO's, or tall people, or whatever. As long as the reason for the prohibition was not only related to the LEO having a gun.

Yep, if the property owner was prone to lie.

Chas.

But in my hypothetical exchange it wouldn't necessarily be a lie. If I don't like X object (for whatever reason) and tell people that they can't bring X onto my property, and someone rightly points out that they can bring X into my store if they want to because they are ______ (fill in the blank), I might reasonably decide that, you know what, you are technically correct, but I really don't want you here at all if you are going to be that disrespectful of my wishes. That's what I meant by it being a moot point at the end of the day.

In your hypothetical the LEO would be subject to a Class A misdemeanor (armed) trespass charge at the point that you notified him that you no longer wished him specifically on the property. On the other hand, good luck getting a prosecuting attorney to accept the charges...

He wouldn't be guilty of anything unless he refused to leave for some reason. Plus it might be kind of hard to have him arrested regardless if you are prohibiting all LEO's from your property....