walmart asking for chl

[The Wall]

I think they should put a neon wrist band on you after they confirm you have a license so all of the worry worts will know your rights have been questioned by the manager. Just kidding, so don't get your shorts in a bind.

[Swoops1]

Swoops1,

By all means, act belligerent if an LTC is 'requested' at a business that has every right as it their business.

When you're shown the door, you'll have shown em how the cow ate the cabbage by gosh, ah, unless you went in there to buy cabbage, that is...

Telling them it's none of their business is belligerent? They have no reason to ask for my LTC just because I walked through the door. I CC so if I were to go it's not an issue. If LEO ask for it I will produce it because it is required by law?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Apparently, they are trying to protect their liquor license. No rational person could fault them for doing so. The fact that Grisham and OCT are making an issue of this could well result in Walmart posting 30.07 signs.

The political reality is this. Open-carry has passed and it is no longer unlawful, except under limited circumstances. TPC §30.07(e) provides the same protection afforded to concealed-carry. In 2017, the "Fines for Signs" law will likely be amended to include 30.07 notices and signs. In short, the state and local governments are removed from the open-carry issue.

Not satisfied, the more ardent open-carry supporters now want to force private individuals and companies to accept open-carry. These same people often claim to be the strongest supporters of private property rights, yet when it comes to open-carry, they are quick to abandon that position. As a result of OCT and other "all or nothing folks," many businesses are posting 30.07 signs. Some are also posting 30.06 signs meaning open-carry has cost almost 1 million LTCs the ability to carry self-defense handguns where they have been able to do so for two decades. The more harassment businesses receive, the more 30.07 signs will be posted and, unfortunately, more 30.06 signs also. Now who is the true enemy of the Second Amendment, the company that prohibits open-carry but allows concealed-carry, or the open-carry supporters who's conduct ultimately results in more business banning all handguns?

Chas.

[DevilDawg]

Shop local small business. Problem solved.

[baldeagle]

Swoops1,

By all means, act belligerent if an LTC is 'requested' at a business that has every right as it their business.

When you're shown the door, you'll have shown em how the cow ate the cabbage by gosh, ah, unless you went in there to buy cabbage, that is...

Telling them it's none of their business is belligerent? They have no reason to ask for my LTC just because I walked through the door. I CC so if I were to go it's not an issue. If LEO ask for it I will produce it because it is required by law?

It IS there business. Why do you think it is not? They own the business. You are entering their private property. They have every right to ask that you comply with their policies and every right to throw your butt out if you don't.

The ignorance about rights is mind boggling. People want to demand their second amendment rights and then get huffy when someone else demands their property rights. It's just another sign of how abysmal our education system is.

[locke_n_load]

Is TABC demanding Walmart do this? There are 1000s of stores that sell alcohol in the same manner as walmart, and I have not heard of them having this requirement.
If TABC is making this the issue, then the blue unlicensed signs and that force of law need to be legislated out. Who cares if you sell alcohol for off-premise consumption? If you say that hoodlums with guns may try to rob the place because they like alcohol, why don't places like jewelry stores get automatic protection too? I bet thieves like jewelry as much as alcohol.

[baldeagle]

So the police should pull every car over every day to make sure you have a drivers license? It just makes it look like someone who is open carrying is automatically doing something illegal.

Did I say anywhere that I have some right to be in their store? It was ment as a conversation starter.

Its not about that I have any right to be in there store its the fact they are telling the public they think they have some legal right to even ask.

I guess they are willing to accept the liability of one of their employees walking up to someone illegally carrying and possibly get shot over it. Not something I would do.

It's their store. Therefore they have a legal right to ask and to kick your butt to the curb if you get belligerent about it. They have the legal right to confront anyone who enters their store and to ask them to leave if they are uncooperative.

Why is this so hard to understand? You want to enter my house with a gun on your hip? Show me your LTC or start staring down the barrel of my gun. It's MY property. Not yours.

I would strongly recommend that you not pull a gun on a visitor who is OC'ing at your home and refuses to show you their license. That is likely to end very, very badly for you. Probably best to just ask them to leave and then not invite them back.

That said, if you are talking about in-laws, then I can sympathize...

The only way it ends badly for me is if I miss, and I don't. Obviously you've made some assumptions about where my gun would be and what my state of readiness would be. That would be a bad mistake to make, on your part.

[parabelum]

Apparently, they are trying to protect their liquor license. No rational person could fault them for doing so. The fact that Grisham and OCT are making an issue of this could well result in Walmart posting 30.07 signs.

The political reality is this. Open-carry has passed and it is no longer unlawful, except under limited circumstances. TPC §30.07(e) provides the same protection afforded to concealed-carry. In 2017, the "Fines for Signs" law will likely be amended to include 30.07 notices and signs. In short, the state and local governments are removed from the open-carry issue.

Not satisfied, the more ardent open-carry supporters now want to force private individuals and companies to accept open-carry. These same people often claim to be the strongest supporters of private property rights, yet when it comes to open-carry, they are quick to abandon that position. As a result of OCT and other "all or nothing folks," many businesses are posting 30.07 signs. Some are also posting 30.06 signs meaning open-carry has cost almost 1 million LTCs the ability to carry self-defense handguns where they have been able to do so for two decades. The more harassment businesses receive, the more 30.07 signs will be posted and, unfortunately, more 30.06 signs also. Now who is the true enemy of the Second Amendment, the company that prohibits open-carry but allows concealed-carry, or the open-carry supporters who's conduct ultimately results in more business banning all handguns?

Chas.

I agree that OCT has caused way more harm then good.
I agree that private property rights need to be respected 100%.
For me personally, there is no "true enemy" on 2A. Either your business supports my right or they do not. If they do not, I consider them my enemy.
Either an organization supports my 2A right 100% or they do not. If OCT tactics result in loss of my 2A right, I consider them my enemies as well.
An enemy is an enemy.

Side note,
The more I look into results of OCT's actions, the more I wonder if any anti-gun idiots could have been more successful in their endeavor.

As to Walmart, again, I think respectful CHL holders will show their license and carry on.
Belligerent fools will try to make an issue out of it.

[cbunt1]

Is TABC demanding Walmart do this? There are 1000s of stores that sell alcohol in the same manner as walmart, and I have not heard of them having this requirement.
If TABC is making this the issue, then the blue unlicensed signs and that force of law need to be legislated out. Who cares if you sell alcohol for off-premise consumption? If you say that hoodlums with guns may try to rob the place because they like alcohol, why don't places like jewelry stores get automatic protection too? I bet thieves like jewelry as much as alcohol.

I don't think TABC is requiring this at all, but having spoken to a few businesses over the years, I think the concern is this: If a licensee (TABC, not CHL) knowingly allows the unlicensed possession of weapons, they could be held liable and/or lose their liquor license. I think this is more of a practical concern for on-premise consumption licensees, BUT I can see where TABC licensees could perceive a risk.

A quick perusal indicates (to me, a non-lawyer) a potential gray area in the law: TABC code requires that they not knowingly allow unlicensed carry. Our CHL does allow us to carry. I think the INTENT of the TABC code is to keep their licensees from a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" attitude, but as with anything left to "discretion" could become an issue. There's really not a precedent that I know of, especially since up to this point all licensed carry has been concealed, and thus "out of sight out of mind" -- in other words, it couldn't POSSIBLY rise to the level of "knowingly" for a TABC licensee.

Remember, we eat drink, live, and breathe this stuff, and discuss the nuances of law constantly. For a grocery store, Wal-Mart, restaurant owner, convenience store, or other proprietor, it's just ONE MORE HASSLE among all the other regulatory hassles of running a business...and being drawn deeper into the controversy by either side will frequently lead them to the easiest decision that makes the noise stop.

Also, keep in mind that when you're working with (or for) the Fortune-500 level corporations, often perception is a bigger issue than reality. The perception of being in the middle of a hot-topic issue that really doesn't affect you directly is something that PR departments at major corporations spend careers trying to avoid. Being a national-chain deep-pocket respondent in an obscure civil suit is something to avoid, and every decision comes down to a dollar-figure (sad reality, but true fact).

We talk about "beating the rqp but not beating the ride," but in a civil sense, as a perceived deep-pocket corporation, defending the ride sometimes costs far more than the actual "rap" and the public relations and goodwill losses (intangibles) can be unimaginable.

Business owners are getting caught in the middle of a fight they didn't start, can't finish, and that quite frankly isn't the top of their priority list. Sometimes there's a bigger picture than what we see at first blush.

[tlt]

Apparently, they are trying to protect their liquor license. No rational person could fault them for doing so. The fact that Grisham and OCT are making an issue of this could well result in Walmart posting 30.07 signs.

The political reality is this. Open-carry has passed and it is no longer unlawful, except under limited circumstances. TPC §30.07(e) provides the same protection afforded to concealed-carry. In 2017, the "Fines for Signs" law will likely be amended to include 30.07 notices and signs. In short, the state and local governments are removed from the open-carry issue.

Not satisfied, the more ardent open-carry supporters now want to force private individuals and companies to accept open-carry. These same people often claim to be the strongest supporters of private property rights, yet when it comes to open-carry, they are quick to abandon that position. As a result of OCT and other "all or nothing folks," many businesses are posting 30.07 signs. Some are also posting 30.06 signs meaning open-carry has cost almost 1 million LTCs the ability to carry self-defense handguns where they have been able to do so for two decades. The more harassment businesses receive, the more 30.07 signs will be posted and, unfortunately, more 30.06 signs also. Now who is the true enemy of the Second Amendment, the company that prohibits open-carry but allows concealed-carry, or the open-carry supporters who's conduct ultimately results in more business banning all handguns?

Chas.

Please NRA,TX step up outreach by contacting some of these folks and drown out the NUTS who are the only folks being quoted here.

"I find it offensive,” said C.J. Grisham, president of gun-rights group Open Carry Texas, who has heard from members who shop at Wal-Mart that they have been asked for permits. “I don’t want to be treated suspect by a place that I’m shopping at.”

He does not speak for me, and 99% of other CHL Holders, heck, hasn't it been established he does not even have a TX LTC? How could he possible speak for TX CHL/LTC holders?

As an Aside, if Walmart has concerns, all they need to do is a simple Attorney General Opinion request to satisfy their concerns. I am betting they will be told to call LEO if they have a concern and not to ask for licenses. This process puts everyone at a disadvantage. In the mean time, if you choose to OC in WM, then simply comply what's the big deal, don't make it worse by antagonizing employees.

Thank you Walmart for at least trying to do the right thing.

[Glockedandlocked]

I have OC'd at Walmart everyday since the 1st, and not one time has anyone representing WM asked me for anything other than "debit or credit".....

I have several options, I can show them my CHL/LTC, or if they persist I can show them my agency ID and tell them get bent, but it is a goodwill gesture on our part to show the card to them, it's no big deal and we are supposed to be the good guys, why not prove it?

Take the high road, and this too shall pass.

[Soccerdad1995]

So the police should pull every car over every day to make sure you have a drivers license? It just makes it look like someone who is open carrying is automatically doing something illegal.

Did I say anywhere that I have some right to be in their store? It was ment as a conversation starter.

Its not about that I have any right to be in there store its the fact they are telling the public they think they have some legal right to even ask.

I guess they are willing to accept the liability of one of their employees walking up to someone illegally carrying and possibly get shot over it. Not something I would do.

It's their store. Therefore they have a legal right to ask and to kick your butt to the curb if you get belligerent about it. They have the legal right to confront anyone who enters their store and to ask them to leave if they are uncooperative.

Why is this so hard to understand? You want to enter my house with a gun on your hip? Show me your LTC or start staring down the barrel of my gun. It's MY property. Not yours.

I would strongly recommend that you not pull a gun on a visitor who is OC'ing at your home and refuses to show you their license. That is likely to end very, very badly for you. Probably best to just ask them to leave and then not invite them back.

That said, if you are talking about in-laws, then I can sympathize...

The only way it ends badly for me is if I miss, and I don't. Obviously you've made some assumptions about where my gun would be and what my state of readiness would be. That would be a bad mistake to make, on your part.

I wasn't questioning your gun fighting prowess. I am sure you are a highly lethal killer.

Bear with me as I walk through the scenario. You invite someone to your home. They show up wearing a weapon on their hip. You demand to see their CHL (this part seems odd to me,, why not just ask them to cover up if it bothers you). They refuse. You pull your (presumably CC'd) weapon and point it at them.

At this point, you are guilty of a fairly significant criminal offense. If you discharge your weapon and kill your guest, you are guilty of an even more significant offense. Either way, things are not going well for you once you pull your weapon. You can't legally pull a gun on someone just because they refuse to show you a license, even if they are on your property.

My recommendation - post a valid 30.07 notice on every door to your house if you are likely to react in this way.

[cb1000rider]

The only way it ends badly for me is if I miss, and I don't. Obviously you've made some assumptions about where my gun would be and what my state of readiness would be. That would be a bad mistake to make, on your part.

One thing for sure: You're very confident.
Personally, I hope this is a situation that I'm never in.

[baldeagle]

So the police should pull every car over every day to make sure you have a drivers license? It just makes it look like someone who is open carrying is automatically doing something illegal.

Did I say anywhere that I have some right to be in their store? It was ment as a conversation starter.

Its not about that I have any right to be in there store its the fact they are telling the public they think they have some legal right to even ask.

I guess they are willing to accept the liability of one of their employees walking up to someone illegally carrying and possibly get shot over it. Not something I would do.

It's their store. Therefore they have a legal right to ask and to kick your butt to the curb if you get belligerent about it. They have the legal right to confront anyone who enters their store and to ask them to leave if they are uncooperative.

Why is this so hard to understand? You want to enter my house with a gun on your hip? Show me your LTC or start staring down the barrel of my gun. It's MY property. Not yours.

I would strongly recommend that you not pull a gun on a visitor who is OC'ing at your home and refuses to show you their license. That is likely to end very, very badly for you. Probably best to just ask them to leave and then not invite them back.

That said, if you are talking about in-laws, then I can sympathize...

The only way it ends badly for me is if I miss, and I don't. Obviously you've made some assumptions about where my gun would be and what my state of readiness would be. That would be a bad mistake to make, on your part.

I wasn't questioning your gun fighting prowess. I am sure you are a highly lethal killer.

Bear with me as I walk through the scenario. You invite someone to your home. They show up wearing a weapon on their hip. You demand to see their CHL (this part seems odd to me,, why not just ask them to cover up if it bothers you). They refuse. You pull your (presumably CC'd) weapon and point it at them.

I don't cc in my own home. If I'm concerned about who is at my door, my gun will be in my hand, out of view behind the door, when I open it. If the person at the door moves for their weapon, mine will be in their face before their hand reaches their gun.

At this point, you are guilty of a fairly significant criminal offense.

Care to cite the law?

If you discharge your weapon and kill your guest, you are guilty of an even more significant offense.

The only way I would discharge my weapon would be on clear provocation. So, again, cite the law.

Either way, things are not going well for you once you pull your weapon. You can't legally pull a gun on someone just because they refuse to show you a license, even if they are on your property.

You can pull a weapon on anyone who threatens you with force. If you don't think a visible weapon presented at your door is a threat of force, then maybe you shouldn't carry a weapon until you learn the law a little better.

My recommendation - post a valid 30.07 notice on every door to your house if you are likely to react in this way.[/quote]
That's an ignorant recommendation.

My recommendation to you would be to stop making assumptions about what I would or wouldn't do and how that comports with Texas law.

[baldeagle]

The only way it ends badly for me is if I miss, and I don't. Obviously you've made some assumptions about where my gun would be and what my state of readiness would be. That would be a bad mistake to make, on your part.

One thing for sure: You're very confident.
Personally, I hope this is a situation that I'm never in.

I chose an example to demonstrate what private property means, and he chose to escalate it into ridiculous scenarios that have no relationship to my reality.

If someone comes to my door in the night, I will be armed and at the ready. After I've determined there is no threat, the weapon will be holstered.