Almost went to jail!!!

[gunman40]

I guess I have mixed feelings about all of this.

It irks me that one half of the parties in the contract (so to speak), the sign posting establishments, do not have to post compliant signs. If someone can call the police on OCers why isn't there a way to do something about their non-compliance?

We are expected to live by the specifics of the law, but they don't have to. And, when it comes down to a contest between the two, the establishment is given the benefit of the doubt the offender, who technically is not offending, is scolded, arrested, or worse as if the burden of fulfilling the contract (the law that specifies requirements to both parties) rest solely on the OCer.

That's a sad system.

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? Do we fear they, whoever they are, may take our freedom away from us if we protest too much?

Why should a LEO have anything to say at all to a OCer when he is being completely lawful. IN FACT, IT IS THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS FAILING TO ABIDE BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE LAW!!! Of all people the LEO should know that the OCer has done nothing wrong and rather than making him to feel like a criminal why not advise the establishment to get ITS act together?

The LEO should, if asked by the establishment, give his verbal 30.06 or 30.07 notice and be on his way. I almost want to say how dare they presume to admonish the OCer for doing nothing but following the law as written. That requires the LEO to be solidly clear on the law which most are. Fairness in the application of a law written to and for both parties is not too much to ask.

So I am torn about how to feel about this kind of situation.

To quote Hamlet...."...Thus, conscience, does make cowards of us all. And thus the native hue of resolution, is sullied ore' the pale cast of thought."

And let me add, I am one of those who would rather retreat and fight on another battlefield of legislation and try to make a point in front of a family eating their dinner at a restaurant and make life more difficult for the rest of OCers.

BUT IT TICKS ME OFF THAT IS SHOULD BE THIS WAY!!!

tex

I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point. Everyone should follow the law, whether it is the property owner or the person carrying a handgun. If it had been a legally insufficient 30.06 sign, then one could enter without causing a scene. However, the OP knew or should have known that walking in showing his gun to everyone was going to result in a confrontation of some sort. Obviously, he didn't care. He didn't care if his action was a blight on open-carry on its first day in Texas.

Although walking in in spite of a legally insufficient sign was not unlawful because Luby's didn't comply with the law, he was given verbal notice by the officers. You take offense at the way they talked to him, but there are two issues you need to consider. First, you don't know what was said or how the message was delivered. The OP has his story and I'm sure the LEOs have theirs also. One must consider that the OP has stated on an open forum that he plans to go back and reenter the same restaurant, if a legally sufficient 30.07 sign is not posted, in spite of having received verbal notice. That attitude gives significant insight to his personality and I suspect he was equally unstatesmanlike with the officers as he was with Luby's.

Chas.

what gets me mad is that we have to follow the law as it is written, but businesses with improper signs do not. DPS said in our renewal class 2 years ago that they will not police the signs. maybe we should work on that next session; if the signs are not legal then we do not have to abide by the non legal signs. my 2 cents.

[C-dub]

what gets me mad is that we have to follow the law as it is written, but businesses with improper signs do not. DPS said in our renewal class 2 years ago that they will not police the signs. maybe we should work on that next session; if the signs are not legal then we do not have to abide by the non legal signs. my 2 cents.

Putting up a sign that is "incorrect" or that is not effective notice to a CHL/LTC is not a crime. What would you have the police do, inform them of their mistake so they can put up the correct effective sign?

[mreed911]

what gets me mad is that we have to follow the law as it is written, but businesses with improper signs do not. DPS said in our renewal class 2 years ago that they will not police the signs. maybe we should work on that next session; if the signs are not legal then we do not have to abide by the non legal signs. my 2 cents.

If the signs aren't legal, you DON'T have to abide by the signs. Period.

However, unlike 30.06, where nobody except you knows, with 30.07 walking past an invalid sign will almost always get either a verbal notice (which is valid) or interaction with the police (as detailed in post 1 of this thread).

What would be interesting is a CIVIL fine to those who post invalid signs and call the police department to enforce them, much like people who don't have alarm permits but police respond to their alarms. Post an invalid sign and call the police to enforce it, they will, but it'll cost you $100.

That would at LEAST get correct signs up, which for 30.07 doesn't "hurt" the status quo. In some cases they might come down because the owner doesn't want to post something large and conspicuous enough to be legal.

[mreed911]

what gets me mad is that we have to follow the law as it is written, but businesses with improper signs do not. DPS said in our renewal class 2 years ago that they will not police the signs. maybe we should work on that next session; if the signs are not legal then we do not have to abide by the non legal signs. my 2 cents.

Putting up a sign that is "incorrect" or that is not effective notice to a CHL/LTC is not a crime. What would you have the police do, inform them of their mistake so they can put up the correct effective sign?

For 30.07? Yes. See my post above.

For 30.06? An invalid sign should be treated as "the owner knows it's invalid - it placates the sheep, but we both know I can still carry concealed." I'm fine with all the invalid 30.06 anyone wants to post.

[Pecos]

Code: Select all

Are you kidding me? You have been given notice. The police gave you the verbal notice when they advised they had been called by the business. Stunts like this are what give a bad name to open carriers. :mad5

[Soccerdad1995]

what gets me mad is that we have to follow the law as it is written, but businesses with improper signs do not. DPS said in our renewal class 2 years ago that they will not police the signs. maybe we should work on that next session; if the signs are not legal then we do not have to abide by the non legal signs. my 2 cents.

If the signs aren't legal, you DON'T have to abide by the signs. Period.

However, unlike 30.06, where nobody except you knows, with 30.07 walking past an invalid sign will almost always get either a verbal notice (which is valid) or interaction with the police (as detailed in post 1 of this thread).

What would be interesting is a CIVIL fine to those who post invalid signs and call the police department to enforce them, much like people who don't have alarm permits but police respond to their alarms. Post an invalid sign and call the police to enforce it, they will, but it'll cost you $100.

That would at LEAST get correct signs up, which for 30.07 doesn't "hurt" the status quo. In some cases they might come down because the owner doesn't want to post something large and conspicuous enough to be legal.

Posting an improper sign is not a crime. Filing a false police report is a crime. When a store owner calls the police to report a MWAG and the fact is that there is no valid 30.07 sign (or 30.06 if the owner somehow noticed a CC), then the police should be addressing the store owner who has committed a crime (false police report) and not the law abiding citizen who has committed no crime. Instead of acting as an agent for the criminal by providing effective notice, how about arresting the criminal who called in a false police report?

[tbryanh]

what gets me mad is that we have to follow the law as it is written, but businesses with improper signs do not. DPS said in our renewal class 2 years ago that they will not police the signs. maybe we should work on that next session; if the signs are not legal then we do not have to abide by the non legal signs. my 2 cents.

If the signs aren't legal, you DON'T have to abide by the signs. Period.

However, unlike 30.06, where nobody except you knows, with 30.07 walking past an invalid sign will almost always get either a verbal notice (which is valid) or interaction with the police (as detailed in post 1 of this thread).

What would be interesting is a CIVIL fine to those who post invalid signs and call the police department to enforce them, much like people who don't have alarm permits but police respond to their alarms. Post an invalid sign and call the police to enforce it, they will, but it'll cost you $100.

That would at LEAST get correct signs up, which for 30.07 doesn't "hurt" the status quo. In some cases they might come down because the owner doesn't want to post something large and conspicuous enough to be legal.

Posting an improper sign is not a crime. Filing a false police report is a crime. When a store owner calls the police to report a MWAG and the fact is that there is no valid 30.07 sign (or 30.06 if the owner somehow noticed a CC), then the police should be addressing the store owner who has committed a crime (false police report) and not the law abiding citizen who has committed no crime. Instead of acting as an agent for the criminal by providing effective notice, how about arresting the criminal who called in a false police report?

I am not an attorney, but I am pretty sure that in order for the police to bring charges against the restaurant employee for making a false report, the police need to believe that the restaurant employee intended to deceive them.

The restaurant employee probably told the police that the OCer was disobeying the sign that was posted at the entrance. The employee probably believed the sign was legal notice to the OCer and did not intend to deceive the police.

[JALLEN]

Having a sign is not a requirement for effective notice.

As has been explained a number of times, effective notice can be given 3 ways. A valid sign, a card handed to the gun carrier with the proper wording, or verbal notice.

If you receive effective notice while carrying, you must leave or be in violation.

If you see an invalid sign and enter, and thereafter receive effective notice some other way, you must leave. If you receive effective notice, don't leave forthwith and the cops are called, you have violated the law, no matter what the sign says or doesn't.

Don't fixate on the sign. If "concealed is concealed," and no one knows, fine and good, but that's the chance you take.