Sign Changes - why?

[chasfm11]

My pet store is next to a Sprouts Farmer's Market. Sprouts used to have the light color on clear glass 30.06, 07, & 05 signs. They were on the sliding entrance doors where they could not be read when the doors were open. It was what I considered barely meeting the TPC requirement for contrasting letters. I was surprised to see clear and prominent signs with white backgrounds where are nearly impossible to miss.

Similarly, when I went to Whole Foods (I don't shop there - I was dropping off an Amazon return), I was surprised to see a large, clearly complaint 30.06 sign instead of the word salad composite 30.06-07 sign that they had. The most interesting part, at least to me, was a leading paragraph that says that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (Section 61.11) says that it is illegal to carry any gun that isn't licensed.

For me, these situations beg a couple of questions.

1. After years of sort of making up their own rules, these businesses are suddenly crossing their "t's and dotting their i's" Why?

2. Given Whole Food's sudden close adherence to the TPC, do they believe that TABC over-rules Constitutional Carry - and why?

[RoyGBiv]

2. Given Whole Food's sudden close adherence to the TPC, do they believe that TABC over-rules Constitutional Carry - and why?

Just my guess....

"Not everyone understands the rules as clearly as us, especially not corporate lawyers from California"...

I'm a little surprised that TABC hasn't required establishments that sell alcohol to take down their "... unlicensed carry..." blue signs... If TABC isn't enforcing the correct rules, I'm not surprised when non-domestic (non-Texas-based) corporations don't do it correctly either...

[chasfm11]

2. Given Whole Food's sudden close adherence to the TPC, do they believe that TABC over-rules Constitutional Carry - and why?

Just my guess....

"Not everyone understands the rules as clearly as us, especially not corporate lawyers from California"...

I'm a little surprised that TABC hasn't required establishments that sell alcohol to take down their "... unlicensed carry..." blue signs... If TABC isn't enforcing the correct rules, I'm not surprised when non-domestic (non-Texas-based) corporations don't do it correctly either...

To further the discussion,

I suggest that the lawyers advising Whole Foods DO understand the rules as well as we do. We all understand that there is no case law for many of the provisions in the TPC related to handguns. So we are all left to read the exact words used. The fact that Whole Foods (and others) have changed their signs suggests that new scrutiny is given to that wording since I'm not aware of any court action that would cause that focus.

We saw the expansion of signs after OC was passed. Some of those signs have gone away since, suggesting that the businesses no longer see a "threat" One of my favorite examples is a local Tex-Mex restaurant who posted a 30.07 sign back in a corner of their entrance were it would never past muster for being prominently displayed. It is has disappeared. I wouldn't consider walking in their OC and I believe they have figured out that their establishment is an unlikely place for that to happen and have removed the sign. Several of the places with 30.06 signs have taken them down. I'm not aware of a similar catalyst that would again bring a focus on signs.

I've also argued that TABC is a deliberate "in your face" to the Texas Legislature over Constitutional Carry. I haven't heard a good argument for why places lie Wal-Mart still have the TABC signs up since I believe that the legal departments for large stores are careful about what they recommend Entrance space is important and they wouldn't be allocating it to the TABC signs if there wasn't a good reason.

[RoyGBiv]

I haven't heard a good argument for why places lie Wal-Mart still have the TABC signs up since I believe that the legal departments for large stores are careful about what they recommend Entrance space is important and they wouldn't be allocating it to the TABC signs if there wasn't a good reason.

Interesting observation.... something I've not considered before...

I've considered talking to management in a few places I frequent but decided it wasn't my job to explain gun laws to grocery store managers... Seemed futile. Easier to just carry on.

[chasfm11]

I've considered talking to management in a few places I frequent but decided it wasn't my job to explain gun laws to grocery store managers... Seemed futile. Easier to just carry on.

I believe that discussions with store management on gun topics are dependent on the amount of individual control that the managers have. I n places lie Wal-Mart, I would suggest that the answer is "none." Sprouts, Whole Foods and Chuc E.Cheese are a waste of time for that conversation. An independent grocer may be receptive.

I'm expecting that other Whole Foods locations, for example, have the same sign as I saw. IF they don't, it severely undermines my expectation that they are not independent. I rarely have time enough in my local trips to seek out other locations for stores from the anti-gun chains to see if they are following the corporate playbook but it might be interesting to understand. I doubt that there is a Wally's store manager anywhere who can explain the TABC sign other than "they told us to put it up."

[Tex1961]

I've considered talking to management in a few places I frequent but decided it wasn't my job to explain gun laws to grocery store managers... Seemed futile. Easier to just carry on.

I believe that discussions with store management on gun topics are dependent on the amount of individual control that the managers have. I n places lie Wal-Mart, I would suggest that the answer is "none." Sprouts, Whole Foods and Chuc E.Cheese are a waste of time for that conversation. An independent grocer may be receptive.

I'm expecting that other Whole Foods locations, for example, have the same sign as I saw. IF they don't, it severely undermines my expectation that they are not independent. I rarely have time enough in my local trips to seek out other locations for stores from the anti-gun chains to see if they are following the corporate playbook but it might be interesting to understand. I doubt that there is a Wally's store manager anywhere who can explain the TABC sign other than "they told us to put it up."

I think you have the gist of it.
Most just don't any any idea of what the signs are for and I would say the vast majority have no clue that the TABC blue is no longer valid. Only once have I had to confront a store manager about a TABC red (51%). After confirming that they did not make 51% or more of their income on alcohol for onsite consumption I explained to them that their restaurant was not a red location and that they needed to remove the sign. Which the promptly did.. Had they not I would have let them know that I would be contacting the TABC and they could be in serious trouble for posting that sign illegally.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

TABC 61.11 was repealed by passage of HB1927, so the joke's on them (Sprouts, Whole Foods, etc.) and their sign vendor......

[chasfm11]

TABC 61.11 was repealed by passage of HB1927, so the joke's on them (Sprouts, Whole Foods, etc.) and their sign vendor......

Perhaps not. The joke is really on the Texas public as the businesses enforce laws that don't exist - and get away with it. TABC seems to diowhat it wants to do. Back when OC came out, a number of businesses posted a 30.07 sign saying that they could lose their alcohol license over an incident where the police were called because someone showed up with a visible gun. An owner told me that they were required to report police calls and it was up to TABC whether any action was taken against the business. He said that hew wasn't going to take that risk. He was personally a "gun guy" and I didn't believe that he was the type to make that kind of stuff up.

I will say that TABC's enforcement of their own rules seems lax. I reported a gas station for posting a 51% sign two years ago and that sign is still there. The website said gun sign = blue, not red. Giien everything else that is going on in Texas politics now, I hope that you will forgive me if I believe the conspiracy theory that the administrative part of the government like TABC and CPS are out to undermine the Legislature whenever they can. I saw the same kind of 61.11 signage at Texas Motor Speedway so its use is pretty universal.

[jmorris]

TABC 61.11 was repealed by passage of HB1927, so the joke's on them (Sprouts, Whole Foods, etc.) and their sign vendor......

Perhaps not. The joke is really on the Texas public as the businesses enforce laws that don't exist - and get away with it. TABC seems to diowhat it wants to do. Back when OC came out, a number of businesses posted a 30.07 sign saying that they could lose their alcohol license over an incident where the police were called because someone showed up with a visible gun. An owner told me that they were required to report police calls and it was up to TABC whether any action was taken against the business. He said that hew wasn't going to take that risk. He was personally a "gun guy" and I didn't believe that he was the type to make that kind of stuff up.

The blue sign is an unenforceable sign that means nothing, does not exist in law anymore, and has no penalty for displaying so why would they bother to put effort into removing them? And why would TABC care about a sign that means nothing? When they become ratty or the window space is needed for something else they'll come down.

I will say that TABC's enforcement of their own rules seems lax. I reported a gas station for posting a 51% sign two years ago and that sign is still there. The website said gun sign = blue, not red. Giien everything else that is going on in Texas politics now, I hope that you will forgive me if I believe the conspiracy theory that the administrative part of the government like TABC and CPS are out to undermine the Legislature whenever they can. I saw the same kind of 61.11 signage at Texas Motor Speedway so its use is pretty universal.

My experience has been the opposite. I've reported four businesses and they've all took down the 51%. At one restaurant I mentioned it to a manager and from his waffle I got the idea they didn't want the big 06/07 signs so put up the 51%. When TABC notified me of the outcome the comment from the restaurant was "fine, we'll put up the 06/07 signs".

[chasfm11]

The blue sign is an unenforceable sign that means nothing, does not exist in law anymore, and has no penalty for displaying so why would they bother to put effort into removing them? And why would TABC care about a sign that means nothing? When they become ratty or the window space is needed for something else they'll come down.

I will say that TABC's enforcement of their own rules seems lax. I reported a gas station for posting a 51% sign two years ago and that sign is still there. The website said gun sign = blue, not red. Giien everything else that is going on in Texas politics now, I hope that you will forgive me if I believe the conspiracy theory that the administrative part of the government like TABC and CPS are out to undermine the Legislature whenever they can. I saw the same kind of 61.11 signage at Texas Motor Speedway so its use is pretty universal.

My experience has been the opposite. I've reported four businesses and they've all took down the 51%. At one restaurant I mentioned it to a manager and from his waffle I got the idea they didn't want the big 06/07 signs so put up the 51%. When TABC notified me of the outcome the comment from the restaurant was "fine, we'll put up the 06/07 signs".

If I'm correct and the TABC signs are being used to force submission by the unknowing public, the TABC SHOULD care. Any time a government agency's name and power are used, it should be done accurately. I see no difference between the scam phone calls that I get with people who claim to be police officers ready to arrest me if I don't pay a jury duty fine (that doesn't exist) and mis-representing the TABC's administrative code. In the example of the blue versus red signs, the TABC is responsible to see that the proper one is used. The "Unlicensed" firearm statement is the same.

Regarding why the gas station is ignoring taking down the red sign, I have my own opinion but expressing it would violate this forum's rules. I admit that the inside store is well stocked with beer but the gas pumps are fairly busy and I cannot believe that they are outweighed by the beer sales.

[jmorris]

........
If I'm correct and the TABC signs are being used to force submission by the unknowing public, the TABC SHOULD care. Any time a government agency's name and power are used, it should be done accurately. I see no difference between the scam phone calls that I get with people who claim to be police officers ready to arrest me if I don't pay a jury duty fine (that doesn't exist) and mis-representing the TABC's administrative code. In the example of the blue versus red signs, the TABC is responsible to see that the proper one is used. The "Unlicensed" firearm statement is the same.

Regarding why the gas station is ignoring taking down the red sign, I have my own opinion but expressing it would violate this forum's rules. I admit that the inside store is well stocked with beer but the gas pumps are fairly busy and I cannot believe that they are outweighed by the beer sales.

YMMV but twice this week I was in establishments with blue signs and had the opportunity to speak to the managers. Both times went something like...

Me: Were you aware that the blue signs are no longer valid and not required?
Him: What signs??
M: The TABC blue unlicensed carry signs on the door.
H: (Reads sign) Why not?
M: Explains
H: Guess when we're not busy I'll get someone to scrape it off.

Now, that's only two out of 10s of thousands but....

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
John Halon

[Soccerdad1995]

If I'm correct and the TABC signs are being used to force submission by the unknowing public, the TABC SHOULD care. Any time a government agency's name and power are used, it should be done accurately. I see no difference between the scam phone calls that I get with people who claim to be police officers ready to arrest me if I don't pay a jury duty fine (that doesn't exist) and mis-representing the TABC's administrative code. In the example of the blue versus red signs, the TABC is responsible to see that the proper one is used. The "Unlicensed" firearm statement is the same.

I have a slightly different take on this. Is it unlawful for me, as a non-lawyer, to dispense incorrect legal advice? Because I believe that is exactly what these store owners are doing by continuing to post nonsense signs referencing non-existent TPC sections.

For example, if I owned a convenience store / restaurant and I post a prominent sign stating that "Per TPC 12.34 it is a felony to not carry a functional firearm at all times while in the state of Texas. Failure to comply is punishable by death", would there be any legal ramifications against me for dispensing obviously incorrect legal advice?

[srothstein]

I have a slightly different take on this. Is it unlawful for me, as a non-lawyer, to dispense incorrect legal advice? Because I believe that is exactly what these store owners are doing by continuing to post nonsense signs referencing non-existent TPC sections.

For example, if I owned a convenience store / restaurant and I post a prominent sign stating that "Per TPC 12.34 it is a felony to not carry a functional firearm at all times while in the state of Texas. Failure to comply is punishable by death", would there be any legal ramifications against me for dispensing obviously incorrect legal advice?

Well, technically it would be illegal for you as a non-lawyer to give correct legal advice too. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on point of view), there is an important clause in the law that makes it legal in cases like this. Penal Code section 38.123 is the law on unauthorized practice of law. It requires that you be attempting to gain an economic benefit when you give the advice. No pay to you, no problem giving advice. While it may work against us in cases like the signs, it works for us every time a friend has something happen and you say they ought to sue the other person. That is legal advice.

[oohrah]

There is a lot of ignorance about signage, especially after Constitutional Carry was passed.

I just concern myself with knowing the law and which signs I can ignore (or comply with).

BTW, I've also had a positive experience with TABC enforcing correct signage.