CBS 11 just announced

[baldeagle]

jimlongley, in response to your comments, my statements are my opinion. OCT entered businesses with unlicensed possession signs. This prompted questions from uninformed people as to why they were not being arrested. The next step was to argue that any sign should be honored because, as the CBS 11 story pointed out, MDA's argument is that the business owner's intentions are clear, regardless of whether or not the sign is compliant. I place the increased scrutiny of 30.06 directly at the feet of OCT for that reason. Obviously I'm fully aware that the bad guys are the anti-gun zealots. I don't blame OCT for them trying to get the law changed. I blame OCT for drawing unneeded attention to it, which is why groups like MDA are now on it like a chicken on a bone.

Others may not see it that way, and that's their privilege.

[jimlongley]

I have yet to see a business that was not required by TABC to post the "unlicensed possession" sign do so. The sign means that alcohol is being sold, not for consumption on premises, by that business, and that it is legal for a CHL holder to carry there under the authority of their CHL, but it is a felony for anyone else to carry there. You won't see that sign on a business that sells for consumption on premises, nor will you see that sign on a business that does not sell alcohol, it is a TABC sign, not a CHL sign.

Just a correction, these are also required to be posted at businesses that make less than 51% of their revenue from on-premise consumption sales. Any restaurant that serves alcohol is required to post them. If they sell alcohol at all, then they must post either the blue 'Unlicensed possession sign OR the 51% red sign, as determined by their license.

True, but: "I have yet to see a business that was not required by TABC to post the "unlicensed possession" sign do so."

[Beiruty]

As if criminals have regard to any sign to restrict having guns on the premisses.

[jimlongley]

jimlongley, in response to your comments, my statements are my opinion. OCT entered businesses with unlicensed possession signs. This prompted questions from uninformed people as to why they were not being arrested. The next step was to argue that any sign should be honored because, as the CBS 11 story pointed out, MDA's argument is that the business owner's intentions are clear, regardless of whether or not the sign is compliant. I place the increased scrutiny of 30.06 directly at the feet of OCT for that reason. Obviously I'm fully aware that the bad guys are the anti-gun zealots. I don't blame OCT for them trying to get the law changed. I blame OCT for drawing unneeded attention to it, which is why groups like MDA are now on it like a chicken on a bone.

Others may not see it that way, and that's their privilege.

Acknowledged, although I would be right up there with others in asking why, since the only licenses Texas issues for possession is CHLs, the OCT carriers were not arrested.

I have emailed CBS11 pointing out that the reason the sign was legislated that way is to ensure that the business owner's intentions are clear. Some have argued, in open fora, that business owners who post non-compliant signage are really in favor of concealed carry and are merely posting the signs to make MDA and their ilk happy. Now that MDA has figured this out, instead of insisting that businesses posting signage in compliance with the law, they want the law changed. I still see only the most tenuous, mostly a juxtaposition of timing, of connections between OCT's activities and MDA's campaign, it could as easily be attributed to CHL holders on here objecting to other CHL holders notifying businesses with non-compliant signage that it was so and being roundly scolded for "ruining it" for others.

As if criminals have regard to any sign to restrict having guns on the premisses.

And that is the rub.

[der Teufel]

There was an article in the Austin paper just after Christmas about this, which specifically named MDA as the complaining party. I've included part of the article below:

"The Moms Demand Action members say some gun owners are “gaming” the system by ignoring a property owner’s wishes if the sign doesn’t fit literally the one-inch letter of the law or violates other specifics.

They showed me numerous screen shots listing establishments with allegedly illegal signs. The assumption, at least based on the Internet conversations, is that an armed customer can’t be convicted of criminal trespass if the sign isn’t technically correct.

“We saw it was being deliberately exploited by ‘law abiding’ gun owners,” Burke said. “From a mom’s perspective, if I’m at the hospital with my child and see a no guns sign, I shouldn’t have to worry that the mom next to me has a gun.”

Volunteers with Moms Demand Action have quietly begun warning businesses with signs that might not comply with the law."

So, while I don't personally agree with OCT's actions, I don't know that they're the offending party in this instance. As noted above, MDA says they're specifically contacting businesses with incorrect signage, and they may very well be the ones stirring up this story in the news. I suspect the opinion writer at the Austin paper didn't stumble upon them all by himself.

[MeMelYup]

There was an article in the Austin paper just after Christmas about this, which specifically named MDA as the complaining party. I've included part of the article below:

"The Moms Demand Action members say some gun owners are “gaming” the system by ignoring a property owner’s wishes if the sign doesn’t fit literally the one-inch letter of the law or violates other specifics.

They showed me numerous screen shots listing establishments with allegedly illegal signs. The assumption, at least based on the Internet conversations, is that an armed customer can’t be convicted of criminal trespass if the sign isn’t technically correct.

“We saw it was being deliberately exploited by ‘law abiding’ gun owners,” Burke said. “From a mom’s perspective, if I’m at the hospital with my child and see a no guns sign, I shouldn’t have to worry that the mom next to me has a gun.”

Volunteers with Moms Demand Action have quietly begun warning businesses with signs that might not comply with the law."

So, while I don't personally agree with OCT's actions, I don't know that they're the offending party in this instance. As noted above, MDA says they're specifically contacting businesses with incorrect signage, and they may very well be the ones stirring up this story in the news. I suspect the opinion writer at the Austin paper didn't stumble upon them all by himself.

And MDA isn't exploiting the law for feel good purposes?

[The Annoyed Man]

Unless you have seen the video, I don't understand why OCT is getting the blame for this. I don't like OCT any more than most on here, but what have they done?

From the OP, it sounds more to me like those who challenge just about every 30.06 sign they see. If one word is wrong, or it's an 1/8" of an inch off in font size, I have seen posters say they will ignore they sign. I really don't agree with that attitude either, but that's just me.

1. OCT is playing fast and loose with 30.06 (the wrong way) every time it is involved in crafting OC legislation. (Just read the wording of HB195 if you don't believe me. The bill is deliberately vague on 30.06.) Their goal is, in part, the elimination of 30.06 exceptions for CHL, because they seem to think that if they "punish" CHLs by the dilution/abolishing of 30.06, then CHLs will be compelled to support OCT's agenda. Why? Because they know deep down, although they refuse to admit it, that when they start open-carrying into places of business, that whatever signage the law requires is going to go up quite rapidly. They claim that OC will not be FAR more motivating to sign-posting than CHL.......which is a perfect example of either childish denial, or intentional deception. And that is why they steadfastly refuse to consider a "30.07" exception for OC.
   
   "30.07" signage would lead to the exclusion of OC from places of business, without affecting CHL; and they would thus lose the leverage they have over CHL. What leverage is that, you ask? CHL holders in Texas amount to some 800,000 people and growing. OCT's membership is maybe 2,000-3,000 tops? Of the members of this forum who have CHLs, polls here have indicated a mixed bag if OC passes. Some would OC all the time. Others would OC on certain occasions. But it seems like most would simply CC with OC for convenience like when it is just too hot to wear a cover garment, or to OC in their vehicles and then cover up when they get out. It also seems like a fairly significant majority of us support OC, even if we probably wouldn't do it ourselves. There is also a large minority that would prefer licensed OC to unlicensed OC - for exactly the kinds of reasons that OCT's boorish behavior compels.
   
   The point is that OCT knows that it can have almost ZERO positive influence over the legislative process, simply because their numbers are too few. I said "leverage" a few sentences above because they need to tap into the power of the 800,000 to accomplish their agenda. The only way that OCT can tap into the political power of 800,000 people is to craft their legislation in such a way as to compel their involvment in it. Their problem is that while a large percentage of those 800,000 support OC in some form or other, they are already able to carry almost anywhere they want, and so the issue is not as pressing for them as it is for OCT.
   
   In fact, OCT's founder/president - CJ Grisham - is a loose cannon who has had his own CHL revoked because of his behavior leading to disqualifying convictions. The truth about CJ Grisham is that HE is a powerful argument for licensed OC. I am supporting unlicensed OC, but when the leader of OCT is himself such a powerful argument in favor of licensing, it is a difficult sell for people like me who want to see unlicensed OC passed, but have to contend with figureheads like CJ Grisham.....who simply should not be found anywhere near a firearm.
   
   That aside, what OCT's membership just cannot seem to understand or accept is that if they would write a "30.07" exception into their legislation, they probably would have the enthusiastic support of the majority of those 800,000 CHLs, and their boorish tactics would be completely irrelevant and unnecessary to their goals. But, they are fundamentally intellectually dishonest people, and they continue to try and deceive over 30.06, because they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that thousands of businesses would post 30.07 signs in short order, while not posting 30.06 signs.....and they can't stand the idea that someone could carry concealed into a business, while they could not OC. So while it is NOT in the interests of gun owners at large, it is in OCT's self-interest to be deliberately vague and dishonest about 30.06. In fact, unlicensed OC which conflates OC and CC under 30.06, without a separate "30.07" exception, is the ONLY way CJ Grisham will ever be allowed to carry a handgun into a business..........and so that is OCT's goal: the fulfillment of ONE man's pursuit, even if it is damaging to the interests of 800,000 others.
2. They are too fecklessly stupid to understand that 30.06 - as much as we may not like the fact of it - is crafted exactly to create a standard that draws a bright line between what is legal, and what is not, so that CHL holders can make an easy decision about whether or not to carry into an establishment. The law is bright and clear on the requirements for 30.06 compliance, both by CHL holders, and by the people who post the signs. This is one of the RARE instances in which the law is easy to understand, AND which protects both the 2nd Amendment rights of CHL holders and the private property rights of business owners. It is actually a rare thing when a law protects the interests of BOTH sides to an essentially adversarial condition. People who want to dilute/weaken/muddy 30.06 want the law to be less clear, less easy to understand, more perilous for CHL holders, and more intrusive against private property rights. Since when is that a goal of the Constitution? When OCT tries to muddy the waters about 30.06, they are in bed with Moms Against Whatever.
   
   They are a hugely destructive force in the march toward full acceptance of the 2nd Amendment by ALL people.
   
   Is that what you want? My guess is that it isn't. I hope my explanation has shed some light on it for you.

EDITED TO ADD: After hitting "submit" on the above diatribe, I realized that I had forgotten to mention what all of this has to do with Open Carry videos and Moms Against Critical Thinking.......

It is the actions of OCT that led to the creation of Moms Against All That is Holy (I'll refer to them as "MA" - Moms Against - in the future for brevity's sake) and their campaign against 30.06. It brought the "issue" to the attention of the people who would go on to found and organize MA, with the help of Bloomberg Bucks. They were vaguely aware - as are most people - that signage existed to prevent bringing guns into businesses, but most (non-CHL) people are pretty ignorant about the specifics of such laws, and the future MA members were specifically surprised (at the time) that such signage did not cover long guns. In fact, most people, even a lot of CHL holders, are not that well educated on the meaning of signage. That ignorance about signage and long guns led the future MA members to ask about handguns, which in turn led them to the discovery of 30.06, which until then had been on exactly NOBODY'S radar except for CHL holders. That in turn led them to the discovery that 30.06's requirements are very specific. And that is what led to the foundation of MA. It is NEVER in the interests of gun-banners when gun-related legislation is very specific worded, because the only way to ban guns from all walks of life is to make the signage law so broadly interpretable as to make carrying a concealed firearm into any business nearly impossible. And that is their goal - to require disarmament to enter ANY place of business, which in effect disarms most people most of the time.....which is the condition that their goal seeks to create.

Now, the people who make up MA did not spring up out of nothing. They have ALWAYS been among us. What HAS changed is that they are no longer ignorant* (see below) of 30.06, and how it actually protects the rights of CHL.......rights which they seek to restrict further. And what is it that led to their "enlightenment" about 30.06 and how it might possibly be used to restrict CHL further? It is the actions of OCT demonstrators who willfully and stupidly carried scary black long guns into places of business - for the purposes of drawing people's attention to those guns. Had the feckless idiots of OCT stayed in their caves playing Call of Duty, and left the real world to the care of grownups, MA would have remained ignorant of 30.06.

* Once they became enlightened about the specific requirements of 30.06, MA based their campaign on a false idea of "fairness" - that it was somehow "unfair" to property owners to require specificity in signage......which is a seductive idea. After all, if they have a private property RIGHT, then who is anybody else to tell them how they must post a sign on their property? However, "fairness" arguments always imply a 2-sided proposition. In other words, for a thing to be "fair", it must be fair to both parties to the transaction. The only way that MA can argue that specific signage requirements are unfair to business owners is to begin from the position that fairness toward the person with the firearm does not count........on the (false) grounds that there is no inherent right to keep and bear arms. You don't have to be fair to the other person, if your proposal does not negatively impact the other person's rights. So, if the other person has no 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, then you don't have to acknowledge that right by using specific, clear, and easy to understand language in the law in a way that respects the rights of both parties to the transaction. You then only have to worry about the rights of the "aggrieved" party. And THAT is the sickness of the gun-grabbing movement backed by Bloomberg's money. Frankly, if he lost his fortune tomorrow and jumped out of the top floor window of a high-rise building, I would hoist a beer in celebration.

What does this have to do with OCT? FROM THE BEGINNING of the OCT protests, CHL holders have been predicting that this would be the outcome—you will find these predictions on these pages—and OCT has equally vociferously denied it, calling us "anti-2nd Amendment" and any other slur against our cherishing of the Constitution that they could dream up from the fetid fever swamp they call "reason". But our predictions have, sadly, come true. What we said would happen, is happening. And it is directly traceable to the actions of OCT.

There's the answer to your question.

[thetexan]

We are a nation of laws, as so many are fond of repeating. And true enough. We are indeed. That means that laws and regulations are to be followed as written. From a civil duty point of view, it is our adequate duty to follow the laws as written. We are under no obligation to go beyond the law. We have no requirement or duty to do 'a little extra' when following the law. We simply have to completely follow all aspects of the law, as written.

This does not mean that we can stretch meanings, push boundaries, fudge applications, or any other form of quasi obedient behavior. The law is black and white and our duty to comply is equally, and to the same extent, black and white.

The 30.06 statute defining the methods of notification (oral, written document, or signage) are some of the most clearly written rules one can find. Any cursory search of any statute or regulation will prove this. Higher courts including the Supreme courts of Texas and the United States have both supported the idea that a legislature's ability to know how to frame their words is fundamental and accepted by default (see Canons of Statutory Interpretations). No less than the US Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that a legislature is understood to have and credited with the ability to say what they mean and mean what they say.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit "unless otherwise defined, statutory words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F.3d 670, 677 (2d Cir. 1994).

As the Supreme Court has explained: "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "[w]hen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: `judicial inquiry is complete.' " Id."Congress is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another." Estate of Bell v. Commissioner, 928 F.2d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 1991).

The 30.06 statute says...

“Written communication” means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language IDENTICAL to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgunlaw), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) INCLUDES the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

The Texas legislature knew what they were saying when they constructed that sentence. They cannot write a rule with that precision and expect that the public will 'deduce' that their intent was to include signage with language 'sort of like' it. Our duty is, and indeed we will be judged by, our adherence to the precision of the law. This does not mean fudging, or being sneaky, or resting our actions on misunderstanding. Nor does it mean that we are restricted beyond what the legislature intended.

1" means 1". No appellate court will uphold a criminal conviction when lettering is 3/4 of an inch. Nor any other discrepancy in the signage. Usually only when there is ambiguity where the appellate court must interpret what the legislature was intending will they make an interpretation. Otherwise, where the law is clear, in all cases I have researched on any subject, the higher courts will uphold the statute as written.

I'm not afraid of applying the statutes, precisely, as written. I won't be deceitful, or try to get away with anything, but I will follow the laws as they are. And I expect, and my experience tells me, that I will be judged by the laws, precisely, as written.

Where there is ambiguity one must use caution. But just because one claims there is ambiguity does not mean that there is, in fact, ambiguity. I have found that 95-98% of all laws that I have dealt with are black and white, unambiguous, and say what they mean and mean what they say.

It is up to each user of the law to be sure he understands what the law does say.

tex

[SkipB]

Well said Annoyed Man

[Charles L. Cotton]

While it is true that neither MDA nor any other anti-gun organization has expressly stated that the campaign to repeal or gut TPC §30.06 is the result of OCT's irresponsible tactics, those are the facts. TPC §30.06 was not even on the anti-gun radar until OCT started carrying long guns into stores and restaurants. That gave MDA and the local Brady Bunch a focal point for their overall anti-gun agenda. Someone then saw Russell's http://www.Texas3006.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and they turned that resource into a plot to "ignore the wishes of property owners."

30.06 signs were not an issue because concealed-carry has not been an issue since 1997. OCT's scare tactics changed that and gave MDA and others a rallying cry.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

While it is true that neither MDA nor any other anti-gun organization has expressly stated that the campaign to repeal or gut TPC §30.06 is the result of OCT's irresponsible tactics, those are the facts. TPC §30.06 was not even on the anti-gun radar until OCT started carrying long guns into stores and restaurants. That gave MDA and the local Brady Bunch a focal point for their overall anti-gun agenda. Someone then saw Russell's http://www.Texas3006.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and they turned that resource into a plot to "ignore the wishes of property owners."

30.06 signs were not an issue because concealed-carry has not been an issue since 1997. OCT's scare tactics changed that and gave MDA and others a rallying cry.

Chas.

Exactly. I would add further that it is OK to be ignorant about the history of this right up until the moment that history has been laid out for your inspection, but it is NOT OK to continue to deny it once you know the history. I do not mean to trivialize the Holocaust, but there is a principle to demonstrate here. Even "good German citizens" denied the Holocaust during the war. But once it became public knowledge, truly decent German citizens were horrified at what they had been ignorant of, and indirectly party to. They then acknowledged it and even today continue to be (correctly) dismissive of Holocaust-deniers. And for their part, Holocaust-deniers are correctly known today to be people of low character and deliberate obtuseness. Similarly, continued denial of the part that OCT played in these attacks on 30.06 would place one squarely in the camp of those who forced the issue and led to MDA's attacks on 30.06. That is certainly NOT a subset of people that anybody who values their personal integrity would want to be a part of.

If you read the threads that Charles himself started in the past few months, including one in which he invited CJ Grisham and others in OCT to respond and have an open discussion on OCT's intentions regarding Open Carry legislation and the preservation of 30.06, you will see that OCT was deliberately evasive. Grisham and others were deliberately mendacious when they did comment, even in the face of irrefutable evidence, and finally refused to answer questions that were point blank and specific.

They are a pack of liars, and liars should never be trusted with the preservation of ANY Constitutional right, let alone one that is so foundational as the 2nd Amendment.

[Beiruty]

I have a suspicion that some pro-CHL employee or owners may use a non-compliant 30.06 as kind of warning or asking but not requesting the CHLer not to carry to satisfy a corporate policy.
Also, when concealed means exactly that, some would ignore any sign regardless if it is enforceable by law. If 30.06 is modified or repealed more of those CHLers would increase their ignorance of "small" signs.

And for those idiots Moms, Can they produce number of ND in private businesses per year, we have more than 810,000 CHLer. if 1 or 2 or even 4 ND per year that is still less than 0.5 :100,000 a very negligible rate.

[thetexan]

I have a suspicion that some pro-CHL employee or owners may use a non-compliant 30.06 as kind of warning or asking but not requesting the CHLer not to carry to satisfy a corporate policy.
Also, when concealed means exactly that, some would ignore any sign regardless if it is enforceable by law. If 30.06 is modified or repealed more of those CHLers would increase their ignorance of "small" signs.

And for those idiots Moms, Can they produce number of ND in private businesses per year, we have more than 810,000 CHLer. if 1 or 2 or even 4 ND per year that is still less than 0.5 :100,000 a very negligible rate.

I have suspected that for a long time. It's a way to let the general public know that the business doesn't want guns while at the same time knowing that CHLs will come in anyway. It's a way to be politically correct outwardly while receiving the benefits of CHL carriers at the same time.

tex

[fickman]

The only silver lining I can see is: luckily, if you follow the Nielsen ratings for DFW at all, you know that nobody watches CBS 11.

[Right2Carry]

Unless you have seen the video, I don't understand why OCT is getting the blame for this. I don't like OCT any more than most on here, but what have they done?

From the OP, it sounds more to me like those who challenge just about every 30.06 sign they see. If one word is wrong, or it's an 1/8" of an inch off in font size, I have seen posters say they will ignore they sign. I really don't agree with that attitude either, but that's just me.