TexasCHLforum.com

There is a very popular restaurant on 7th street that has decided that, rather than posting 30.07, they are just instructing their servers to refuse service to open carriers until they return their weapon to the car. That's effective notice, but it sure puts the server at odds with the patron. It would be easier just to post 30.07.

kg5ie wrote:There is a very popular restaurant on 7th street that has decided that, rather than posting 30.07, they are just instructing their servers to refuse service to open carriers until they return their weapon to the car. That's effective notice, but it sure puts the server at odds with the patron. It would be easier just to post 30.07.

Where? Why no name?

Given how the law is written, they can do that. What is the strategy to resist it?

There isn't one that I have heard about. Once you have notice, you must leave or commit a crime.

Nothing you can do about it, except boycott which, if you insist on being armed, that is what the business wants.

"servers to refuse service to open carriers until they return their weapon to the car. "

Therefore, they're a 30.06 location too?

Relative works there. Don't want to get her in trouble.

Abraham wrote:"servers to refuse service to open carriers until they return their weapon to the car. "

Therefore, they're a 30.06 location too?

Only if one is a sloppy CC'er!

kg5ie wrote:Relative works there. Don't want to get her in trouble.

I can respect this, but we need to know, or at least make it over to texas3006.com and add it to the list so we can all avoid the issue. Who wants to wait for a table only to be treated like a homeless leper upon seating..

Abraham wrote:"servers to refuse service to open carriers until they return their weapon to the car. "

Therefore, they're a 30.06 location too?

No. No signs posted if I understand correctly. How would the server know you were carrying if your weapon is concealed?

Is this the restaurant

Tracker wrote:Is this the restaurant

Doesn't seem to jive with the location the OP gave.

Given how the law is written, they can do that. What is the strategy to resist it?

Simple, this is where a well written (respectful) letter to the ownership is delivered in hopes of changing their position, planting a seed or addressing their concerns.

If their position is firm and they continue to resort to using 'verbal notification' (in order to avoid the big ugly sign), then you organize a large group of OC'ers to visit the restaurant (one by one...so there can be no 'group notice') and let the establishment turn them all away.

Each person, tastefully dressed, each person respectful and non-combative.

Let the 'staff' spend a couple of hours refusing service (for all to see) and see if that is the kind of attention the establishment wants.

Pretty sure the media would love to cover that one. And yes, I recognize the risks involved.

This is in no way 'heavy handed' but would serve to show the public that normal, law abiding citizens (much like themselves) are being turned away for simply exercising a lawful activity.

It would clearly highlight the intentions of the establishment (which is their right, of course), but the public might not find their position as palatable as the food there.

If no action to resolve this is ever taken.......then I guess we can just wait for the legislature to 'baby step' us though the issues for the next 20 years.

Get on board folks, do what you can.

This post is meaningless until the place is named in my opinion.

I bet the Hostess will not seat you if you are OC'ing. I doubt if it happens once seated.
If they wanna be 30.07 then they should post a proper 30.07 sign.

Deleted this post as I posted it in the wrong thread, DOH!