Saw a "first" today...

[atx2a]

So this was definitely a first...I stopped into The Soup Peddler on 183 in Austin today and they had a gun buster sign on the door that said "See 30.06 and 30.07 of the Texas Penal Code" with a QR scan code that goes to the PC website.

First time I've seen use of a QR code like that. Haha. I was not able to get a picture because several people were standing in front of it.

And of course, I walked right in.

[loktite]

I think that sign deserves asking people to move so you can get a picture !

[JALLEN]

No soup for you!

[Pariah3j]

Couldn't help but think of this when I saw they tried to post notice with a QR code. LOL

[ErnieP]

My wife has been asking to stop and try their soup. That will now not happen!

[sweatmachine]

I saw the Soup Nazi's sign the other day and took a picture of it. Bird's Barber Shop had a similar "ghostbusters" style sign up.

I have to wonder, are they just ignorant and think they're covered here, or are they pandering to their ignorant gun hating customers to make them feel warm & fuzzy and knowingly allowing concealed carry with their unofficial signage?

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

No soup for you!

[The Wall]

In my opinion the posting of any sign that tells you guns aren't allowed is the same as them telling you in person. Just because they don't have the 30.06 or 30.07 sign doesn't give you the right to carry on their premises. Just means you will have to leave when you get caught and you are supporting a business that doesn't want you to be there. No different than having a No Pets sign, or No Shirt, No Shoes, No service sign. IMHO

[sweatmachine]

In my opinion the posting of any sign that tells you guns aren't allowed is the same as them telling you in person. Just because they don't have the 30.06 or 30.07 sign doesn't give you the right to carry on their premises. Just means you will have to leave when you get caught and you are supporting a business that doesn't want you to be there. No different than having a No Pets sign, or No Shirt, No Shoes, No service sign. IMHO

Your opinion is contrary to Texas law.

I wouldn't open carry past a "no open carry" sign, legit or not, mostly because I wouldn't open carry anyway. Concealed is another matter.

[atx2a]

In my opinion the posting of any sign that tells you guns aren't allowed is the same as them telling you in person. Just because they don't have the 30.06 or 30.07 sign doesn't give you the right to carry on their premises. Just means you will have to leave when you get caught and you are supporting a business that doesn't want you to be there. No different than having a No Pets sign, or No Shirt, No Shoes, No service sign. IMHO

What I failed to mention was that I went in, dropped a "you lost my business today" card, and went somewhere else for lunch.

[Jago668]

In my opinion the posting of any sign that tells you guns aren't allowed is the same as them telling you in person. Just because they don't have the 30.06 or 30.07 sign doesn't give you the right to carry on their premises. Just means you will have to leave when you get caught and you are supporting a business that doesn't want you to be there. No different than having a No Pets sign, or No Shirt, No Shoes, No service sign. IMHO

I understand not wanting to do business with them. Them not having a 30.06/07 sign does indeed allow me to carry on their premises. Just like if you don't put a sign up that says No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service sign I can walk right in without those items on. Now of course if I get asked to leave that is a different story. Texas law has a requirement for a property owner to keep LTC holders from carrying on his property. It is the property owners responsibility to put those up if they do not want people carrying. It isn't even like the information is difficult to find.

I find it funny that you think a LTC holder should have to obey the law, yet a property owner shouldn't.

[JALLEN]

I find it funny that you think a LTC holder should have to obey the law, yet a property owner shouldn't.

The property owner is obeying law law. A sign is not required, being merely only one of three ways provided by statute to give "effective notice" the predicate for criminal liability to be imposed on the carrier who does not leave upon receiving it.

[Jago668]

I find it funny that you think a LTC holder should have to obey the law, yet a property owner shouldn't.

The property owner is obeying law law. A sign is not required, being merely only one of three ways provided by statute to give "effective notice" the predicate for criminal liability to be imposed on the carrier who does not leave upon receiving it.

The Wall said he thought any no gun sign should be the same as the property owner verbally notifying you. That is not the law, yes the law provides 3 ways for me to receive effective notice. However a gunbuster sign is not one of those 3 ways.

[rotor]

In my opinion the posting of any sign that tells you guns aren't allowed is the same as them telling you in person. Just because they don't have the 30.06 or 30.07 sign doesn't give you the right to carry on their premises. Just means you will have to leave when you get caught and you are supporting a business that doesn't want you to be there. No different than having a No Pets sign, or No Shirt, No Shoes, No service sign. IMHO

What I failed to mention was that I went in, dropped a "you lost my business today" card, and went somewhere else for lunch.

Why did they lose your business? Unless they asked you to leave you could legally carry there. Now if they asked you to leave that's a different matter.

[JALLEN]

I find it funny that you think a LTC holder should have to obey the law, yet a property owner shouldn't.

The property owner is obeying law law. A sign is not required, being merely only one of three ways provided by statute to give "effective notice" the predicate for criminal liability to be imposed on the carrier who does not leave upon receiving it.

The Wall said he thought any no gun sign should be the same as the property owner verbally notifying you. That is not the law, yes the law provides 3 ways for me to receive effective notice. However a gunbuster sign is not one of those 3 ways.

What the Wall says or thinks is fascinating, but not dispositive.

If you see a "gunbuster sign" and walk right passed it, concealed, likely the person with apparent authority will not be aware and have no occasion to provide effective notice, which the "gunbuster sign" by itself is not. If you open carry, you likely will be noticed and given effective notice, game, set, match. In either case, the law has been followed, and complied with.

Jeez, you guys are worse than lawyers!

[Shadow41]

Well, at least they picked a nice picture of a pretty gun for their sign! Sorry, couldn't resist.