TexasCHLforum.com

....opting out of open carry.
http://www.foxsanantonio.com/news/featu ... euSMv-FNLN
This guy voted against open carry.

He says he’s not trying to fight open carry, just help store owners who are opting out with the legal jargon.

So, he voted against open carry and is handing out free signs for businesses to opt out. Who is he trying to fool?

tomtexan wrote:....opting out of open carry.
http://www.foxsanantonio.com/news/featu ... euSMv-FNLN
This guy voted against open carry.

He says he’s not trying to fight open carry, just help store owners who are opting out with the legal jargon.

So, he voted against open carry and is handing out free signs for businesses to opt out. Who is he trying to fool?

I'd have more respect for him if he'd just admit what he's doing. Hopefully it's not tax money paying for the signs...

I saw this on the local news. I hope he is not giving 30.06 signs too.

He is giving both, I guess. However, he would be shunned and it is just a media attention grabber" "see me I am doing something for you idiot sissy anti-gunners". We may make an OC walk in front of his office.

I'd show up for an open carry walk in front of his office if it was set for a time that didn't conflict with my already busy schedule.

If businesses are going to post, I hope they do choose to post his signs. The picture showed them on ordinary letter-sized 8.5x11 paper. We all know what that implies.

I don't see that he's trying to hide anything or fool anybody. He voted against the law, and now is openly supplying 30.06 and 30.07 POSTER SIZE signs. The article clearly states he was holding 1/3 size replicas of the signs he's having printed. It also says he's using his own money.

I don't approve, but I don't see that he's doing anything underhanded.

This is another example of why we don't need to beat each other up over informing businesses about their incorrect signs. Business groups, lawyers, elected officials, and the media are getting the word out. It is not a secret. I expect we will see many more articles like this.

The article accompanying the picture describes the posters. They are the right size with the right wording.

Is there a possibility that under the new law, he, as a "government entity" . . .

Nah, but it's fun to contemplate.

I do hope that the signs he is providing are absolutely compliant with the law.

And I wish there would be a way to identify the signs he provided once they are in place.

Here's our sign.

http://www.learntocarry.com/nogunsnomoney/

My post on the web site:

"I would like to know what "legal jargon" Rep. Bernal is referring to. The law, as written, is clear and concise and there are no grey areas. The law states that to prevent open carry, and or concealed carry, you must post a sign meeting these requirements.

If he was honest about it, this is just a back door campaign against open carry. Any business owner or legal department that is confused about what it is or how it works is probably doomed to fail in business from the moment they open their doors."


Anybody in for a road trip to San Antonio next week to pick up a sample sign?

sjfcontrol wrote:I don't see that he's trying to hide anything or fool anybody. He voted against the law, and now is openly supplying 30.06 and 30.07 POSTER SIZE signs. The article clearly states he was holding 1/3 size replicas of the signs he's having printed. It also says he's using his own money.

I don't approve, but I don't see that he's doing anything underhanded.

No, he's not doing anything underhanded. He simply stated that he isn't trying to fight open carry. He voted against open carry and lost that fight so now he is handing out free signs that he paid for to keep open carry out of businesses, probably ones that he frequents. Who does that if they don't have a problem with open carry? To me, that is fighting open carry. In my opinion he is lying about fighting open carry, and thus my question, who is he trying to fool by saying that he isn't fighting open carry.

(Borrowing an idea from one of the commenters on the OP's article)

If I had unlimited resources (time and money), I'd spend my days visiting small businesses that DO post properly, and offer them a free one of these signs to accompany the existing ones.

I wouldn't waste my time with Sprouts, Hilton, or any of the big corporations - those decisions are made by monkeys far away from here. But the locally owned ones might be more amenable to a friendly, constructive conversation on this topic.

RoyGBiv wrote:Here's our sign.

http://www.learntocarry.com/nogunsnomoney/

I have been printing my own, just like that, for years. As a matter of fact, that card looks exactly like mine, but I don't use different guns, and I have a back side that states:

I have been background checked
I have taken training
I have never been convicted of a felony
I have (never) been convicted of a misdemeanor in the last 5 years

And how much do you know about your other patrons?

I think the NRA needs to adjust this guys score card. Make sure all of his constituents know what he's doing. He should be working on issues that will actually make a difference.

tomtexan wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I don't see that he's trying to hide anything or fool anybody. He voted against the law, and now is openly supplying 30.06 and 30.07 POSTER SIZE signs. The article clearly states he was holding 1/3 size replicas of the signs he's having printed. It also says he's using his own money.

I don't approve, but I don't see that he's doing anything underhanded.

No, he's not doing anything underhanded. He simply stated that he isn't trying to fight open carry. He voted against open carry and lost that fight so now he is handing out free signs that he paid for to keep open carry out of businesses, probably ones that he frequents. Who does that if they don't have a problem with open carry? To me, that is fighting open carry. In my opinion he is lying about fighting open carry, and thus my question, who is he trying to fool by saying that he isn't fighting open carry.

Ah, now I get what you meant. I took the statement about not fighting open carry to be rhetoric, mainly implying he's not trying to fight the law -- repeal it, or subvert it. I think it's pretty clear he voted against it, and doesn't believe it's a good law, so he's doing what he can to mitigate it. If he's fooling anybody, it's only himself.