Almost went to jail!!!

[RedOdonnell]

Additionally, I don't believe any serious business owner in Texas hasn't known that OC was coming. It's been covered by every major media outlet since it was signed into law early last summer. Chambers of Commerce, local police, DPS have all been talking about OC and what signs are needed.

For avid shooters and gun enthusiasts, I would tend to agree.

However, many pro 2A supporters do not fall into this category, while many others simply failed to sufficiently understand how to legally prohibit OC on time.

You also assume everyone falls under the spell of major media. Preparing for a recent advertising campaign, I asked ten of my most trusted employees which major media (local & national) they watched most. Even though I have always purchased airtime based on Nielsen / Arbitron analytics, I was surprised when all responded they didn't watch any major media b/c they don't trust a word they're hearing.

The bottom line right now is tolerance and empathy. The average gun owner that I speak to everyday is not exactly on board with OC...at least not yet. And I've asked a lot of customers what they though about the upcoming OC law.

For those who insist on being militant and trying to shove it down a business owner's throat, we run the risk of backlash and animosity from otherwise pro gun supporters.

[GlassG19]

Ruark wrote:

This is awkward.

Yes, for all involved.

I wouldn't OC past that sign, yet at the same time it's not legal. I don't want to get into a face-to-face with a cop.

Not legal/compliant is correct, so it is each person's choice to take it to the next level (Verbal or Written notice). No one (including LEO wants this interaction) but it might be necessary...in order to get Merchants to comply.

But if we take that approach, we won't OC past ANY no-guns sign, 30.07 or gunbuster or whatever.

Correct, as I posted previously, herein lies the danger and it will affect both CC and OC. We shouldn't be in two different 'camps' but apparently that is the sad case. What is going to happen if this isn't sorted out RIGHT NOW while there is focus on it....is this:

Merchants will quickly learn that they can display any type of non-compliant sign, then call LEO to 'notify' (which is NOT the job of law enforcement, but the responsibility of the establishment). OR....someone acting with apparent authority for the establishment will simply say we don't want ANY guns in here" which drags CC into the mix. This does not need to happen.

IF law abiding citizens are required to COMPLY with all applicable law, then MERCHANTS should be too!

There has been a huge failure on the part of pro-gun advocates to EDUCATE or help facilitate the education of businesses prior to OC becoming law. I believe this to be the root of our problems.

And just a message to those who CC...but look down on OC. You'd better get on board...and start supporting ALL pro-gun issues. IF you don't....you are going to quickly find that with certain businesses, you've just been 'flying under the radar'. Let's do all we can to promote OC in the same way we did CC.

Flintknapper thank you!

[RedOdonnell]

I'm going to bet if you state what location the HEB is, you will have members confirm its posted.

BTW, thought I mentioned being at this particular H-E-B last night and wasn't posted.

[jerry_r60]

Quote: "Stunts like this are what give a bad name to open carriers. "

Yep, I am with Keith on this one. If you go looking for trouble (or ATTENTION), you CAN find it. Such behavior is NOT representative of the holders I know - or want to be affiliated with.

So when exactly does one cross the line? The signs were clearly not compliant what if it is a hand written note simply stating no guns? Or a picture of a gun with an X through it? Are you required to treat all anti gun signs as if they were compliant? The law needs to work both ways not just a single path. If business owners do not want OC or CC they need to properly post the correct sign.

I don't think it was illegal to walk past what looks like an "illegal sign." It then became legal notice when the police told him verbally don't OC. If he decides he will go back and try again if the signs are still there it is a Class A misdemeanor because he received LEGAL VERBAL NOTICE.

So the first time through the doors no law broken (if signs are actually what they appear to be), but he has now been warned verbally. Then he says, Iam going back." Now it is a Class A misdeamnor and deserves to be prosecuted if he returns not because of the signs, but because he was verbally warned.

This is not complicated.

First, 2nd, I'm wondering why the police didn't scold the business for NOT having the correct sign?? If a business doesn't want you to OC, then they need to pony up & pay the few extra $'s (legal sign) like we all have for "our rights" to be "legal" where's the hard part??

Assuming the event even took place, maybe they did, we don't have that information one way or the other.

[gljjt]

This will self resolve. After LE goes to the same business that has clearly non-compliant signs to act as their enforcer a few times, I'm sure LE will suggest the business owner put up the correct sign as their response will change. Might tell the owner to tell the customer tho leave!

[WildBill]

This will self resolve. After LE goes to the same business that has clearly non-compliant signs to act as their enforcer a few times, I'm sure LE will suggest the business owner put up the correct sign as their response will change. Might tell the owner to tell the customer tho leave!

[Liberty]

I don't understand why some would want the sign at Freebird's to be upgraded to a legal 30.07. As it stands now it serves as fair warning to OC people that if they come in exposing their sidearms, they will be asked to leave or cover up. A real 30.07 is a demand with possible action on the penal code. No sign at all could result in embarrassment to the unaware of those not knowing Freebirds policy.

[Breny414]

I don't understand why some would want the sign at Freebird's to be upgraded to a legal 30.07. As it stands now it serves as fair warning to OC people that if they come in exposing their sidearms, they will be asked to leave or cover up. A real 30.07 is a demand with possible action on the penal code. No sign at all could result in embarrassment to the unaware of those not knowing Freebirds policy.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This will self resolve. After LE goes to the same business that has clearly non-compliant signs to act as their enforcer a few times, I'm sure LE will suggest the business owner put up the correct sign as their response will change. Might tell the owner to tell the customer tho leave!

This is exactly what will happen. Some open-carry supporters have referred to business owners not following the law when they post a legally insufficient 30.07 sign. The law does not require them to post proper 30.07 signs, nor does the law prohibit a generic "no open-carry" signs. Any generic "no open-carry" sign is merely a warning to people that they can expect to be asked to leave if they enter with their gun showing. There's nothing illegal about that; it's simply the way the business chose to let folks know their gun policy.

Anyone who enters a business with a legally insufficient 30.07 sign runs the risk of being told "no guns" rather than merely "no openly-carried guns." If/when that happens, then that person has been given notice under §30.06 and 30.07 so they better not enter the property again with a handgun.

Chas.

[JALLEN]

This afternoon, I had to run into town, and while doing so stopped by the HEB based center at Hwy 46 and 337.

HEB has a 30.07 sign. The Reel, seafood restaurant, has a sign printed, not compliant, that says under 30.06 and/or 30.07, guns are not permitted in the restaurant. No other businesses had any sign other than the blue unlicensed possession signs. Chic-fil-A, Whataburger, Chase Bank, B of A, McDonalds, Longhorn Cafe and various locals.

I suppose The Reel will ask you to leave if they detect you are carrying, and go from there.

[goose]

I don't understand why some would want the sign at Freebird's to be upgraded to a legal 30.07. As it stands now it serves as fair warning to OC people that if they come in exposing their sidearms, they will be asked to leave or cover up. A real 30.07 is a demand with possible action on the penal code. No sign at all could result in embarrassment to the unaware of those not knowing Freebirds policy.

This. ^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't know why people want to hold businesses "accountable" for a compliant sign. The compliance of a sign is designed to protect the handgun carrier.

Invalid sign: if I saw it, I would comply. If I didn't see it, I am protected from prosecution.

[oljames3]

Golly Gee Whiz, everybody must be tired of football? Why don't we all take a break from what has become a somewhat contentious thread with no clear winner.....and just get along?

The real OC stories start next week when things return to normal and folk wear their guns to work....or not.

Agreed. I'm done reading this thread. Apart from postings by TAM and Charles, it has not be edifying.

As I have since I go my CHL in 2013, I will carry openly where I legally can, conceal as the situation dictates (employer prohibits OC), and disarm only when I must. Reports will be in other threads.

[thetexan]

This will self resolve. After LE goes to the same business that has clearly non-compliant signs to act as their enforcer a few times, I'm sure LE will suggest the business owner put up the correct sign as their response will change. Might tell the owner to tell the customer tho leave!

This is exactly what will happen. Some open-carry supporters have referred to business owners not following the law when they post a legally insufficient 30.07 sign. The law does not require them to post proper 30.07 signs, nor does the law prohibit a generic "no open-carry" signs. Any generic "no open-carry" sign is merely a warning to people that they can expect to be asked to leave if they enter with their gun showing. There's nothing illegal about that; it's simply the way the business chose to let folks know their gun policy.

Anyone who enters a business with a legally insufficient 30.07 sign runs the risk of being told "no guns" rather than merely "no openly-carried guns." If/when that happens, then that person has been given notice under §30.06 and 30.07 so they better not enter the property again with a handgun.

Chas.

Exactly.

My wife gets frustrated with me because I have a direct way of making a point. And my reply to her is that I am simply communicating what needs to be done about some subject and that it goes without saying that it should be delivered in a compassionate, Christian, but unmistakable way so that at the end of the matter proper communication has been delivered.

My point with this subject is similar. We need to hold businesses accountable for their non-compliance to the same degree we are held for ours. Yes we have the right to walk past a non-compliant sign and we should be able to, indeed we are able to. But that is not the best way to solve the problem.

The problem needs to be addressed...everywhere we see it...(read these words carefully) in a mature, proper, effective way. Not an in-your-face, catch-me-if-you-can, I'll show you, you can't make me sort of way. That will probably require support from legislation, discussions with owners, police departments, local DAs, etc.

If we don't address the issue eventually a gun-buster sign will become the defacto 30.07 sign because 'we don't want to make waves'.

We need to make waves, in a professional, mature way and solidify the right we have been given by the state of Texas.

One school of thought is to not bring to much attention to this or it might generate more .06s or .07s. That's is no way to stand up for our right. How is that different from the policy that we shouldn't offend Radical you know whats lest we give them a recruiting tool?

The other school of thought is that expecting and requiring .06 and .07 compliance is not too much to ask.

I fall into the later. There is still work to be done and we should do it...professionally, maturely, calmly, but with resoluteness. Causing a scene is not the way to go. Taking your money elsewhere when you have a RIGHT to the public accommodation by law and according to the law (ie, if they want me to leave then I should expect it to be done by law) is a temporary and probably ineffective way to secure our right.

Then there is the thought that if it is non-compliant and we complain for a change, the change will be to a compliant sign equaling the same result. My answer to that is that is this. If you don't want me in your establishment, show me and the rest of the law abiding gun-carrying citizens the courtesy of respecting the very law you use as your tool to keep me out . They expect us to follow the law, IMPECCABLY, and they should be held to the same standard. We are the only ones with an interest in this. No one else has a dog in the fight.

Professionally, non confrontationally, maturely, resolutely, and always showing gun carriers in the best light.

To quote Forest..."and that's all I have to say about that".

tex

[zero4o3]

If we don't address the issue eventually a gun-buster sign will become the defacto 30.07 sign because 'we don't want to make waves'.

A lot of people are making this argument but here is the issue I have with it. The examples we are looking at are either invalid 30.07 signs or signs that specifically (and politely) request people not open carry. I will admit I could have missed something in this and the other recent threads but I have seen no reports of anyone having the police called on them while OC in an area with a generic gun buster type sign.

In the case of these signs that don't legally prevent but make it clear the owner does not want OC on their property I would suggest that a polite conversation with the owner might go much farther than directly challenging their choice. I might go as far as to argue that the non compliant sign in freebirds is more respectful than posting a compliant 30.07 sign from my perspective at least.

[mojo84]

Golly Gee Whiz, everybody must be tired of football? Why don't we all take a break from what has become a somewhat contentious thread with no clear winner.....and just get along?

The real OC stories start next week when things return to normal and folk wear their guns to work....or not.

Agreed. I'm done reading this thread. Apart from postings by TAM and Charles, it has not be edifying.

As I have since I go my CHL in 2013, I will carry openly where I legally can, conceal as the situation dictates (employer prohibits OC), and disarm only when I must. Reports will be in other threads.

Thanks for the insult. My apologies you were not edified by this thread.

Your contribution was very edifying though.