walmart asking for chl

[mojo84]

Nice try. Why would they need metal detectors for openly carried guns? The fact you said they would need metal detectors specifically implies concealed carry of handguns..

No you need them specifically to find guns. i just OC'd to Walmart, they did not notice an obvious Glock on my belt. OMG they are going to lose their license now. My bad.

And I found another ERROR in that email. Holy cow that guy is wrong on just about everything he wrote.

"if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises"

See it? yeah ALL handguns are unlicensed in Texas.

How do you know they did not notice it? Now you are playing word games and picking nits. It's obvious what he or she meant about licensed handgun. That's the kind tactics and game playing that reflects poorly on us all.

[parabelum]

I really wasn't going to chime in on this anymore, as we've already had plethora of intelligent posts depicting what a proper and mature response to a business ought to be with respect to this topic...BUT, discussing this ad infinitum serves no purpose other than giving anti-2A more potential material.

[mojo84]

I really wasn't going to chime in on this anymore, as we've already had plethora of intelligent posts depicting what a proper and mature response to a business ought to be with respect to this topic...BUT, discussing this ad infinitum serves no purpose other than giving anti-2A more potential material.

Appreciate the rebuke. However, I do believe we need to make sure accurate info is out there and it needs to come from US. As long as people jump in an add incorrect info, it needs to be addressed.

[parabelum]

I really wasn't going to chime in on this anymore, as we've already had plethora of intelligent posts depicting what a proper and mature response to a business ought to be with respect to this topic...BUT, discussing this ad infinitum serves no purpose other than giving anti-2A more potential material.

Appreciate the rebuke. However, I do believe we need to make sure accurate info is out there and it needs to come from US. As long as people jump in an add incorrect info, it needs to be addressed.

Agree 100%.

However, my opinion is that we have already disseminated accurate info, page after page.

What is unclear?

If you go to WM AND you OC, when asked for your CHL/LTC by an employee, kindly comply and move on.
If you don't wish to do that, then shop elsewhere or CC only. The End.

[mojo84]

I really wasn't going to chime in on this anymore, as we've already had plethora of intelligent posts depicting what a proper and mature response to a business ought to be with respect to this topic...BUT, discussing this ad infinitum serves no purpose other than giving anti-2A more potential material.

Appreciate the rebuke. However, I do believe we need to make sure accurate info is out there and it needs to come from US. As long as people jump in an add incorrect info, it needs to be addressed.

Agree 100%.

However, my opinion is that we have already disseminated accurate info, page after page.

What is unclear?

If you go to WM AND you OC, when asked for your CHL/LTC by an employee, kindly comply and move on.
If you don't wish to do that, then shop elsewhere or CC only. The End.

Apparently something is since there still some under the impression a property owner can't or won't ask to verify their LTC status of that open carry.

[anomie]

For those of you that think it is a copout, excuse or up to the TABC agent's attitude or mood, here is the response to my direct email inquiry to TABC. I hope you find this post edifying.

Hello Mojo84,
 
Under Sections 11.61(e) and 61.71(f) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, TABC is required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises of a licensed/permitted business. This being the case, retailers should make arrangements to verify the License to Carry of anyone who possesses a handgun on their premises. Ultimately, how each business chooses to fulfil this requirement is up to them, but TABC is required by law to begin cancellation proceedings if a violation is found.

Notice it says they are required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered and unlicensed handgun was brought into the premises.

No it does not say that. Here is what it says:


11.61(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f) or (i), the commission or administrator shall cancel an original or renewal permit if it is found, after notice and hearing, that the permittee knowingly allowed a person to possess a firearm in a building on the licensed premises.

61.7(f) Except as provided by Subsection (g) or (j), the commission or administrator shall cancel an original or renewal dealer's on-premises or off-premises license if it is found, after notice and hearing, that the licensee knowingly allowed a person to possess a firearm in a building on the licensed premises.

Huge difference between knowingly allowing something and not.

Can you expound upon your post as I am having trouble getting your point?

I think he's trying to point out that what TABC stated and what the law actually says may be two different things.

Consider the following situation:

Someone carries into a Wal-Mart, concealed, without a CHL/LTC. Nobody at Wal-Mart sees or knows about it. The person who did this then brags about it on, say, Facebook, and someone at TABC sees it.

If the law actually were "TABC is required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises of a licensed/permitted business", then in the above situation, TABC would have to start permit/license proceedings against the Wal-Mart - because a) someone without a CHL/LTC carried onto the premises and b) that this happened was discovered.

With the law quoted saying 'knowingly', then Wal-Mart has to allow it while knowing both that a) the firearm was carried onto the premises and b) that the person carrying doesn't have a CHL/LTC, and in the above situation Wal-Mart knew neither (a) nor (b).

I think that's why metal detectors were mentioned, if they're on the hook for a cancellation proceeding just because it happened and was discovered, then they would reduce their risk of getting their license cancelled by trying to actively ensure no guns were carried into the store without a CHL/LTC.

Or, for a TL;DR: I think the TABC response may be asserting more than the law actually says.

[mojo84]

There is no need to go on a limb based on a far fetched scenario. Let's discuss this in context. The TABC person responded within the context of my question which was based on the context of this thread.

[Solaris]

I think he's trying to point out that what TABC stated and what the law actually says may be two different things.

Consider the following situation:

Someone carries into a Wal-Mart, concealed, without a CHL/LTC. Nobody at Wal-Mart sees or knows about it. The person who did this then brags about it on, say, Facebook, and someone at TABC sees it.

If the law actually were "TABC is required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises of a licensed/permitted business", then in the above situation, TABC would have to start permit/license proceedings against the Wal-Mart - because a) someone without a CHL/LTC carried onto the premises and b) that this happened was discovered.

With the law quoted saying 'knowingly', then Wal-Mart has to allow it while knowing both that a) the firearm was carried onto the premises and b) that the person carrying doesn't have a CHL/LTC, and in the above situation Wal-Mart knew neither (a) nor (b).

I think that's why metal detectors were mentioned, if they're on the hook for a cancellation proceeding just because it happened and was discovered, then they would reduce their risk of getting their license cancelled by trying to actively ensure no guns were carried into the store without a CHL/LTC.

Or, for a TL;DR: I think the TABC response may be asserting more than the law actually says.

Thank you.

A family member owns several convenience stores, he does not post 06/07. He is not checking LTCs either. He will not be losing his license if "it is discovered an unlicensed handgun [sic] was brought onto the premises". Because he is not knowingly allowing it.

Thus the claim WalMart has to do it to protect their license is bogus.

It is also bogus that "the onus is on the retailer"

and "it seems the TABC is providing an incentive for alcohol retailers to put up 30.07 and 30.06 sign" is also bogus.

These are just opinions by folks who are not in the business of retail alcohol sales and do not know what they do not know.

[anomie]

There is no need to go on a limb based on a far fetched scenario. Let's discuss this in context. The TABC person responded within the context of my question which was based on the context of this thread.

Do you agree that the the following two statements impose different requirements on Wal-Mart:

"If it is discovered someone carried without a license into a Wal-Mart, TABC has to initiate license/permit cancellation proceedings"
"If it is discovered that Wal-Mart knowingly allowed someone to carry without a license into a Wal-Mart, TABC has to initiate license/permit cancellation proceedings"

To me, the first statement is a /much/ lower bar than the second - that's all I'm trying to say.

[mojo84]

I think he's trying to point out that what TABC stated and what the law actually says may be two different things.

Consider the following situation:

Someone carries into a Wal-Mart, concealed, without a CHL/LTC. Nobody at Wal-Mart sees or knows about it. The person who did this then brags about it on, say, Facebook, and someone at TABC sees it.

If the law actually were "TABC is required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises of a licensed/permitted business", then in the above situation, TABC would have to start permit/license proceedings against the Wal-Mart - because a) someone without a CHL/LTC carried onto the premises and b) that this happened was discovered.

With the law quoted saying 'knowingly', then Wal-Mart has to allow it while knowing both that a) the firearm was carried onto the premises and b) that the person carrying doesn't have a CHL/LTC, and in the above situation Wal-Mart knew neither (a) nor (b).

I think that's why metal detectors were mentioned, if they're on the hook for a cancellation proceeding just because it happened and was discovered, then they would reduce their risk of getting their license cancelled by trying to actively ensure no guns were carried into the store without a CHL/LTC.

Or, for a TL;DR: I think the TABC response may be asserting more than the law actually says.

Thank you.

A family member owns several convenience stores, he does not post 06/07. He is not checking LTCs either. He will not be losing his license if "it is discovered an unlicensed handgun [sic] was brought onto the premises". Because he is not knowingly allowing it.

Thus the claim WalMart has to do it to protect their license is bogus.

It is also bogus that "the onus is on the retailer"

and "it seems the TABC is providing an incentive for alcohol retailers to put up 30.07 and 30.06 sign" is also bogus.

These are just opinions by folks who are not in the business of retail alcohol sales and do not know what they do not know.

Glad you have it all figured out. How does your family member's staff of attorneys stack up to Wal-Mart's?

You are welcome to contact TABC and set them straight. After all, they are the one that can pull your family member's permit if he violates their rules.

[mojo84]

There is no need to go on a limb based on a far fetched scenario. Let's discuss this in context. The TABC person responded within the context of my question which was based on the context of this thread.

Do you agree that the the following two statements impose different requirements on Wal-Mart:

"If it is discovered someone carried without a license into a Wal-Mart, TABC has to initiate license/permit cancellation proceedings"
"If it is discovered that Wal-Mart knowingly allowed someone to carry without a license into a Wal-Mart, TABC has to initiate license/permit cancellation proceedings"

To me, the first statement is a /much/ lower bar than the second - that's all I'm trying to say.

I'm done arguing with you guys here that want it the way you want it regardless what the rules and laws say. You can contact TABC yourselves to set them straight.

[HKsig]

Anyone can lie on Facebook/Twitter about WalMart so it can't carry weight to TABC. Anyway I think it's a hassle with them so WalMart just take the bottles and shove 'em up TABC's rear ends and be done with.

How much do you think WalMart's making off alcohol sales? Every time I'm there I hardly seen anyone buying alcohol.

[Solaris]

Glad you have it all figured out. How does your family member's staff of attorneys stack up to Wal-Mart's?

You are welcome to contact TABC and set them straight. After all, they are the one that can pull your family member's permit if he violates their rules.

Don't take it so personal that you were given bogus info.

In order for WalMart and TABC email to be right, everyone else has to be wrong.

If WalMart is right, every other alcohol retailer in the state will either lose their license or start checking LTCs.

That dog does not hunt and does not pass any sniff test.

[anomie]

I'm done arguing with you guys here that want it the way you want it. You can contact TABC yourselves to set them straight.

Really, seriously, not trying to argue. Your question to them had "knowingly" in it, so I think you are taking their response within that context and assuming that their response has an implied 'knowingly' - but it is possible that their response is literally their response, and their response says nothing about knowingly.

So, yes, if you take their response to say "in context" that there's an implied 'knowingly', then they're not saying anything about mere discovery that it happened at some time. They could in fact be implicitly taking your statement of "knowingly" into account in their response. But their response does not /explicitly/ say knowingly, it just says discovered, so they could also be ignoring your context statement of "knowingly". If they'd written "knowingly" explicitly there'd be no question.

(I think they would probably get slapped down pretty quickly by Wal-Mart lawyers if they tried to push a cancellation for merely discovering it happened without Wal-Mart knowing about it - and it may in fact be that TABC wouldn't start a proceeding merely because it was discovered that someone carried onto a TABC licensed premises without having a license to carry - but in the real word, it is *not* the case that government agencies have never forced people into court to fight against something the government agency shouldn't have been doing, so I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to point out)

[WTR]

We had a local news segment addressing Wal Mart managers asking a OCing persons for their LTC. They interviewed a TABC spokesman. He stated it was up to Wal Mart to insure that every exposed pistol was carried by a LTC holder. The spokesman said it was up to Wal Mart to enforce the regulation by any means they deemed fit. However, Wal Mart would be held responsible and their liquor license would be in jeopardy if they failed in their obligation.