New Member asking for a general ltc holder's opinion

[superstar]

Hi all,

I recently received my LTC and I usually don't give my money to businesses that posts the 30.06 and .07 signs. I vote with my money so to speak. My question to all is, if your employer has those signs, does it apply to the workers as well? I think (I only gathered 3 small businesses owner's opinion; nail salon, dollar store and general merchandise) part of the businesses owners thinking is that if the criminal does get caught the signs will just be another penalty added and they are not really expecting the general LTC holders help because they are not LEO. So they let the workers carry. Are they breaking the law or the signs are just for the public?

[bmwrdr]

The employer can make exceptions to the signs posted, no doubt.
Are the employees LEO's or just civilian with pr without a LTC?

[superstar]

The employer can make exceptions to the signs posted, no doubt.
Are the employees LEO's or just civilian with pr without a LTC?

The employees are a mixture of civilians with LTC and without (some are owners of the stores, they don't feel the need because they just go from home to work and viceversa). Would the owner need a written document stating for the employees that it is okay to carry within the premises? just in case the owner dies so the DA won't prosecute them?

[Lynyrd]

Would the owner need a written document stating for the employees that it is okay to carry within the premises? just in case the owner dies so the DA won't prosecute them?

I am not a lawyer, but I would think it would be up to the DA, and every DA would not decide the same way. I will say that I was put in charge of re-writing the weapons policy for the company I work for, and I had to run everything by our corporate lawyer before it was published. Our owners still have the 30.06/30.07 signs up, but they will grant permission to carry to employees who submit a copy of their LTC. In this way they keep a list of who can carry on the premises. It has to stay concealed, and I keep two copies of my permission for my own protection should the question ever arise. One in the office, and one at home.

[RPBrown]

If the business is posted 30.06 or 30.07, then any LTC holder may not enter the building without consent of the owner or person in charge of the business. As has been posted before, most of us would prefer that consent be written just to cover your 6

[mr1337]

Hi all,

I recently received my LTC and I usually don't give my money to businesses that posts the 30.06 and .07 signs. I vote with my money so to speak. My question to all is, if your employer has those signs, does it apply to the workers as well? I think (I only gathered 3 small businesses owner's opinion; nail salon, dollar store and general merchandise) part of the businesses owners thinking is that if the criminal does get caught the signs will just be another penalty added and they are not really expecting the general LTC holders help because they are not LEO. So they let the workers carry. Are they breaking the law or the signs are just for the public?

Owners can always grant permission for anyone to carry past their 30.06/30.07 signs.

30.06/30.07 don't cause additional charges against someone unless that person has an LTC. LTC holders are the least likely of people to be committing crimes. To post these signs for that reason is stupid.

[Lynyrd]

Owners can always grant permission for anyone to carry past their 30.06/30.07 signs.

30.06/30.07 don't cause additional charges against someone unless that person has an LTC. LTC holders are the least likely of people to be committing crimes. To post these signs for that reason is stupid.

Maybe not stupid, maybe just ignorant when it comes to guns, gun laws, and knowledge about people who carry. But there are ignorant people, and there always will be.

[KLB]

If the business is posted 30.06 or 30.07, then any LTC holder may not enter the building without consent of the owner or person in charge of the business. As has been posted before, most of us would prefer that consent be written just to cover your 6

I agree. Except maybe for a quick in and out, I would not rely on oral permission to override a posted sign. Even for a quick in and out, I'd prefer a witness.

[superstar]

Hi all,

I recently received my LTC and I usually don't give my money to businesses that posts the 30.06 and .07 signs. I vote with my money so to speak. My question to all is, if your employer has those signs, does it apply to the workers as well? I think (I only gathered 3 small businesses owner's opinion; nail salon, dollar store and general merchandise) part of the businesses owners thinking is that if the criminal does get caught the signs will just be another penalty added and they are not really expecting the general LTC holders help because they are not LEO. So they let the workers carry. Are they breaking the law or the signs are just for the public?

Owners can always grant permission for anyone to carry past their 30.06/30.07 signs.

30.06/30.07 don't cause additional charges against someone unless that person has an LTC. LTC holders are the least likely of people to be committing crimes. To post these signs for that reason is stupid.

They said because you have been vetted to have an LTC does not mean you will not commit a crime (that lawyer in Houston that shot people during the summer had an LTC, the shooter in Orlando had a permit from the Government, not sure which permit he had, they mentioned he had one in the news). They know that it is not a deterrent for criminals, they just hope to add more charges if someone does commit a crime.

[Flightmare]

Hi all,

I recently received my LTC and I usually don't give my money to businesses that posts the 30.06 and .07 signs. I vote with my money so to speak. My question to all is, if your employer has those signs, does it apply to the workers as well? I think (I only gathered 3 small businesses owner's opinion; nail salon, dollar store and general merchandise) part of the businesses owners thinking is that if the criminal does get caught the signs will just be another penalty added and they are not really expecting the general LTC holders help because they are not LEO. So they let the workers carry. Are they breaking the law or the signs are just for the public?

Owners can always grant permission for anyone to carry past their 30.06/30.07 signs.

30.06/30.07 don't cause additional charges against someone unless that person has an LTC. LTC holders are the least likely of people to be committing crimes. To post these signs for that reason is stupid.

They said because you have been vetted to have an LTC does not mean you will not commit a crime (that lawyer in Houston that shot people during the summer had an LTC, the shooter in Orlando had a permit from the Government, not sure which permit he had, they mentioned he had one in the news). They know that it is not a deterrent for criminals, they just hope to add more charges if someone does commit a crime.

That is correct. Just because you have an LTC, does not rule you out for future crimes. Statistically speaking though, LTCs are far less likely to commit a crime than the general public, or even law enforcement. That being said, just because they post a sign on a door does not keep a person who is willing to do harm to people from entering. It merely means that the person willing to do harm now knows that it is likely he/she will not encounter any resistance, just like in Orlando.

[satcong]

1.
The risk of someone with a Texas LTC committing armed robbery (aggravated robbery) is very low, comparable to the risk a Texas Police Officer committing aggravated robbery. Most people who commit aggravated robbery have a criminal history that prohibits them from getting a LTC and, in many cases, prohibits them from possessing a gun under Federal law.

2.
The maximum penalty for violating a 30.06 sign is "a fine not to exceed $200." The maximum penalty for aggravated robbery is "imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life." Anybody who thinks the risk of a $200 fine makes a difference to someone committing aggravated robbery should post a different sign.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

They said because you have been vetted to have an LTC does not mean you will not commit a crime (that lawyer in Houston that shot people during the summer had an LTC, the shooter in Orlando had a permit from the Government, not sure which permit he had, they mentioned he had one in the news). They know that it is not a deterrent for criminals, they just hope to add more charges if someone does commit a crime.

As I recall, Orlando shooter was a security guard, and had an armed security cert. I don't recall any mention that he had a Florida (civilian) license to carry.

[superstar]

http://archive.tcpalm.com/news/special/ ... 80071.html

[thetexan]

There are two issues at play here...

1. The employer's authority to restrict employees from carrying a gun in his place of business.

2. 30.06/30.07 restrictions on non-employees.

While these two are different they often overlap in effect.

An employer may restrict employees and non-employees alike with the 30.06/30.07 method. Or the employer may restrict his employees only using his own method. One of several possibilities exist...

1. employees no using own method/non-employees no using 30.06/30.07
2. employees no using own method/non-employees yes by lack of 30.06/30.07
3. employees yes with employer consent/non-employees no by 30.06/30.07
4. employees yes with employer consent/non-employees yes by lack of 30.06/30.07
5. employees AND non-employees no by 30.06/30.07

among others.

Anytime the 30.06/30.07 mechanism is used there must be a lack of consent along with notification. Keep in mind that the notification spelled out in 30.06/30.07 is a notification of the owner's lack of consent. So, of course, it follows that if there is, actually, consent, then there is no lack of consent to notify of!

If there is ever consent or effective consent then there is no 30.06/30.07 prohibition. So there can be a general public prohibition while having an employee permission. And visa versa. The key is the actual status of the consent or effective consent of the owner...that's is...whether it is given or withheld.

In fact the owner of a business can post a 30.06/30.07 sign and then let every other person have his consent to walk past the sign and withhold his consent with every other person...arbitrarily...for any reason or no reason at all. People with shorts can come in...people with blue jeans can't come in...using his discretion under the trespass/owner sovereignty doctrine. His consent is his to give or withhold at will and at whim, for any reason or no reason at all. As long as he does not discriminate in violation of state and federal statutes.

I doubt he could successfully single one employee out over another however. Perhaps because he believes one employee is reckless maybe.

The point is that in either of the above two cases what is paramount to the analysis is the state of the owners consent or effective consent concerning an employee or non-employee...that is...whether it is specifically, personally, or generally given or withheld, regardless of signage or employment handbooks.

WARNING WILL ROBINSON!!!!

Being able to prove that you have the consent of the owner in the face of signage and employment handbooks prohibiting to the contrary is a separate and important subject. Always cover your butt if possible.

tex