Do you refuse to do business with 30.06 & 30.07 businesses?

[ScottDLS]

thetexan,

I'm not certain what your point is, but the only thing (beyond lobbying the legislature) I have a good percentage of control over when I encounter a 30.06 posted business is: to go elsewhere...

Someone mentioned visiting a friend in the hospital, but if you're going in to be whittled on, carrying simply isn't an option even if the hospital wasn't posted.

All this venting is kinda fun, but if a business wants to post 30.06 or 30.07 there nothing you can do beyond not giving them your money and that ain't always possible.

Wait, yes it is, you can simply avoid the surgery and die or not visit your friend, but you can't force businesses to not post if they so choose...

Or you can carry a concealed rifle like "NotRPB" does...

[Soccerdad1995]

Soccerdad1995,

I understand your perspective, but businesses will do what they do without my or your input, logic be darned, if you will.

While we can criticize (generally to little affect) we do have the option of shopping elsewhere.

The thing I see by many pro-gun folks is a lack of acceptance that businesses have a right to post yes to guns or no.

Like it - Hate it - It doesn't matter.

I don't think you and I disagree at all. I also don't think there are many pro-gun folks who refuse to accept that a business has the right, under current law, to post yes or no to guns. I find that there are some folks (myself included) who don't think that a business should be able to use the arrest powers of the state to enforce their wishes in this regard. But even that wouldn't restrict them from posting. It would just lessen the consequences if someone missed their sign (this is the idea that the law should be changed to remove the criminal penalty for missing a sign). But even among this group, I think pretty much everyone acknowledges and understands the legal rights of a business under the law as it currently is written, which include this power to use government agents (LEO) to enforce their wishes.

But, we should not confuse having a right to do something with thinking there should be no consequences for your actions. I have a legal right to choose not to spend my money somewhere, and to encourage others to do the same, just like a business has their legal rights.

It's like when an employee of the National Football League wants to assert their right to not stand for the National Anthem. They have the right to do that, and their employer has the right to fire them as a result (assuming they are in a right to work state, etc, etc). Sorry for going on a tangent here, and I may be misunderstanding what you mean by a businesses "right" to post signage, so please do not take this as an attack on you, specifically.

[ScottDLS]

I have exercised my right to refuse to watch NFL football until every team and the League makes standing a condition of employment...

I also attempt to limit my business with entities that advertise with the NFL and those that post 30.06...That's my only legal recourse against properly posted entities and unpatriotic organizations. I exercise it when I believe that making my point is more important to than whatever service/product I wish to purchase/enjoy.

The number of businesses that post 30.06 is very small. I have found very few that I wished to patronize. On the other hand, I suspect that many large companies have policies, views, and values that I find objectionable. However, absent a law like 30.06 they have no legal mechanism for forcing those beliefs on me...so I happily go about my day enjoying Apple products, television shows, Starbucks coffee, etc. When they go far enough to insult me (like the NFL) then usually react with my wallet. I will admit to watching a few Cowboys games, since Jerry Jones made it clear that he would bench any player that didn't stand for the Anthem.

[The Wall]

Only the 30.06 ones.

What's the logic in that?

Well, I can understand why a business wouldn't want open carry. If they have a 30.06 sign that means they don't want any guns inside their business. I answered the question honestly and really don't need to be lectured. I don't open carry so the 30.07 isn't something I worry about.

[Liberty]

I've been thinking about this. There are different levels of being offended. I take 30.06 signs as a personal affront. Thankfully I have seen very few. The few that I've seen are in petro/chemical or medical/hospitals businesses. Both types of places I cross the line and enter unarmed. Some places

[thetexan]

What if the original 30.06/30.07 law as written by the Legislature stated that there would be no open carry at the Costco store in Frisco, the McDonnalds on East Mockingbird in Dallas and all AutoZone Auto Parts. In that case our right to open carry was never given to us in the first place at those locations. Would we hold those owners in contempt for trampling on a right we were never given by the Legislature? No, we would be cursing the Legislature.

But in the present real life situation if those owners exercise a right that has been equally given to all of us, that is, the right to control his own property, by asking us to not carry on their property, why do we have such disdain for them? The state did not give us an ubiquitous right to carry but a limited right. We have no right of carry on the property of someone who doesn't want it. We all know this.

Why all of the contempt for property owners who don't want weapons? Yes, we can choose to take our business elsewhere, but why? Is it to punish the owners in an effort to make them "pay" for their daring to prevent you from exercising a right you don't even have on their property? Is that the motivation? "You can stop me but I'll show you and make you pay the economic price for exercising your legitimate right...my right to carry is greater than your right to stop me.", which is false on its face since our carry right doesn't even exist on privately owned property unless we are given the "privilege" of carrying on the owner's property by his bestowed consent.

It seems to me that the safety issue is more the point than the owner's philosophical difference on guns and our animosity toward him because of that difference of opinion.

tex

[Jusme]

I'm just a drop in the bucket, but after Kroger opened up fairly close to our HEB we have stopped going to HEB all together. Not just because the wife prefers the produce at Kroger, but also because I no longer have to untuck my shirt to go grocery shopping.

HEB is nice and all, but Kroger is equally nice and more 2A friendly.

I've called HEB out on their Facebook page, pointing out that to date no OCer has caused a mass shooting in Kroger. Unsurprisingly they haven't responded. They bill themselves as a bunch of good old down-home Texas loving country folk yet were among the firsts to quickly put up 30.07 signs state wide. Hypocrites.

One of my big problems is with those companies that decided to come out publicly against OC before there was any experience that could show there might be issues, and in some cases, well before the law even went into effect. Whataburger is a big offender here, IMHO. I have no idea what they were trying to accomplish with their immediate reaction. It's not like they were in danger of losing customers to competitors since all the other fast food places took the more responsible approach of waiting to make a decision after evidence was available, post 1/1/16. I feel similarly about HEB, and I definitely make an effort to avoid both of those companies' locations.

I think the majority of the companies that chose to post 30.07 so quickly were pressured by groups like MDA, and were actually persuaded that if they didn't post, two things would happen. First they would be subjected to massive boycotts, which would never have happened there weren't enough members to pull that off, and second their businesses would be overrun by camo wearing mouth breathers carrying everything form slingshots to RPG, into their businesses. Some of the "in your face" open carry demonstrators didn't help because the media instantly gave them plenty of air time carrying AR 15's and AK 47's which had absolutely nothing to do with the Open Carry law.

[Teamless]

Why all of the contempt for property owners who don't want weapons?

Its not contempt from my point of view
It is, as you say, exercising my right to choose who gets my hard earned money.

Much like when Dixie Chicks made the anti-Bush statements in England and at that point most (that I knew) radio stations stopped playing them and I (1 of many) stopped buying or listening to their music

The shop makes a choice and we make a choice
Sometimes the choices made are down the same road, but sometimes they go opposite directions

We ALL have to live with our choices and taking away my rights to self defense, may one day make me 'not live' and I cannot accept that

[Jusme]

What if the original 30.06/30.07 law as written by the Legislature stated that there would be no open carry at the Costco store in Frisco, the McDonnalds on East Mockingbird in Dallas and all AutoZone Auto Parts. In that case our right to open carry was never given to us in the first place at those locations. Would we hold those owners in contempt for trampling on a right we were never given by the Legislature? No, we would be cursing the Legislature.

But in the present real life situation if those owners exercise a right that has been equally given to all of us, that is, the right to control his own property, by asking us to not carry on their property, why do we have such disdain for them? The state did not give us an ubiquitous right to carry but a limited right. We have no right of carry on the property of someone who doesn't want it. We all know this.

Why all of the contempt for property owners who don't want weapons? Yes, we can choose to take our business elsewhere, but why? Is it to punish the owners in an effort to make them "pay" for their daring to prevent you from exercising a right you don't even have on their property? Is that the motivation? "You can stop me but I'll show you and make you pay the economic price for exercising your legitimate right...my right to carry is greater than your right to stop me.", which is false on its face since our carry right doesn't even exist on privately owned property unless we are given the "privilege" of carrying on the owner's property by his bestowed consent.

It seems to me that the safety issue is more the point than the owner's philosophical difference on guns and our animosity toward him because of that difference of opinion.

tex

I agree with you that we only carry on others property, because they have not prohibited it. I have no disdain for property owners who choose to prohibit carrying, that is, as you said their right. However, we also have the right to refuse to do business with those who post. I don't expect places like Babies R Us to lose money because I refuse to shop there, I wouldn't shop their anyway, because I don't have any babies. I doubt that even if every LTC holder quit patronizing posted businesses, they would suddenly change their minds due to financial reasons, because we only represent 4% of the overall population.

I think the main animosity comes from the fact that before open carry was passed, most of these businesses, did not post any signage, and never had a problem with CC, but suddenly they not only prohibit, OC, but CC as well. Again, they are well within their rights to do so, but I, along with a lot of other people, believe that they were given bad information, and were frightened into their decisions.

I am fortunate, in that none of the businesses, that I patronized before open carry passed, have posted 30.06. I use the word fortunate to say that business owners decisions have not greatly affected me. That may not be the case for all of us, and I can understand those, who may live in rural areas, where their options are limited on businesses to patronize, who are now suddenly forced to disarm to do the same things they did before open carry passed, may have more of a reason to complain.

[Papa_Tiger]

Why all of the contempt for property owners who don't want weapons? Yes, we can choose to take our business elsewhere, but why? Is it to punish the owners in an effort to make them "pay" for their daring to prevent you from exercising a right you don't even have on their property? Is that the motivation? "You can stop me but I'll show you and make you pay the economic price for exercising your legitimate right...my right to carry is greater than your right to stop me.", which is false on its face since our carry right doesn't even exist on privately owned property unless we are given the "privilege" of carrying on the owner's property by his bestowed consent.

It seems to me that the safety issue is more the point than the owner's philosophical difference on guns and our animosity toward him because of that difference of opinion.

tex

I do not have contempt for property owners who don't want weapons. To me it comes down to the fact that they have chosen to prevent me from protecting myself and those I have been given responsibility for in the best way I can.

My world view is very much informed by the Bible and my Christian faith, so please do not blank out just because I use some scripture. Based on my reading of Scripture and the general consensus of Christian history, I believe that God places a higher value on human life than he does on property. This is evidenced many places in the Old Testament and the New.

It wasn't until God made mankind, male and female, that he said his creation was very good. (Genesis 1:31) Prior to that, it was good.

Mankind is created in God's image (Genesis 1:27) making us his unique creation of all that we see.

God held Cain to account for the blood of his brother. (Genesis 4)

In the Levitical Law, God only allowed the death penalty for crimes against man, never against property. For crimes against property, restitution was called for, but not to the point of demanding the offender's life.

In the New Testament, Christ came to save sinners (mankind). God was willing to sacrifice his Son to restore our relationship with Him.

All of this together indicates to me that he places a higher priority on people than on things.

Accordingly, I find it out of step with God's priorities that a person, government, business or corporation would place the value of property or property rights above the value of people and giving others the ability to protect and defend people in the most effective way possible. This is also the reason that I generally would not use my firearm to stop a crime of property even though I may be legally justified in doing so. Stuff can be replaced, human life cannot.

So while 30.06 has the force of law, I will avoid doing business with businesses that post those signs as much as possible and practical and take my business to places that allow me to protect myself, my family and potentially others in the best way I am able.

[Abraham]

Contempt?

Nah.

Punish?

Nah.

I want to be able to protect my loved ones and myself.

When it comes down to protecting others, maybe...depends...not unconditionally.

[Glock4ever]

Yes for me it's about punishment. I want their business to suffer and if possible fail.

[Soccerdad1995]

What if the original 30.06/30.07 law as written by the Legislature stated that there would be no open carry at the Costco store in Frisco, the McDonnalds on East Mockingbird in Dallas and all AutoZone Auto Parts. In that case our right to open carry was never given to us in the first place at those locations. Would we hold those owners in contempt for trampling on a right we were never given by the Legislature? No, we would be cursing the Legislature.

But in the present real life situation if those owners exercise a right that has been equally given to all of us, that is, the right to control his own property, by asking us to not carry on their property, why do we have such disdain for them? The state did not give us an ubiquitous right to carry but a limited right. We have no right of carry on the property of someone who doesn't want it. We all know this.

Why all of the contempt for property owners who don't want weapons? Yes, we can choose to take our business elsewhere, but why? Is it to punish the owners in an effort to make them "pay" for their daring to prevent you from exercising a right you don't even have on their property? Is that the motivation? "You can stop me but I'll show you and make you pay the economic price for exercising your legitimate right...my right to carry is greater than your right to stop me.", which is false on its face since our carry right doesn't even exist on privately owned property unless we are given the "privilege" of carrying on the owner's property by his bestowed consent.

It seems to me that the safety issue is more the point than the owner's philosophical difference on guns and our animosity toward him because of that difference of opinion.

tex

I'm not sure if you are just trying to be provocative here, but let me point out 2 things regarding this post.

First and foremost, the legislature did not "give" us the right to keep and bear arms, either concealed or openly. Unless "legislature" is some fancy new fangled name for our creator. My right to defend me and mine was given to me by my god, not by any man. Governments do not "give" people rights. Governments occasionally enact laws to protect people's rights from other people, and more frequently enact laws to restrict people's rights. Saying that government "gives" you a right is like saying that government "gives" you money. Both are false statements.

Secondly, I do not have contempt or disdain for any property owner that exercises their right, under current law, to threaten me with arrest if I carry a specific type of weapon (handgun) on their property, and/or if I do so in a specific manner (OC vs CC). I believe they are ignorant of relevant facts, misguided, and likely driven by emotion more than logic. I will exercise my right to not do business with them as a result. Both the shop keeper and I are exercising our legal rights. Not sure why anyone assumes there is anything more to it than that.

[Rhino1]

I will avoid anyone who posts 30.06, with the exception of medical, as they all seem to be posted. I view them as anti-gun, although may just be ignorance. Those who utilize the Texas3006.com app have seen the proliferation of 30.07 as well as 30.06 signs since the beginning of last year. I firmly believe that is the result of the in-your-face tactics by a fringe group that i won't mention. in any case, I try to avoid doing business with those that post 30.06.

I see 30.07 in a different light. As someone posted earlier in this thread, i don't see 30.07 by itself as anti-gun. A good example is the Gringo restaurant chain in Houston. The owner is very pro-gun and 2A but, because of the previously mentioned group, has posted his restaurants 30.07. His son even owns a gun store in Deer Park. When Whataburger announced their position on open carry, although they chose to not post but rely on verbal notice, they said they fully supported concealed carry.

My related question is, do you avoid churches that post 30.06 or 30.07? I have the same position as i do with a business. When we moved here two years ago, we visited a church in New Braunfels several times but never saw a sign. While reviewing the Texas3006.com app for local businesses that were posted, I was surprised to see they were posted 30.06 at the entry to the parking lot. They are now posted with both. We found another church that we like better that is not posted.

[LucasMcCain]

My related question is, do you avoid churches that post 30.06 or 30.07? I have the same position as i do with a business. When we moved here two years ago, we visited a church in New Braunfels several times but never saw a sign. While reviewing the Texas3006.com app for local businesses that were posted, I was surprised to see they were posted 30.06 at the entry to the parking lot. They are now posted with both. We found another church that we like better that is not posted.

I would not attend a church that prevented concealed carry. If a church will not allow me to protect myself and others, I view that as contrary to scripture, and it would make me wonder what else about that church is not doctrinally sound. My church does not post signs, but will politely ask anyone open carrying to cover up. I don't think it has actually come up so far, though. I don't have a problem with that, as scripture does support this behavior.