Aggie_engr wrote:Why not just walk right by non-compliant signs? Non-compliant signs in no way prohibit chl's from carrying in said establishment...
Sometimes, it's just best to let sleeping dogs lie.
I tend to take the sleeping dog approach. The way I see it...it doesent mean anything anyways. And as far as im concerned, a 30.06 sign means diddly to a person wanting to walk in and shoot up the place.
Im glad it worked out for you OP but sometimes the opposite can happen. When its brought to the attention of a business that their sign has no legal bearing they may well take steps to remedy that.
Aggiedad wrote:
I did and you are correct ... and in my email to GO president, I pointed out that it the was not unlawful for me to cc in their restaurant (there was wording on the sign that said it was) but that worst thing I could be guilty of was misdemeanor trespassing if I were asked to leave and refused to do so.
Yes, I could have continued to silently ignore the sign but why patronize a store that doesn't support my rights? Once politely notified, if the signs hadn't come down, I would not have gone back. They did and I will.
We should make some kits to send out to folks that are non compliant, maybe be give them a road map of exactly of to make it legal.
Kidding of course. I agree 100% with the sentiment, and disagree 100% with telling anyone “I can carry right by that.” Luckily they took it down, buy they could have just as easily sent it over to there legal department to get a complaint sign. IMHO there is nothing wrong with figuring out where a business stands (no mater what the sign), but there is something horribly wrong with letting them know "I can carry right by that, 'cause I have my CHL."
jimlongley wrote: If they decide to go ahead and post huge and ugly compliant signs, then no loss...
Except for ruining it for the rest of us.
Ruining what? Do you actually spend money in support of those place which quite obviously discriminate against you?
OTOH, they're not discriminating against me and my CHL. They are telling unlicensed people that their guns aren't welcome. You reckon...
Nope, don't reckon, I am convinced that if I were discovered to be carrying in one of those places with non-compliant signage, that the result could range all the way up to a LV Costco scenario, and I do not want to place myself in that sort of danger. Let them go ahead and show their true colors and post the big ugly sign, and was the intention of the legislation establishing it, or not post the big ugly sign, two choices, no more; "well they only mean that for the non-chls" or "They only put that sign up to satisfy the anti-gun nuts, and they secretly want the CHLs to be there" And surely not ruining it for anyone. Like the non-compliant signage at Love Field, it's not a "wink wink nudge nudge" sign, I know that the "authorities" at Love intend to prosecute, or attempt to, despite the deficiencies of their signage, I have spoken to them about it, and I see no reason to expect that AMC Theaters would probably not prosecute me, so I just choose not to give them my money, and I let them know why.
jimlongley wrote:....I am convinced that if I were discovered to be carrying in one of those places with non-compliant signage, that the result could range all the way up to a LV Costco scenario, and I do not want to place myself in that sort of danger. Let them go ahead and show their true colors and post the big ugly sign, and was the intention of the legislation establishing it, or not post the big ugly sign, two choices, no more; "well they only mean that for the non-chls" or "They only put that sign up to satisfy the anti-gun nuts, and they secretly want the CHLs to be there" And surely not ruining it for anyone. Like the non-compliant signage at Love Field, it's not a "wink wink nudge nudge" sign, I know that the "authorities" at Love intend to prosecute, or attempt to, despite the deficiencies of their signage, I have spoken to them about it, and I see no reason to expect that AMC Theaters would probably not prosecute me, so I just choose not to give them my money, and I let them know why.
I do not disagree with you:
1. Firstly, I don't have the money to do a trial case.
2. Secondly, I don't have the money to do a trial case.
I won't knowingly cross a valid 30.06 sign. I will not visit a state or a business that denies my Texas CHL...if I can keep from it. However, I do not go out of my way to find anti-gun signs that do not involve me. When I do find an invalid/improper Texas anti-gun sign, I take no notice and I certainly don't call its attention to the Manager/Owner. They know what they're doing...or should. Foremost is our mantra: concealed is concealed[/u].
All of that disgorged, I am most aware that the sign that DOES NOT legally constitute a no CHL guns allowed environment in Texas, is 100% legal notice in the other states that we visit and I'm most aware of them. See Nos. 1 & 2 above.
jimlongley wrote: If they decide to go ahead and post huge and ugly compliant signs, then no loss...
Except for ruining it for the rest of us.
Ruining what? Do you actually spend money in support of those place which quite obviously discriminate against you?
OTOH, they're not discriminating against me and my CHL. They are telling unlicensed people that their guns aren't welcome. You reckon...
Nope, don't reckon, I am convinced that if I were discovered to be carrying in one of those places with non-compliant signage, that the result could range all the way up to a LV Costco scenario, and I do not want to place myself in that sort of danger. Let them go ahead and show their true colors and post the big ugly sign, and was the intention of the legislation establishing it, or not post the big ugly sign, two choices, no more; "well they only mean that for the non-chls" or "They only put that sign up to satisfy the anti-gun nuts, and they secretly want the CHLs to be there" And surely not ruining it for anyone. Like the non-compliant signage at Love Field, it's not a "wink wink nudge nudge" sign, I know that the "authorities" at Love intend to prosecute, or attempt to, despite the deficiencies of their signage, I have spoken to them about it, and I see no reason to expect that AMC Theaters would probably not prosecute me, so I just choose not to give them my money, and I let them know why.
I don't necessarily buy the "they posted a non-compliant sign on purpose", but when I see one I do not run in fear of a LV Costco scenario. And we DO have a "test case" on this...the Bedford nurses' aid who carried past a non-compliant sign at her employer. DA "nolle pros'ed" because he knew the 30.06 charges couldn't be sustained based on the lack of proper notice.
For the record... I regularly carry a concealed handgun in the non-secure area of Dallas Love when I have reason to be there. It doesn't concern me a whit, because it's clearly legal. As they used to say on Law and Order, "It's black letter law". See big black letters below. While it's an extremely low probability, I AM willing to be the proverbial "test case" on this. I am blessed to have the wherewithal to hire a very good attorney should I need one, and would probably have a decent 42 USC 1983 civil case were I unjustly arrested for carrying at DAL. I bet (and I regularly do by carrying there) that I could beat a 30.06 or 46.035 criminal case "pro se", even before trial because the law is so clear. In fact, a police officer or federal agent carrying openly at DAL, only has a defense to prosecution to 46.02. So if the legal beagles at DAL were really smart they'd try to charge a CHL with 46.02, because the CHL is only a Defense and they arguably could avoid a civil rights "color of law" case. But my understanding from previous posts are that they would go for a 46.035 or 30.06 prosecution.
So for the time being, I'm going to go on concealed carrying past non-compliant signs, walking down the street, openly in my house and at the range, and doing all the other things that are not against the law. I'm still worried about removing that mattress tag though...
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property
on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased
by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which
the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under
Section 46.03 or 46.035.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
ScottDLS wrote:For the record... I regularly carry a concealed handgun in the non-secure area of Dallas Love when I have reason to be there. It doesn't concern me a whit, because it's clearly legal. As they used to say on Law and Order, "It's black letter law". See big black letters below. While it's an extremely low probability, I AM willing to be the proverbial "test case" on this. I am blessed to have the wherewithal to hire a very good attorney should I need one, and would probably have a decent 42 USC 1983 civil case were I unjustly arrested for carrying at DAL. I bet (and I regularly do by carrying there) that I could beat a 30.06 or 46.035 criminal case "pro se", even before trial because the law is so clear. In fact, a police officer or federal agent carrying openly at DAL, only has a defense to prosecution to 46.02. So if the legal beagles at DAL were really smart they'd try to charge a CHL with 46.02, because the CHL is only a Defense and they arguably could avoid a civil rights "color of law" case. But my understanding from previous posts are that they would go for a 46.035 or 30.06 prosecution.
So for the time being, I'm going to go on concealed carrying past non-compliant signs, walking down the street, openly in my house and at the range, and doing all the other things that are not against the law. I'm still worried about removing that mattress tag though...
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property
on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased
by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which
the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under
Section 46.03 or 46.035.
Well, I, for one, can't afford to be a test case, and I had all those arguments with officers and others at Love, and not one of them would disobey superior officers' orders to enforce the signage, even if a couple felt as though they might take a pass on enforcement if it were only they that made the discovery.
And, as I have pointed out before, quoting the law to a LEO who is in the process of placing you under arrest is not likely to draw very much interest from said LEO, "Tell it to the judge" being a typical response from someone who isn't interested enough in that portion of the law to have memorized all of its subtle nuances. I am even reminded of the Pyrrhic arguments various members here have had with the gate guardians at gun shows being held on government property, where they cheerfully apply the section despite the exception.
Further explanation about what led me to contact Great Outdoors' corporate office (and for those who think one should not ask a business about its "no guns" sign):
1. There's no telling how many times I ate at that restaurant before I noticed their old and faded sign. It wasn't even at the door. I think the only reason I saw that time was that I parked right in front of it ... I saw it when I got back in the truck to leave after eating ...
2. I did not write in my email to Great Outdoors, "You have a non-compliant sign and I don't have to obey it"; I asked what their corporate policy was as was curious to know if "no guns" was corporate policy or the store manager's decision to post the sign.
3. I took the time to ask in a nonconfrontational manner, what the deal was and got a good result which clarifies their position for all of us. Yes they could have said, "We don't want guns in our store" and that would have been clear too. I (we) now know for certain where they stand.
4. If "no guns" was corporate policy or manager policy (either way), I was not going to spend another nickle there if the sign stayed up ... non-compliant or not.
I'm a bit surprised at the "turn a blind eye and keep your mouth shut about non-compliant signs" comments. Whether a business posts a no guns sign that is legally enforceable or not, their intent was certainly posted so then the question is ... Why would any CHL holder want to support a company that denies one's freedom guaranteed by the Constitution? Yes, I know, concealed is concealed so who would know but again, why support that business? I don't get it.
Aggiedad wrote:I'm a bit surprised at the "turn a blind eye and keep your mouth shut about non-compliant signs" comments. Whether a business posts a no guns sign that is legally enforceable or not, their intent was certainly posted so then the question is ... Why would any CHL holder want to support a company that denies one's freedom guaranteed by the Constitution? Yes, I know, concealed is concealed so who would know but again, why support that business? I don't get it.
The theory is that since they're not posting enforceable signs, they don't really care if CHL holders carry there. For big chains (like Target or OfficeMax) with armies of legal departments & big thick corporate policies that are written to the lowest common denominator of state laws & such, I think that's probably a valid assumption. For the mom & pop store, eh, probably not. You never know, though. Maybe one of their kids hates guns and wouldn't stop bugging them until they "did something" about it.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
Aggiedad wrote:Further explanation about what led me to contact Great Outdoors' corporate office (and for those who think one should not ask a business about its "no guns" sign):
1. There's no telling how many times I ate at that restaurant before I noticed their old and faded sign. It wasn't even at the door. I think the only reason I saw that time was that I parked right in front of it ... I saw it when I got back in the truck to leave after eating ...
2. I did not write in my email to Great Outdoors, "You have a non-compliant sign and I don't have to obey it"; I asked what their corporate policy was as was curious to know if "no guns" was corporate policy or the store manager's decision to post the sign.
3. I took the time to ask in a nonconfrontational manner, what the deal was and got a good result which clarifies their position for all of us. Yes they could have said, "We don't want guns in our store" and that would have been clear too. I (we) now know for certain where they stand.
4. If "no guns" was corporate policy or manager policy (either way), I was not going to spend another nickle there if the sign stayed up ... non-compliant or not.
And I do much the same thing when I make contact, I point out that keeping law abiding gun carriers from doing business with them merely costs them money while making no one safer, and ask if it is corporate policy, local policy, or policy at all. If the reply is, as I have had happen, something on the order of "For the safety of our patrons we do not allow guns on our premises" I will, and have, point out that the sign does not comply with TX law and thus would and could be ignored by CHL holders without violating the law, although I would not be doing so as it was my intention to boycott them and influence as many people as I could to follow my lead.
Aggiedad wrote:I'm a bit surprised at the "turn a blind eye and keep your mouth shut about non-compliant signs" comments. Whether a business posts a no guns sign that is legally enforceable or not, their intent was certainly posted so then the question is ... Why would any CHL holder want to support a company that denies one's freedom guaranteed by the Constitution? Yes, I know, concealed is concealed so who would know but again, why support that business? I don't get it.
I pointed out that it the was not unlawful for me to cc in their restaurant (there was wording on the sign that said it was) but that worst thing I could be guilty of was misdemeanor trespassing if I were asked to leave and refused to do so.
Yes, I could have continued to silently ignore the sign but why patronize a store that doesn't support my rights? Once politely notified, if the signs hadn't come down, I would not have gone back. They did and I will.
So you pointed out that you could indeed carry legally with the current wording of the sign, which gave them the proper information to actually ban guns at their establishment at a whim or when it becomes trendy to do so? Please folks-I'll respect your right to not patronize these places, so please respect my right to continue patronizing these places.
I absolutely adore non-compliant signs. I wish there were more up because it satisfies idiots and enables us to carry in more places. Without them, or the law that requires them, guns would be banned in significantly more places; do we really desire that (I suspect that some do)? Let's all remind ourselves that the removal of a non-compliant sign, for CHLs, isn't and can't be any sort of victory.
Now please-CHL is about legal, public carry realism, not 2nd amendment idealism; so I'll only entertain arguments that non-compliant signs can legally keep CHLs out (No beat the rap, but not the ride either).
I'm a bit surprised at the "turn a blind eye and keep your mouth shut about non-compliant signs" comments. Whether a business posts a no guns sign that is legally enforceable or not, their intent was certainly posted so then the question is ... Why would any CHL holder want to support a company that denies one's freedom guaranteed by the Constitution? Yes, I know, concealed is concealed so who would know but again, why support that business? I don't get it.
I would love to answer this one-The only way that a business is capable of denying one's freedom guaranteed by the Constitution (in Texas) is with a 30.06 sign or verbal notice, so as far as I'm concerned (and the law agrees with me on this one), these business are as pro-gun as Ted Nugent. If someone doesn't like the non-compliant signs, I'll fully respect their right to not shop there.
And I do much the same thing when I make contact, I point out that keeping law abiding gun carriers from doing business with them merely costs them money while making no one safer, and ask if it is corporate policy, local policy, or policy at all. If the reply is, as I have had happen, something on the order of "For the safety of our patrons we do not allow guns on our premises" I will, and have, point out that the sign does not comply with TX law and thus would and could be ignored by CHL holders without violating the law, although I would not be doing so as it was my intention to boycott them and influence as many people as I could to follow my lead.
Guys,
I guess this is the bit that I struggle with the most: Non-compliant signs don't "prevent law abiding gun carriers from doing business with them". The law is very specific about this one, unless someone wants to put forth the argument that the law isn't really all that specific.
Please folks-I'll respect your right to not patronize these places, so please respect my right to continue patronizing these places.
I understand what you are saying and I respect your right, I just disagree with you ... and that's ok. We're on the same team here ... one is playing offense and the other is playing defense (I'm not sure which is which but it doesn't matter) and it takes both to win "the game".
Sometimes, it's just best to let sleeping dogs lie.Aggie_engr wrote:Why not just walk right by non-compliant signs? Non-compliant signs in no way prohibit chl's from carrying in said establishment...
