concealed means concealed?

[nightmare69]

I would carry everywhere imho. If im not supposed to and I need to use my weapon then ill deal with them consequences later. But ill be alive to deal with them... not a dead fish cause I wanted to follow a silly posting on a door.

Curious, why get a CHL in the first place?

Just off the top of your head - what do you think has a better chance of happening: You get spotted with a firearm? You run into a situation where you need to use a firearm?

Hence back to the original. Concealed means concealed. He liklihood of either happening is slim to none. Why carry everyday if your suggesting your more likely to get outed than need to use it? You can be outed anywhere. a mwag can happen in gun friendly places. In the right scenario bye bye chl, although I don't believe there is any recorded happenings. In proper postings or gun busters.... I guess what I'm gettin at is you are just as likely to have an unintentional concealment issue. the place your at will not up your chances of failure to conceal. Why get a chl? I've never came across a place with a legal no gun signs. I have not had to carry llegally.

So you never seen a 30.06 or a 51% sign? Do you carry into schools, post office, court houses, ect?

[The Annoyed Man]

If you are a 2nd Amendment absolutist because you are a constitutional absolutist (like me), and you believe that the 2nd Amendment absolutely guarantees your right to carry regardless of what the law says, then you cannot deny that a property owner has the absolute right to be the sole determiner of what they will or won't allow from visitors to their property, also regardless of what the law says. If you want people to respect your 2nd Amendment rights, then you have to respect their private property rights, or you are a hypocrite, plain and simple.

I am a hypocrite, and I know it. I will disobey an illegal sign posted by government. I will likely disobey a non-compliant 30.06 sign on a privately owned but public place like a large shopping mall according to the following reasoning: if a private property owner is going to bother trying to quote the law to me to keep me from carrying onto the property, then he needs to quote the law correctly or it doesn't apply to me. I cannot be expected to comply with an incorrect application of the law. That doesn't change the fact that I know that the property owner's wishes are being disrespected in the process......which makes me a constitutional hypocrite. However, I understand and accept that my disrespect of their property rights is offset by their disrespect of my 2nd Amendment rights.......a fine bit of syllogism if I may say so myself.

Have I twisted your noodle enough?

It is just a whole lot easier to avoid those places where:

1. You KNOW you can't carry.....i.e. any establishment which derives >51% of its revenue from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption, any court, any post office located on federal property, any COE controlled land and/or body of water, etc.
2. You KNOW that the private property owner has taken all steps to comply 100% with signage requirements to keep you out.......i.e. 100% compliant 30.06 signs at all entrances.
3. You can be CERTAIN that the establishment has made an effort to legally bar you from the premises, even if it isn't absolutely correct to the letter of the law, and even if you won't be arrested for violating it.....i.e. a 95% compliant 30.06 sign at 5 of the 6 entrances, etc. (Some jurisdictions, like Grapevine PD, regarding the Grapevine Mills Mall specifically, absolutely will cuff and transport you as a matter of departmental policy even though 30.06 is not posted at all entrances, and even though the signs were not, strictly speaking, 100% compliant with the law.)
4. You can be fairly certain that the establishment has made an effort to legally bar you from the premises by (for instance) placing a 6' tall 100% compliant rotating sign in the middle of the property (the law does not require the sign to be at the entrances; it only requires that it be conspicuously displayed), obligating you to leave (if you are a law-abiding citizen) if you are carrying your firearm, once you have received proper notification by seeing the sign.

Please note....the law does not give you the option to exercise your own judgement after having received proper notification under 30.06. You must leave (or not enter in the first place) once you have received that notification. If you don't, you are a law-breaker and you can no longer call yourself "law-abiding." Sometimes, adherence to the law is not necessarily convenient. We can certainly make arguments that unjust laws should be disobeyed, but if we are going to care that much about justice, then we must consider the injustice we perpetrate by violating someone's private property rights........OR admit, like I did above, that we are occasional hypocrites.

I'm fortunate in that I rarely have to deal with these things. Grapevine Mills Mall is off-limits, but I live on the far side of Grapevine from that mall, and the Northeast Mall in Hurst is not posted, and it's about the same distance for me as the other one is. I hate shopping malls anyway, and I rarely ever go to one if I can give my money to a mom & pop store at a reasonable price. My church is not posted, nor is it likely that it ever will be. My personal bank has a gun-buster's decal near the bottom of the door which I ignore, and my business bank has no such thing.

So I would have to say that I am mostly law-abiding, but I am an occasional hypocrite. Concealed is concealed, and if you use best practices in carrying concealed, then you likely will never be outed. But I also practice a rule of thumb: If I KNOW the place is illegal for carry, I don't carry there; If I KNOW that a business does not want revenues from the gun-carrying public, I don't force my money on them.....I give it to someone else who respects my rights more and who doesn't lump me in with "bad people" just because I carry a gun.

Most of us actually have options. We just don't want to have to exercise them.

[PBratton]

I'm not suggesting it, only my thought process. I'm simply stating that is what concealed means concealed means. Can anyone explain it better? I'm also not saying specifics, as I don't think there is anywhere ive gone that is off limits for chl. Aside from courthouse amd rangers game. How ever if I was to come across such a place with legal restrictions I would find myself thinking.... concealed means concealed.


As far as the court comment being held against me. If i was to ignore the sign then id rather it be used against me in court then be dead cause i was worried about legal action from a public forum post or a sign. the same could be said for gunbusters. The company obviously does not want guns inside yet you go on in however its prkbably corporate policy. However I don't believe the basis of a good shoot would rely on whether he or she shouldn't have had a weapon in the facility.

I know I'm not the only one who has this point of view. I have a moral duty to protect my family. I will do just that. We recently had a thread discussing moral and ethical carry. Id insert the link but I'm on a smart phone

Mho

Sorry if I violated rules prior. Not intentional. Please edit or delete if necessary

My comments were simply to point out that everything we put out on the web is public info. Don't post something that could come back and be used against you.

[anomie]

I am a hypocrite, and I know it. I will disobey an illegal sign posted by government. I will likely disobey a non-compliant 30.06 sign on a privately owned but public place like a large shopping mall according to the following reasoning: if a private property owner is going to bother trying to quote the law to me to keep me from carrying onto the property, then he needs to quote the law correctly or it doesn't apply to me. I cannot be expected to comply with an incorrect application of the law. That doesn't change the fact that I know that the property owner's wishes are being disrespected in the process......which makes me a constitutional hypocrite. However, I understand and accept that my disrespect of their property rights is offset by their disrespect of my 2nd Amendment rights.......a fine bit of syllogism if I may say so myself.

Does that makes you a hypocrite, though?

The law has clearly and precisely defined what the property owner has to do to exercise his property rights. If the property owner hasn't actually done it, how do you gauge his intent with certainty? Heck, a property owner who absolutely knew the law could decide to put up an invalid sign on purpose, fully knowing that it was invalid and not actually expecting anyone to follow it. (I don't think that's a good idea, really, but how do you know with certainty?).

Property rights aren't without responsibilities, either.

If the law weren't as precisely defined as it is, I think that people would have to use their own judgment on whatever was posted - but given that it is well defined and precise - either the sign is valid or it isn't - the only consideration I have with respect to invalid signs are concerns about their being enforced despite being invalid, and whether or not I want to be a test case (which I don't).

Edit: My overall point is, are you being hypocritical, or are you simply expecting a property owner to follow the letter of the law to the same degree you'd expect yourself to follow the letter of the law when carrying? (which is something people have to answer for themselves based on what they're actually thinking - to me, it's the latter. Someone else might be using reasoning that actually is hypocritical)

[xb12s]

I am a hypocrite, and I know it. I will disobey an illegal sign posted by government. I will likely disobey a non-compliant 30.06 sign on a privately owned but public place like a large shopping mall according to the following reasoning: if a private property owner is going to bother trying to quote the law to me to keep me from carrying onto the property, then he needs to quote the law correctly or it doesn't apply to me. I cannot be expected to comply with an incorrect application of the law. That doesn't change the fact that I know that the property owner's wishes are being disrespected in the process......which makes me a constitutional hypocrite. However, I understand and accept that my disrespect of their property rights is offset by their disrespect of my 2nd Amendment rights.......a fine bit of syllogism if I may say so myself.

Does that makes you a hypocrite, though?

The law has clearly and precisely defined what the property owner has to do to exercise his property rights. If the property owner hasn't actually done it, how do you gauge his intent with certainty? Heck, a property owner who absolutely knew the law could decide to put up an invalid sign on purpose, fully knowing that it was invalid and not actually expecting anyone to follow it. (I don't think that's a good idea, really, but how do you know with certainty?).

Property rights aren't without responsibilities, either.

If the law weren't as precisely defined as it is, I think that people would have to use their own judgment on whatever was posted - but given that it is well defined and precise - either the sign is valid or it isn't - the only consideration I have with respect to invalid signs are concerns about their being enforced despite being invalid, and whether or not I want to be a test case (which I don't).

Edit: My overall point is, are you being hypocritical, or are you simply expecting a property owner to follow the letter of the law to the same degree you'd expect yourself to follow the letter of the law when carrying? (which is something people have to answer for themselves based on what they're actually thinking - to me, it's the latter. Someone else might be using reasoning that actually is hypocritical)

My Hippocampus just exploded!

[Pecos]

Speaking for my self. A "Gun Buster" blue sigh doesnt bother me. Im not in violation with the law but owner has the right to make me leave or take it off because he owns the astablishment. When I enter a place like this im never noticed as having a gun because Im well concealed.
If it did really bother me to enter a place with a blue sign I woulod just leave the gun in the car.
Example: My work has a gun buster sign on the front lobby door. I lesave my gun locked in the truck becaue they can fire me. But Im still not in violation of the law.

[anomie]

My Hippocampus just exploded!

My apologies, although I don't think I can extend that to the point of accepting any liability.

[The Annoyed Man]

I am a hypocrite, and I know it. I will disobey an illegal sign posted by government. I will likely disobey a non-compliant 30.06 sign on a privately owned but public place like a large shopping mall according to the following reasoning: if a private property owner is going to bother trying to quote the law to me to keep me from carrying onto the property, then he needs to quote the law correctly or it doesn't apply to me. I cannot be expected to comply with an incorrect application of the law. That doesn't change the fact that I know that the property owner's wishes are being disrespected in the process......which makes me a constitutional hypocrite. However, I understand and accept that my disrespect of their property rights is offset by their disrespect of my 2nd Amendment rights.......a fine bit of syllogism if I may say so myself.

Does that makes you a hypocrite, though?

The law has clearly and precisely defined what the property owner has to do to exercise his property rights. If the property owner hasn't actually done it, how do you gauge his intent with certainty? Heck, a property owner who absolutely knew the law could decide to put up an invalid sign on purpose, fully knowing that it was invalid and not actually expecting anyone to follow it. (I don't think that's a good idea, really, but how do you know with certainty?).

Property rights aren't without responsibilities, either.

If the law weren't as precisely defined as it is, I think that people would have to use their own judgment on whatever was posted - but given that it is well defined and precise - either the sign is valid or it isn't - the only consideration I have with respect to invalid signs are concerns about their being enforced despite being invalid, and whether or not I want to be a test case (which I don't).

Edit: My overall point is, are you being hypocritical, or are you simply expecting a property owner to follow the letter of the law to the same degree you'd expect yourself to follow the letter of the law when carrying? (which is something people have to answer for themselves based on what they're actually thinking - to me, it's the latter. Someone else might be using reasoning that actually is hypocritical)

My Hippocampus just exploded!

Sorry, we don't have hippocampus carry in Texas yet.......

To answer anomie, yes, I still think that makes me a hypocrite for the reason that, in practical application, my reverence for the Constitution extends to my 2nd Amendment rights, but not to the property owner's rights. I either revere the Constitution, or I don't, because reverence is an all or nothing kind of thing. So if I claim to revere the Constitution as far as my own rights go, but not as far as the other fellow's rights go, then I am a hypocrite. And meaning no offense to you at all, but placing the onus on the other person for executing the letter of the law in complete perfection is mere sophistry. I don't choose to do right because the other guy does right. I choose to do right because it is right. The bottom line is, even a non-compliant 30.06 sign leaves you in no doubt as to the property owner's intentions. You may not have been legally notified, but you have been notified. If you choose to ignore that notification, you are acting within the law, but you are also deliberately walking on the property owner's declared intent for his property.

It really is a moral issue, and so often, morality trumps the law. There was a time when slavery was legal in Texas. Legal didn't make it moral. Slave owners in Texas were by definition immoral people because they did not release their slaves from bondage. They were immoral people because they bought slaves in the first place. That's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.

In my mind, a restaurant owner has a complete right to refuse admission to anyone who is shoeless, shirtless, in shorts, or not wearing a tie, etc., etc., etc., including anyone who is carrying a gun. If he posts a sign at the door saying "Nobody carrying a concealed firearm under the authority of a CHL is permitted on these premises," it is not compliant with the law, but the owner's intent is absolutely clear. He or she has clearly communicated that you are not welcome with your gun. Now, would I walk past that sign? Yes, because the law does not assess a penalty for doing so. But that DOES make me a disrespector of the property owner's rights, IF I hold an absolutist view of the Constitution. I am not a legal hypocrite, but I AM a constitutional hypocrite.

And for that matter, so is the government and body of laws of the state of Texas in any matter in which my constitutional right to constitutional carry is infringed. The state government makes claims to being "gun-friendly," and if that term is applied relatively, then yes, it is when compared to California or New York, for instance. But it is less so when compared to Arizona, Alaska, or Vermont, for instance. Don't get me wrong. I love living here, and having come from California, Texas is by FAR preferable. I'm just saying that at any point where our constitutional walk does not jibe 100% with our constitutional talk, then we become hypocritical to the degree that the two deviate one from the other. The constitution protects both property rights and gun rights, not one or the other. I deal with that by being OK with being a hypocrite in that regard, and I think it is self-deceitful to not face that squarely and accept it by trying to put the onus on the other person, when I have a part in it. YMMV.

[anomie]

To answer anomie, yes, I still think that makes me a hypocrite for the reason that, in practical application, my reverence for the Constitution extends to my 2nd Amendment rights, but not to the property owner's rights. I either revere the Constitution, or I don't, because reverence is an all or nothing kind of thing. So if I claim to revere the Constitution as far as my own rights go, but not as far as the other fellow's rights go, then I am a hypocrite. And meaning no offense to you at all, but placing the onus on the other person for executing the letter of the law in complete perfection is mere sophistry.

I respect your reasoning as to your own intent, sir, and it is well stated.

I don't think my reasoning is mere sophistry, as I am not solely placing the onus on the property owner. If the only difference in my outlook on life were that I did not want people carrying on my property, I would expect myself to meet the legal requirements to the same degree I expect myself to meet legal requirements when I carry. I don't intend to say that it has to be with absolute perfection. Everything has a little give, and my call would get closer and closer to considering their intent to actually be to bar licensed CHL the closer it got to being a valid sign. Sort of a continuum of 'it looks like they didn't bother to see what the law was' to 'it looks like they tried like heck to make sure they did it right and something is slightly wrong' - with 'it looks like they tried at one time but haven't bothered to keep up with it, is that an indicator that it doesn't really matter to them?' in there somewhere. If that makes sense.

There can be a little give here and there but I don't think it can be solely 'the CHL is expected to follow the letter at all times but the property owner has no obligations or responsibilities, we have to treat any indication that might mean they don't want carry there as a full blown indication of no carry, despite precisely defined legal requirements'. There's another thread somewhere I read here where a CHL carrier handed the CHL over slightly late and the cop let it slide. I'm not trying to say anything here that wouldn't allow that kind of thing on both sides of the equation.

Edit: if any of the above sounds like argumentation I'm not intending it that way. I am just trying to clarify my thoughts on it, and I've run into situations in the past where people take me to be arguing when I'm just trying to discuss. Not that anyone reading this is necessarily taking me that way.

[anomie]

My full position might be better stated as:

Should we expect ourselves to follow the law in good faith, while releasing the property owner from that obligation and assuming the responsibility to take any indication they meant to bar carry ourselves?
Or should we expect ourselves to follow the law in good faith, and expect the property owner to follow the law in good faith as well?

But I don't know. It might also be more confusing.

(Edit: I should probably also explicitly state I think it's the latter even though that's probably clear from context.)

[The Annoyed Man]

My full position might be better stated as:

Should we expect ourselves to follow the law in good faith, while releasing the property owner from that obligation and assuming the responsibility to take any indication they meant to bar carry ourselves?
Or should we expect ourselves to follow the law in good faith, and expect the property owner to follow the law in good faith as well?

But I don't know. It might also be more confusing.

I don't release the property owner from a good-faith obligation, but I ultimately take the view that I can only be responsible for keeping my side of the street clean.....if that makes sense. So in that regard, I have control over my own exercise of good faith, but I can have no control beyond my expectation of good faith on the part of the property owner. That is why, even though I can carry past a sign that is non-compliant in some small particular, I am not likely to, because I will respect the wishes of the property owner. And if the sign is completely non-compliant, I still have a brain, and I still know the property owner's intent. To pretend I don't is to live in denial, and I try to never live there. So my answer is to accept as a given that I am in some instances a hypocrite because the property owner's efforts were desultory, even though I know his intent, and I choose to ignore his intent and carry on his property in violation of his property rights.

It is exactly for this reason that I will more often than not simply find another place to get what I need, so that I can minimize the burden of hypocrisy I have to carry.

[anomie]

I think I essentially agree, but want to emphasize my point about circumstances. At least with respect to what their intent is.

'No Guns' <- does this mean they don't want licensed carry?
'No Concealed Weapons' <- does this mean they don't want licensed carry?

Out of the blue with no context of what the law is, or somewhere there are no specific requirements for signage - I would *certainly* think so.
Knowing the law has specific requirements, and the above does not meet those requirements - on the basis that we should expect good faith efforts to follow the law from both sides, is it as clear as it would be without the law?

(I'm sort of mulling that in my head at the moment so I'm going to leave it at that for now and say that I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, while I think about it for a bit. You may be changing my mind here, i don't know yet, part of that sentence was written from the perspective of stating what I thought and sort of ended up in a 'well, hmm, am I really there?' :) )

adding in: One of the things I'm thinking about is, the longer they go without changing their sign after the law changed, the more evidence there is that they're not making a good faith effort to meet the requirements under the law - and given that, how much should I, or shouldn't I, consider the sign as evidence of their *current* intent?

[fickman]

Philosophically, I fundamentally disagree that private property rights are absolute when it comes to the privacy of another person.

Unfortunately, our law disagrees with me, and I follow the current state law. I will never stop in my quest to convert people to my view, though.

First, right or wrong, we have trumped private property rights with civil rights legislation, so there is a precedent.

Second, if somebody doesn't LIKE something about me (that isn't protected by the civil rights act or disabilities ac) but can't DETECT it, then the government should not assist them in enforcing house rules. We don't need 30.06 because we already have trespassing laws that work just fine.

If you see my gun or think I have one, you can ask me to leave and I have to. If I don't, I'm trespassing. If we had open carry and I chose to exercise that, you can ask me to leave as soon as I enter your property. If I don't, I'm trespassing.

If you don't like my green shirt, you can ask me to leave and I have to. If I don't, I'm trespassing.

If, however, you insist that nobody can enter your store with green underwear on, well, that's fine, but you don't know who has on green underwear until / unless I fail to conceal it. If that happens, then you can ask me to leave and I have to. Otherwise, it's MY private property, my privacy, and my right to be secure in my possessions. I know the 4th Amendment only protects us from the government, but they are in effect assisting private property owners in this case by enforcing 30.06.

That's my take.

I won't carry past a valid 30.06, but I think we SHOULD be able to and I don't think this is a sovereignty over private property issue. I also know I'm in the minority. (Although - not a protected class of minority!)

[fickman]

That is why, even though I can carry past a sign that is non-compliant in some small particular, I am not likely to, because I will respect the wishes of the property owner. And if the sign is completely non-compliant, I still have a brain, and I still know the property owner's intent.

I respect where you land. I have read of instances where a business purposefully posts a non-compliant sign to pacify the anti's while allowing CHL. Basically, in (probably rare) situations, the gun buster sign and egregiously non-compliant 30;.06 are almost a secret handshake to CHLers saying, "Well, of course YOU'RE welcome here."

I don't pull a measuring stick out for letter size and I don't look for missing commas, though. It has to be obviously non-compliant for me to walk past it.