TexasCHLforum.com

poppo wrote:

Taypo wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:If asked to leave by an employee of an establishment because I were wearing a firearm, I would leave. I would then write to the establishment notifying them that I was told to leave their establishment by an employee and that I nor my family will never darken their doorway again. If it were a franchise I would also inform the main office.

This. All day long.

The only way to force a business to make a change is to convince them they're wrong, and the fastest way to do that is to hurt the pocketbook.

I think many people over estimate their ability to hurt the pocketbook. Like it or not, there are also customers will not want to see the guns. And those customers also have the ability to hurt the pocketbook.

And I think many people underestimate the willingness of small businesses to change for a relatively small number of customers.

I've seen policies change for a single, vocal customer on several different occasions.

Tracker wrote:The management could print up some business cards for the busboy to handout to the OCer. It's one thing to walk into a restaurant OCing and be asked to leave. It's another to sit the person down, have them order their meal, then be in the middle of eating it, and then have the busboy ask you to leave. There should've been a 30.07 sign on the door in the first place.

Any restaurant that gets that far into service and then notices a gun probably isn't someplace you want to eat, I'd say.

MeMelYup wrote:If asked to leave by an employee of an establishment because I were wearing a firearm, I would leave. I would then write to the establishment notifying them that I was told to leave their establishment by an employee and that I nor my family will never darken their doorway again. If it were a franchise I would also inform the main office.

This. All day long.

The only way to force a business to make a change is to convince them they're wrong, and the fastest way to do that is to hurt the pocketbook.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I again urge everyone who decides to openly carry to be a statesman. If one is asked to leave by an owner, agent or employee of a property owner, it would be prudent to leave. If you ask for a supervisor, then you have legally refused to leave upon being asked to do so. This raises the offense from a Class C to a Class A misdemeanor. Yes, the Code provision requires that oral notice be given by the property owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner, but I would never try to rely a lack of authority as a defense. OCT is going to be doing this kind of thing and responsible gun owners must be viewed in stark contrast to those tactics.

Chas.

Thank you, sir. I'm nowhere near as eloquent as you are.

harrycallahan wrote:Asking to speak with management is proper and sometimes required. Certainly doing so certainly doesn't equate to OCT type activities.

How exactly is asking to speak with anyone other than the employee that informed you proper? If you speak with a mangager and they tell you the same exact thing, are you going to ask for their boss?

The potential for causing an OCT type scene increases every time someone decides they want to talk to someone more important than the person that asked them to leave. Choosing not to leave when you're asked is never a good thing, in my opinion. Rather than a simple walk out, we're getting into the potential for a 911 call, trespass, etc..

Isn't it just easier to do what the business is asking? Obviously they don't want your money - why try to force them?

jmra wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:While I believe some new signs preventing Open Carry will appear, I think that the majority of businesses will update their 30.06 signage to be compliant with the new law and instruct management to give verbal warnings (30.07) to prevent OC.

You think? If you believe the media hype that would most likely result in the death of the employee.

Sadly, based on some of the internet discussions I'm seeing, its not that farfetched. A whole lot of "I'm not listening to the busboy, I won't leave unless I talk to a manager."

Thanks Vol, you articulated that way better than I could have.

TexasGal wrote:I am just hoping everyone who is super eager to carry openly exercise a little sensitivity or we may well see a lot of new signage. Too many people have been led by the media to think we are all the same as OCT and the like. It was videos of those wanna be's that were put on the screen just about every time open carry was covered. Let's try our best to "look" and behave a lot better than that to people who seriously may feel afraid or offended at first. Heck, I already have a friend asking me where he can get 30.07 signs for his business. He has a CHL and is not opposed to the open carry law but he is opposed to having to deal with his customer's views on it.

Same situation with me. CHLs are welcome, including employees, but customer reaction to OC is probably going to drive a 30.07.

jmra wrote:

Taypo wrote:Maybe something is getting lost in the Internet here, so I want to make sure I'm not missing something.

You go into a private business openly carrying, you are asked by an employee to leave and you feel like you're entitled to speak to someone else because that employee wasn't a manager or owner?

Technically it has to be someone with the authority to speak for the organization. Typically this would be a manager or owner.
If it were me and I had temporarily lost my mind and OCed in a store I would leave if anyone with a name tag told me OC was not allowed.

There is no typically when it comes to small business, which is the point I'm trying to make. If you walk into a 7-11 at 2am, there's probably neither a manager nor an owner present. Same with any number of small businesses, yet it appears as though some of the folks here seem to believe that they have the right to stand where they are and demand to talk to a boss.

If you want to make a phone call after the fact because you don't feel like the "box boy" was correct, go for it. Personally, I'd take my money elsewhere if OC was that important to me.

I think the worst possible thing any of us can do is draw attention to ourselves at this point. Standing in a store arguing about your right to open carry because the person who asked you to leave wasn't powerful enough for you is just that - negative attention.

Maybe something is getting lost in the Internet here, so I want to make sure I'm not missing something.

You go into a private business openly carrying, you are asked by an employee to leave and you feel like you're entitled to speak to someone else because that employee wasn't a manager or owner?

C-dub wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

suthdj wrote:So on Jan 1 when I walk into IKEA I just need to tuck in my shirt unless they post a 30.07

Well, there is the fact that it will be obvious that you're carrying, so assuming Ikea doesn't want anyone carrying in their stores, no matter the method, then all that will be required is verbal notification telling you to leave.

I wonder if any store employee can give verbal notice or does it need to be a member of management?

(2) “Notice” means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent
authority to act for the owner;

Funny thing is I've never noticed the word "apparent" before. Box boy probably doesn't cut it ( no pun intended), but I'm not sure where the line would be drawn on that one.

Be careful with that line of thinking. Lots of small businesses out there that don't have multiple layers of management and any employee speaks for the owner, and some of those places employ CHL holders. Personally, box boy or no, I'd consider that a verbal notice and move along.