TexasCHLforum.com

anomie wrote:

mojo84 wrote:There is no need to go on a limb based on a far fetched scenario. Let's discuss this in context. The TABC person responded within the context of my question which was based on the context of this thread.

Do you agree that the the following two statements impose different requirements on Wal-Mart:

"If it is discovered someone carried without a license into a Wal-Mart, TABC has to initiate license/permit cancellation proceedings"
"If it is discovered that Wal-Mart knowingly allowed someone to carry without a license into a Wal-Mart, TABC has to initiate license/permit cancellation proceedings"

To me, the first statement is a /much/ lower bar than the second - that's all I'm trying to say.

Solaris wrote:

anomie wrote:
I think he's trying to point out that what TABC stated and what the law actually says may be two different things.

Consider the following situation:

Someone carries into a Wal-Mart, concealed, without a CHL/LTC. Nobody at Wal-Mart sees or knows about it. The person who did this then brags about it on, say, Facebook, and someone at TABC sees it.

If the law actually were "TABC is required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises of a licensed/permitted business", then in the above situation, TABC would have to start permit/license proceedings against the Wal-Mart - because a) someone without a CHL/LTC carried onto the premises and b) that this happened was discovered.

With the law quoted saying 'knowingly', then Wal-Mart has to allow it while knowing both that a) the firearm was carried onto the premises and b) that the person carrying doesn't have a CHL/LTC, and in the above situation Wal-Mart knew neither (a) nor (b).

I think that's why metal detectors were mentioned, if they're on the hook for a cancellation proceeding just because it happened and was discovered, then they would reduce their risk of getting their license cancelled by trying to actively ensure no guns were carried into the store without a CHL/LTC.

Or, for a TL;DR: I think the TABC response may be asserting more than the law actually says.

Thank you.

A family member owns several convenience stores, he does not post 06/07. He is not checking LTCs either. He will not be losing his license if "it is discovered an unlicensed handgun [sic] was brought onto the premises". Because he is not knowingly allowing it.

Thus the claim WalMart has to do it to protect their license is bogus.

It is also bogus that "the onus is on the retailer"

and "it seems the TABC is providing an incentive for alcohol retailers to put up 30.07 and 30.06 sign" is also bogus.

These are just opinions by folks who are not in the business of retail alcohol sales and do not know what they do not know.

parabelum wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

parabelum wrote:I really wasn't going to chime in on this anymore, as we've already had plethora of intelligent posts depicting what a proper and mature response to a business ought to be with respect to this topic...BUT, discussing this ad infinitum serves no purpose other than giving anti-2A more potential material.

Appreciate the rebuke. However, I do believe we need to make sure accurate info is out there and it needs to come from US. As long as people jump in an add incorrect info, it needs to be addressed.

Agree 100%.

However, my opinion is that we have already disseminated accurate info, page after page.

What is unclear?

If you go to WM AND you OC, when asked for your CHL/LTC by an employee, kindly comply and move on.
If you don't wish to do that, then shop elsewhere or CC only. The End.

parabelum wrote:I really wasn't going to chime in on this anymore, as we've already had plethora of intelligent posts depicting what a proper and mature response to a business ought to be with respect to this topic...BUT, discussing this ad infinitum serves no purpose other than giving anti-2A more potential material.

Solaris wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
Nice try. Why would they need metal detectors for openly carried guns? The fact you said they would need metal detectors specifically implies concealed carry of handguns..

No you need them specifically to find guns. i just OC'd to Walmart, they did not notice an obvious Glock on my belt. OMG they are going to lose their license now. My bad.

And I found another ERROR in that email. Holy cow that guy is wrong on just about everything he wrote.

"if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises"

See it? yeah ALL handguns are unlicensed in Texas.

bmwrdr wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Solaris wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
The entire premise of my question to them was based upon open carry. If one is open carrying, it stands to reason they will know. You are the only one that has tried to construe this to include concealed carry.

Context matters and we are talking in the context of open carry.

Nowhere did I say concealed carry. I wrote "unlicensed guns" Context matters, but reading is fundamental too.

In my decades of OC in other states, most people do not know. So far this year no one at my WalMart has noticed either. Going there again right now, so we will see.

Nice try. Why would they need metal detectors for openly carried guns? The fact you said they would need metal detectors specifically implies concealed carry of handguns.

Not trying to outsmart anybody here but as soon as you have a metal detector you should need a guard as well to search for weapons carried illegally and eliminate false positives of detecting jewelry, keys, ...
In other words, I don't think Walmart would add that level of security.

Solaris wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
The entire premise of my question to them was based upon open carry. If one is open carrying, it stands to reason they will know. You are the only one that has tried to construe this to include concealed carry.

Context matters and we are talking in the context of open carry.

Nowhere did I say concealed carry. I wrote "unlicensed guns" Context matters, but reading is fundamental too.

In my decades of OC in other states, most people do not know. So far this year no one at my WalMart has noticed either. Going there again right now, so we will see.

Solaris wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Solaris wrote:

mojo84 wrote:For those of you that think it is a copout, excuse or up to the TABC agent's attitude or mood, here is the response to my direct email inquiry to TABC. I hope you find this post edifying.

Hello Mojo84,
 
Under Sections 11.61(e) and 61.71(f) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, TABC is required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises of a licensed/permitted business. This being the case, retailers should make arrangements to verify the License to Carry of anyone who possesses a handgun on their premises. Ultimately, how each business chooses to fulfil this requirement is up to them, but TABC is required by law to begin cancellation proceedings if a violation is found.

Notice it says they are required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered and unlicensed handgun was brought into the premises.

No it does not say that. Here is what it says:


11.61(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f) or (i), the commission or administrator shall cancel an original or renewal permit if it is found, after notice and hearing, that the permittee knowingly allowed a person to possess a firearm in a building on the licensed premises.

61.7(f) Except as provided by Subsection (g) or (j), the commission or administrator shall cancel an original or renewal dealer's on-premises or off-premises license if it is found, after notice and hearing, that the licensee knowingly allowed a person to possess a firearm in a building on the licensed premises.

Huge difference between knowingly allowing something and not.

Can you expound upon your post as I am having trouble getting your point?

If what TABC guy said was true, WalMart would need Metal Detectors to prevent people from coming in with unlicensed guns. But what he said was not true. They have to knowingly allow it. So folks coming in without their knowledge are not a problem.

locke_n_load wrote:I refuse to believe that Walmart manager's are going to carry this out - please let me know if we see a memo from Walmart.com, not these other websites. Or if someone is actually asked for their LTC by Walmart employees.

To date, I have not heard of one instance of a carrier being asked for LTC at Walmart, which makes me believe that the information being thrown around is speculation and not from Walmart at all.

Solaris wrote:

mojo84 wrote:For those of you that think it is a copout, excuse or up to the TABC agent's attitude or mood, here is the response to my direct email inquiry to TABC. I hope you find this post edifying.

Hello Mojo84,
 
Under Sections 11.61(e) and 61.71(f) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, TABC is required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises of a licensed/permitted business. This being the case, retailers should make arrangements to verify the License to Carry of anyone who possesses a handgun on their premises. Ultimately, how each business chooses to fulfil this requirement is up to them, but TABC is required by law to begin cancellation proceedings if a violation is found.

Notice it says they are required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered and unlicensed handgun was brought into the premises.

No it does not say that. Here is what it says:


11.61(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f) or (i), the commission or administrator shall cancel an original or renewal permit if it is found, after notice and hearing, that the permittee knowingly allowed a person to possess a firearm in a building on the licensed premises.

61.7(f) Except as provided by Subsection (g) or (j), the commission or administrator shall cancel an original or renewal dealer's on-premises or off-premises license if it is found, after notice and hearing, that the licensee knowingly allowed a person to possess a firearm in a building on the licensed premises.

Huge difference between knowingly allowing something and not.