TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:

Taypo wrote:

thetexan wrote:I can see how that might be taken as being too particular as to who informs me. That is not my intention. I was responding to what seemed to be a willingness to just roll over and play dead to any less than proper notification. My point is that, being a good, try to get along, citizen is an important thing. We are not being too snotty, though, to expect that a business follow the same law as they expect us to follow and exercise their right to keep us off their premises by properly complying with 30.06 and .07.

This board is filled with examples of businesses with improper signage and folks discussing how to deal with them. I don't see many examples of folks being timid about their 2A rights here.

There have been some folks who appear to have a hard time understanding the difference between protecting their right to OC and respecting the rights of a business not to allow said OC. That may be the cause of the...reactions to your post. If that was not your intent, then I apologise.

And I apologize to you and EEllis if I have offended. That certainly is not my intent. As stated earlier here and many times in other threads, I believe in using adult judgement with all of this and an non-confrontational attitude. We all know what the law says. We know about oral, written and signage notifications prescribed in 30.06. The word apparent is used by the state legislature for a reason. Clearly there is a distinction between those with apparent authority and others who do not have apparent authority. I take them at their word. There ARE, according to the legislature, two types of persons who might tell you to get out, ones with apparent authority and those without.

That's my only point.

To restate my position, a company simply having a policy and hanging that policy on the wall is not, as we all know, one of the ways to lawfully notify a gun carrier to not carry a gun inside. The only other way is by one with apparent authority to ask you to leave. Is that the manager, assistant manager, janitor, kid filling salt shakers, plain clothes owner who is in the store but doesn't identify himself? What is the definition of someone who has apparent authority? That's a real good question. The state seems to think that adjective was necessary. Each person has to decide how that law is applied. And, for the record, if one doesn't know I recommend one be very cautious in their ignoring a request to leave.

That's my only point.

Again, I apologize to both of you for my poor phrasing.

tex

thetexan wrote:

EEllis wrote:

thetexan wrote:They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

First the posted policy says they will not serve a person open carrying not that they will ask anyone to leave. Second your statement has zero basis in law. Anyone in a company uniform has apparent authority and you can be arrested and will be convicted. But lets ignore that and create such a disturbance that they do post the store and no one would be able to carry. Make sure you bring your kids, the younger the better, to scream and cry and video you being dragged out by the cops. That will win all kinds of props from CJ and Korey.

First...posted policy is not notification, by law. That is a written document that, I presume, has a policy written on it rather than the prescribed language.

Second...I did not say who has apparent authority, only that it must be someone with apparent authority. That person, by statute, must have APPARENT authority. I make no pronouncements as to who that is. And yes, if someone who meets that qualification asks me to leave then I will be properly notified and I will leave. Your statement which assumes that, by my statement, I would be willing to create a disturbance to make a point is unfounded. I suggest nothing of the sort and, in fact, expect nothing but kind, appropriate adult compliance TO THE PROPER NOTIFICATION.

I'll state it again even though I know folks know the law. Whataburger is well and indeed entitled to their right to ask anyone carrying a gun, concealed or not, to leave. I invite them to please do so. I am happy to comply and love their hamburgers so much that I will even continue to purchase them. I also expect no reasonable adult to make a scene just to make a point, even though he might be tempted to do so if there were improper notification. If I have a beef with the company I will take it to the leaders not to a young kid at the counter trying to pay for his next date!

There's really only two scenarios I can think of that might occur. 1) I go in with a gun (no signage anywhere) and someone asks me to leave which I immediately do. No issue here. or 2) I go in with the improper signage, no one says anything, but someone decides to call the police. When they arrive I will be surprised. When they ask if anyone asked me to leave I will truthfully say no. When they ask if I saw the sign I will say, "you mean that non-compliant thing over there?" Yes sir I did. Then I will ask them if they are familiar with 30.07. The resulting legal inconvenience, if any, will be easily remedied. The alternative is that 30.06 or 30.07 mean nothing as far as our rights to carry a gun.

I expect, as representatives of the CHL and LTC community, and as Christians or kind persons we all should handle these situations with kindness and appropriate decorum.

That does not change the requirements of the statute, our responsibility to comply with the law, or their responsibility to comply with the law.

tex

thetexan wrote:They can show me an employee. They can show me a policy. They can show me a sign.

Until they show me an employee who either is the owner or speaks with the APPARENT authority of the owner who verbally notifies me to leave, or shows me a written document with the identical 30.07 language written on it, or displays a properly posted compliant 30.07 sign I will have until then not been lawfully notified. And neither will anyone else.

LDB415 wrote:You have to wonder just a bit about people worrying over someone wearing Tucker leather. How many street scum wear a full Tucker rig or similar open carrying?

AggieDad15 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

AggieDad15 wrote:Lots of beating dead horses here on all sides. I think everyone who disagrees will always disagree.

I think what POed most people the most about Whataburger's decision, was their decision to politicize it - to pander to the liberal Mommies and leftists with this announcement - but yet trying to play both sides of the fence by saying CHL was OK.

I don't know about you guys and gals, but I don't much like politics, especially when it comes from a two-faced corporation who is trying to have it both ways or entertainers like the Dixie Chicks who bash our president in Europe.

This letter, as posted by ziravan on FreeRepublic, pretty much sums up my feelings on this.

My letter to Whataburger:

I normally eat at least one meal a week at one of your locations. I will not patronize Whataburger again until you officially cease your attack on gun rights in Texas.

You made a political statement with your announcement on open carry. I will make mine and exclude you from the list of businesses where I spend my hard earned money.

In some ways, I might even agree with you. I conceal carry and would not think to open carry, even after it becomes legal. I can see from where your concerns come. Nevertheless, timing is everything and by being first, loudest, and uniquely Texan, you are trading off your business model to send a political message.

Whether I agree that open carry is right for me or your business, I support it politically. The timing and nature of your statement on open carry goes beyond your private property rights; you’ve sent a political message and one where we disagree.

So, because you unilaterally decided to place politics between us, I have no choice but to respond in kind. Until you remove the politics you placed between us, we are opponents and I can no longer financially support a business who doesn’t see the common sense in keeping politics from ruining our relationship.

80 posted on 7/13/2015, 2:39:21 PM by ziravan (Choose Sides.)



As for me, their decision to announce this to the world in a patronizing move to the liberals, instead of just quietly posting a 3007 on January 1, will lose my life-long business forever. If they had been quiet and just posted a 3007 on Jan 1, but no 3006, I probably wouldn't have objected much. As for you, you can do whatever you please.

Wow, just Wow. Someone leaked a document then they were badgered from all sides and reluctantly they reaffirmed their position which most likely was more about CJ than MDA and you blame them? And by the way people can make decisions you don't like for reasons that have nothing to do with them being cowards or folding under pressure. That comments seems to just be you lashing out having no real evidence that I've seen. Honestly it was seemingly just you being unpleasant to someone who you disagree with. It's unseemly.

What do you care? Lots of other business did NOT cave in such as KROGER. What ax have you got to grind? s I said if you bothered to READ my post: YOU can do as you please. But stop whining about what **I** do. You're acting like your a WB employee or something LOL. To each his own.

AggieDad15 wrote:Lots of beating dead horses here on all sides. I think everyone who disagrees will always disagree.

I think what POed most people the most about Whataburger's decision, was their decision to politicize it - to pander to the liberal Mommies and leftists with this announcement - but yet trying to play both sides of the fence by saying CHL was OK.

I don't know about you guys and gals, but I don't much like politics, especially when it comes from a two-faced corporation who is trying to have it both ways or entertainers like the Dixie Chicks who bash our president in Europe.

This letter, as posted by ziravan on FreeRepublic, pretty much sums up my feelings on this.

My letter to Whataburger:

I normally eat at least one meal a week at one of your locations. I will not patronize Whataburger again until you officially cease your attack on gun rights in Texas.

You made a political statement with your announcement on open carry. I will make mine and exclude you from the list of businesses where I spend my hard earned money.

In some ways, I might even agree with you. I conceal carry and would not think to open carry, even after it becomes legal. I can see from where your concerns come. Nevertheless, timing is everything and by being first, loudest, and uniquely Texan, you are trading off your business model to send a political message.

Whether I agree that open carry is right for me or your business, I support it politically. The timing and nature of your statement on open carry goes beyond your private property rights; you’ve sent a political message and one where we disagree.

So, because you unilaterally decided to place politics between us, I have no choice but to respond in kind. Until you remove the politics you placed between us, we are opponents and I can no longer financially support a business who doesn’t see the common sense in keeping politics from ruining our relationship.

80 posted on 7/13/2015, 2:39:21 PM by ziravan (Choose Sides.)



As for me, their decision to announce this to the world in a patronizing move to the liberals, instead of just quietly posting a 3007 on January 1, will lose my life-long business forever. If they had been quiet and just posted a 3007 on Jan 1, but no 3006, I probably wouldn't have objected much. As for you, you can do whatever you please.

TXBO wrote:

Abraham wrote:We have a handful of militants OC types here, most of them new to the board stirring the OC pot.

They unfailingly reject the very reasonable, thoughtful responses in regard to OC.

They're like constantly complaining, colicky babies

From this point on, I plan to ignore their militant OC posts and hope others do to.

Perhaps, eventually they'll catch on that this forum, by and large rejects their militancy.

Perhaps, (I've never searched) there other forums that welcome their views.

Forums without opposing views are pretty boring.

Jim Beaux wrote:I have a problem here.

Im not a fan of OC & dont plan to ever OC - but the reality is Whataburger is infringing on 2A rights - and some here are ok with it cuz it doesnt directly affect them....AT THIS TIME...

"Then they came for me"

VMI77 wrote:The first statement under "response" is a lie.