HB 910 Conference Committee

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 16
Posts: 8249
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#511

Post by mojo84 » Sun May 31, 2015 6:52 am

Glockster wrote:
TrueFlog wrote:
fickman wrote: 2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."

They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 10334
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#512

Post by jmra » Sun May 31, 2015 7:05 am

mojo84 wrote:
Glockster wrote:
TrueFlog wrote:
fickman wrote: 2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."

They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Was this in response to handgun carry in other states or the long gun carry in Texas?
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

User avatar

Vol Texan
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1775
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:18 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#513

Post by Vol Texan » Sun May 31, 2015 7:27 am

jmra wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Glockster wrote:
TrueFlog wrote:
fickman wrote: 2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."

They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Was this in response to handgun carry in other states or the long gun carry in Texas?
I believe specifically to long gun carry.
Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
When those fail, aim for center mass.

www.HoustonLTC.com: Texas LTC Instructor & NRA Pistol Instructor | www.Texas3006.com Moderator | Armored Cav. | Tennessee Squire

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 10334
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#514

Post by jmra » Sun May 31, 2015 7:34 am

Vol Texan wrote:
jmra wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Glockster wrote:
TrueFlog wrote:
fickman wrote: 2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."

They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Was this in response to handgun carry in other states or the long gun carry in Texas?
I believe specifically to long gun carry.
In that case I wouldn't think handgun OC would be viewed the same way.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

User avatar

Glockster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:48 am
Location: Kingwood, TX

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#515

Post by Glockster » Sun May 31, 2015 7:45 am

mojo84 wrote:
Glockster wrote:
TrueFlog wrote:
fickman wrote: 2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."

They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Sorry, but to me saying that guns are "no longer permitted" is in fact exactly a ban. If I say that trans fat is "not permitted" from a food, that means it is in fact banned. If smoking is not permitted inside of a building, that is a ban. That Starbucks chose to make it sound "friendly" in the quote at the end of the statement doesn't mitigate that they no longer permit guns. The whole bit about not confronting it was explained in a longer article as part of a desire to not provoke an angry confrontation.
Last edited by Glockster on Sun May 31, 2015 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
NRA Life Member
My State Rep Hubert won't tell me his position on HB560. How about yours?

User avatar

Glockster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:48 am
Location: Kingwood, TX

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#516

Post by Glockster » Sun May 31, 2015 7:50 am

Vol Texan wrote:
jmra wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Glockster wrote:
TrueFlog wrote:
fickman wrote: 2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."

They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Was this in response to handgun carry in other states or the long gun carry in Texas?
I believe specifically to long gun carry.
Actually, as It recall it had nothing to do with either long guns or with Texas. The first reported incidents were in California having to do with the most recent handgun laws, and I recall reading a couple of articles about a guy open carrying an unloaded handgun into a Starbucks, and the MWAG a responses that followed. Starbucks USED to be an important part of exercising 2A rights, but this was a direct result of pressure from private groups ticked that Starbucks had to that point held out.
NRA Life Member
My State Rep Hubert won't tell me his position on HB560. How about yours?


viking1000
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:04 pm
Location: Texas Hill Country

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#517

Post by viking1000 » Sun May 31, 2015 9:39 am

Very possible Starbucks bent to federal pressure, they are the only outside coffee shop allowed in VA hospitals.


juno106
Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:59 pm

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#518

Post by juno106 » Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:43 pm

IMHO, you shouldn't have been...

We'll see what 2017 will bring...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
The Wall wrote:What if the person entering the premises is blind? Shouldn't these signs also be in Braille?
Now there's an idea for 2017! The MOMS will be going crazy, crazier than they are, that is.

Chas.
I was kidding folks.

Chas.


ScooterSissy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 16
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#519

Post by ScooterSissy » Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:42 pm

Glockster wrote:
TrueFlog wrote:
fickman wrote: 2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."
Might I suggest that instead of reading MSM "summary" of what he said, you read what he actually said. There was no ban, and the statement that "guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores - or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas" was patently false; there was a request:
For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban.
When a company has an option to ban guns in their locations, a very specific option that makes it against the law even in areas where it otherwise would not be, and instead chooses to "request" people not carry guns, I don't accept that as a ban. It appears much more to me to be an appeasement to the ignorant.

Locked

Return to “2015 Legislative Session”