TexasCHLforum.com

LedJedi wrote:i certainly wouldn't have eaten there. I generally refuse to patronize business that do not allow me to protect myself. The only way i would have been in lubys would have been if i were allowed to be armed.

It wasn't just Luby's. At the time, you couldn't carry in any restaurant.

phddan wrote:It would be pretty obvious if the letters were 1/4" short, not so obvious at 1/8".
I would walk right by the sign at 1/4".

I really don't understand the argument of respecting their wishes.
There is a group of folks that find it morally reprehensable to let women out in public without being covered from head to toe. Are you going to respect their wishes and make your wife and daughters dress in burkas??? Unless you do, I find these arguments highly hipocritical.
You can't run around and try to respect EVERYBODY'S wishes. Impossible. Can't be done.

Dan

If i want to enter their home/place of business and they put up a sign saying it's required, then yes, i will respect that.

I will respect it by not patronizing their home/business.

What my wife/daughter wears on her head outside of their home/business is none of their business.

boomerang wrote:

LedJedi wrote:i certainly wouldn't have eaten there. I generally refuse to patronize business that do not allow me to protect myself. The only way i would have been in lubys would have been if i were allowed to be armed.

It wasn't just Luby's. At the time, you couldn't carry in any restaurant.

That incident occurred before I was legally allowed to get a CHL.

If it were still the case I guess we'd be grilling out on the porch a lot more :) it's better for you anyway.

mr surveyor wrote:

phddan wrote: .....There is a group of folks that find it morally reprehensable to let women out in public without being covered from head to toe. Are you going to respect their wishes and make your wife and daughters dress in burkas???

In my opinion, that's not a very good analogy, unless you are trying to make a case for a business owner requiring women to wear a burkha to enter their place of business. In that case, put it on, or don't go in. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Otherwise, you can't mix individual responsibility to respect private property owner's rights with just a general "out in public" appearances.

Yea, it was a stretch, but we are talking about respecting other peoples wishes.
If a business owner really wanted to keep me out, they would post a proper sign.
If they just "wish" that guns not be in their place, but for reasons of asthetics, don't post properly, then that's not my problem or my concern.

Dan

I am NOT disagreeing with the letter of the law. It does clearly state the requirements of the size, shape, contrast, and particularly the wording of the sign for proper notice. And, I agree that concealed means concealed. That alone should cover, and obviously does cover most of us when we walk past the ghostbusters signs, and other ridiculous signs (ridiculous in OUR eyes). I would doubt that most small business owners are knowledgeable enough concerning concealed carry to even consider trying to find the proper wording, or would even know where to look. Believe me, I AM a small business owner, and know many others that wouldn't have the first clue about proper signage. Their ignorance would excuse your (percieved) trespass, possibly after some bit of disturbance, a visit with a leo, or possibly nothing more than a request that you leave. Either way, it should not be a problem as long as proper concealement is used.

Like I tried to point out in the "other thread" of near identical hypothesis concerning this subject, there is always a chance (very good chance) that the Police Officer that may be called, or already on site in the event of a chl holder "being made" may him(her) self be ignorant of the actual laws governing proper posting.

I still believe that a true attempt at 30.06 posting, meaning the actual wording set forth in the statute being used, whether exactly the proper size, or proper contrasting colors (very subjective requirement), as long as it's prominently posted at the entrance, should probably be given a great deal of respect.

The other, totally improper/irrelevant signs tell me to be even more aware of maintaining proper concealment as I may be on the property of one of those owners that is ignorant of the law and may just go way over the edge if he/she suspected a handgun on the premises.

just my opinions


oh, and for what it's worth, privately owned business are privately owned. The owners wishes are often "rights".... a bit more weight there

mr surveyor wrote:oh, and for what it's worth, privately owned business are privately owned. The owners wishes are often "rights".... a bit more weight there

Until they open their doors to the public...if they choose to remain a "private" business then they need to sell memberships...but if their doors are open to public access then the "private" ownership rights take somewhat of a back seat

Section 1.07 of the Texas Penal Code states: “’Public place’ means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.�