TexasCHLforum.com

Is it just me or does anyone else think that ban sign looks fake? The focus is different on it and everything. Or are my old eyes playing tricks on me? It just looks odd compared to everything else.

un0fficial wrote:

Good for Buffalo Wild Wings! I will eat there whenever I can. If more people and establishments showed this kind of courage we wouldn't have all the senseless gun violence we have now. What if that movie theater in Colorado had that policy. Then maybe that tragedy would have been averted. Hey, hey NRA, how many kids did you kill today?????

I'm sorry, I'm..... you...... the....... the stupidity of that comment on that WP post literally hurts, like physical pain, my brain.

So apparently, if there were "No Guns" signs in Aurora, the gunman wouldn't have gone in?

Excuse me while I go weep for this country....

That's the mentality we're up against...

C-dub wrote:Is it just me or does anyone else think that ban sign looks fake? The focus is different on it and everything. Or are my old eyes playing tricks on me? It just looks odd compared to everything else.

I don't know whether that specific sign/picture is fake, but it resembles the BWW's around here (Plano). The ones I've been to here have the language "Buffalo Wild Wings bans guns on these premises" in white block letters against the glass window/door.

un0fficial wrote:

Good for Buffalo Wild Wings! I will eat there whenever I can. If more people and establishments showed this kind of courage we wouldn't have all the senseless gun violence we have now. What if that movie theater in Colorado had that policy. Then maybe that tragedy would have been averted. Hey, hey NRA, how many kids did you kill today?????

I'm sorry, I'm..... you...... the....... the stupidity of that comment on that WP post literally hurts, like physical pain, my brain.

So apparently, if there were "No Guns" signs in Aurora, the gunman wouldn't have gone in?

Excuse me while I go weep for this country....

IIRC, the Aurora, Colorado movie theater DID have a Colorado-compliant "no guns for CHL's" policy.
Obviously the crazed shooter was not stopped by what the commenter feels should have stopped him. Sheesh.

SIA

Jumping Frog wrote:

knotquiteawake wrote:My guess is that either they are just completely ignorant or the manager knows its not enforceable and so decided to put up a sign they know we will ignore but will still appease corporate.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Cotton and all the other people responsible for implementing 30.06 in Texas.

There are many states where Buffalo Wild Wings posts a similar "no guns" sign and the sign has the force of law.

The best thing is for all signs NOT to have the force of law. If the person doesn't leave when asked then charge him with a simple trespass. Criminal trespass and signs with the force of law is over the top.

remington79 wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

knotquiteawake wrote:My guess is that either they are just completely ignorant or the manager knows its not enforceable and so decided to put up a sign they know we will ignore but will still appease corporate.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Cotton and all the other people responsible for implementing 30.06 in Texas.

There are many states where Buffalo Wild Wings posts a similar "no guns" sign and the sign has the force of law.

The best thing is for all signs NOT to have the force of law. If the person doesn't leave when asked then charge him with a simple trespass. Criminal trespass and signs with the force of law is over the top.

As Mr. Cotton has noted in numerous posts, that is a non-starter in the Great State of Texas. This is an example where the rights of individuals to bear firearms conflicts with the rights of property owners to control what happens on their property. Here in Texas, property rights are an important value and the compromise was the "Big Ugly Sign". Personally, I think a Class A misdemeanor (up to a year in jail), is overkill but it makes dead certain that I will never knowingly violate a 30.06 sign.

There are states, e.g. Kentucky , where a business can post a no firearms sign but it has no force of law. Someone cannot be charged with trespassing until being verbally asked to leave and refusing.

Been there a couple times. The food sucks. Sports Attention deficit disorder central. Carry on.

They can keep their food. I will keep my money.

I have to disagree property rights are not infringed. The property owner just has to ask the person to leave. If the person doesn't leave when asked then the person carrying can be charged with trespassing. Everybody's rights are protected. The property owner can ask people to leave and the person carrying can carry unless asked to leave. To me it's a win-win. To have the sign have the force of law is a loss.

remington79 wrote:I have to disagree property rights are not infringed. The property owner just has to ask the person to leave. If the person doesn't leave when asked then the person carrying can be charged with trespassing. Everybody's rights are protected. The property owner can ask people to leave and the person carrying can carry unless asked to leave. To me it's a win-win. To have the sign have the force of law is a loss.

So to be consistent, if you own 500 acres of ranch land, you are saying that you cannot post signs notifying the illegals, the poachers, the meth lab cookers, and all other undesired people to KEEP OUT? That you must personally ask any person trespassing on your property to leave?

I have no problem with a property owner having the right to set the terms and conditions by which they provide other people access to the property. "Fishing OK, but no Hunting." "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

Property rights are just as important to a free society as our other rights. As I previously mentioned, I do have an issue with "Armed Trespass" being a Class A Misdemeanor when applied to CHL's.

Jumping Frog wrote:

remington79 wrote:I have to disagree property rights are not infringed. The property owner just has to ask the person to leave. If the person doesn't leave when asked then the person carrying can be charged with trespassing. Everybody's rights are protected. The property owner can ask people to leave and the person carrying can carry unless asked to leave. To me it's a win-win. To have the sign have the force of law is a loss.

So to be consistent, if you own 500 acres of ranch land, you are saying that you cannot post signs notifying the illegals, the poachers, the meth lab cookers, and all other undesired people to KEEP OUT? That you must personally ask any person trespassing on your property to leave?

I have no problem with a property owner having the right to set the terms and conditions by which they provide other people access to the property. "Fishing OK, but no Hunting." "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

Property rights are just as important to a free society as our other rights. As I previously mentioned, I do have an issue with "Armed Trespass" being a Class A Misdemeanor when applied to CHL's.

I tend to agree with what I believe Chas said earlier - that when it comes to concealed carry by a CHL, commercial property open to the public should be treated differently than a residence or private property to which the general public is denied access.
To my knowledge, the owner of a retail store can not arbitrarily prevent off duty LEOs from carrying concealed weapons in their stores the way they can with CHLs. No one seems to have an issue with that. Why is it that the off duty LEO concealed carry is not a violation of the owners rights but a CHLs concealed carry is? Simply doesn't hold water.

You have no rights on private property. You cannot go into Walmart holding a sign saying *Walmart Sucks* and claim your 1A right when told to leave.

I saw a sign with the same wording but different appearance on the BWW near my son's High School.

I don't understand the mentality of voluntarily giving your money to people who want to prevent you from exercising your right to self-defense --especially when purchasing something that is unnecessary? I'm looking for enlightenment and wonder if someone who does this might be willing to discuss the reasoning behind providing financial support to your enemies? Unless it is someplace you have to go, like work, I don't get why the sign makes a difference since even if it doesn't meet the legal standard, it still advertizes the fact that a business seeks to prevent you from exercising your right to self-defense?

VMI77 wrote:I don't understand the mentality of voluntarily giving your money to people who want to prevent you from exercising your right to self-defense --especially when purchasing something that is unnecessary? I'm looking for enlightenment and wonder if someone who does this might be willing to discuss the reasoning behind providing financial support to your enemies? Unless it is someplace you have to go, like work, I don't get why the sign makes a difference since even if it doesn't meet the legal standard, it still advertizes the fact that a business seeks to prevent you from exercising your right to self-defense?

I don't pretend to be able to determine the intent of a less-than-legal sign banning firearms from a business, so the statement above has no meaning to me.
If I did intend to read minds, I imagine that it would be along the lines of the owner thinking, "Hey, the dummies out there think that this will stop the nasty gun-nuts from coming in here, while the people with CHL's will know that they are tacitly approved of".