TexasCHLforum.com

TXBO wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06. YMMV.

....from PC 30.06

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

Neither would I. That sign says they don't want my business. I'll respect their wishes.

They aren't showing enough respect for their LTC customers to put the right sign up, so I won't show them any by observing it...Though it really is telling me they don't want my business, so if I can, I'll go elsewhere, but I won't disarm if I do go in.

ScottDLS wrote:

TXBO wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I wouldn't carry past that 30.06. YMMV.

....from PC 30.06

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

Neither would I. That sign says they don't want my business. I'll respect their wishes.

They aren't showing enough respect for their LTC customers to put the right sign up, so I won't show them any by observing it...Though it really is telling me they don't want my business, so if I can, I'll go elsewhere, but I won't disarm if I do go in.

The 30.06/30.07 signage requirements contain strong protections for LTC holders against prosecution for inadvertently and honestly missing a notice. I'll save my trip to court for when that actually happens.

My thoughts, which are worth what you paid for them.

I wouldn't go into that place at all if I had reasonable alternatives, since they seem to maybe possibly be anti-gun.

I would not hesitate to carry concealed past that sign if I did decide to go there. If someone notices that I have a weapon, it is probably because I have pulled it from my holster and have started shooting at someone who is a threat to me or my family. At that point, I am not too worried about an ignorant LEO charging me with something that is not illegal. I would be much more worried about not having my gun and me or my family being harmed as a result.

We really need a forum rule 4A that says people should not tell others to give up their right to carry when it is perfectly legal to do so. If you want to restrict your RKBA more than you need to, go right ahead. But I will exercise my rights as much as I can, consistent with my lifestyle.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:My thoughts, which are worth what you paid for them.

I wouldn't go into that place at all if I had reasonable alternatives, since they seem to maybe possibly be anti-gun.

I would not hesitate to carry concealed past that sign if I did decide to go there. If someone notices that I have a weapon, it is probably because I have pulled it from my holster and have started shooting at someone who is a threat to me or my family. At that point, I am not too worried about an ignorant LEO charging me with something that is not illegal. I would be much more worried about not having my gun and me or my family being harmed as a result.

We really need a forum rule 4A that says people should not tell others to give up their right to carry when it is perfectly legal to do so. If you want to restrict your RKBA more than you need to, go right ahead. But I will exercise my rights as much as I can, consistent with my lifestyle.

My Grandfather says that, "rights are more often surrendered than they are taken."

I never really understood that until I started reading and posting here.

TexasTornado wrote: My Grandfather says that, "rights are more often surrendered than they are taken."

I never really understood that until I started reading and posting here.

That's what we're all about up in here. Giving up our rights to carry. :-) OR just different interpretations of how best to carry on as a LTC collective to protect our rights in perpetuity.

goose wrote:

TexasTornado wrote: My Grandfather says that, "rights are more often surrendered than they are taken."

I never really understood that until I started reading and posting here.

That's what we're all about up in here. Giving up our rights to carry. :-) OR just different interpretations of how best to carry on as a LTC collective to protect our rights in perpetuity.

I think a lot of people on this forum are very willing to give up their rights to carry, a little bit at a time. Ever time a thread is started about a non-enforceable sign, you see several posters advocating that people give up their right to carry past that sign because "you might take a ride" or for some similar reason. That is voluntarily surrendering your rights whether one likes to admit it or not.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

goose wrote:

TexasTornado wrote: My Grandfather says that, "rights are more often surrendered than they are taken."

I never really understood that until I started reading and posting here.

That's what we're all about up in here. Giving up our rights to carry. :-) OR just different interpretations of how best to carry on as a LTC collective to protect our rights in perpetuity.

I think a lot of people on this forum are very willing to give up their rights to carry, a little bit at a time. Ever time a thread is started about a non-enforceable sign, you see several posters advocating that people give up their right to carry past that sign because "you might take a ride" or for some similar reason. That is voluntarily surrendering your rights whether one likes to admit it or not.

Well, we could also argue that lots of people on this forum give up their rights by not practicing constitutional carry. Do you practice constitutional carry everyday? Everywhere you go?

goose wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

goose wrote:

TexasTornado wrote: My Grandfather says that, "rights are more often surrendered than they are taken."

I never really understood that until I started reading and posting here.

That's what we're all about up in here. Giving up our rights to carry. :-) OR just different interpretations of how best to carry on as a LTC collective to protect our rights in perpetuity.

I think a lot of people on this forum are very willing to give up their rights to carry, a little bit at a time. Ever time a thread is started about a non-enforceable sign, you see several posters advocating that people give up their right to carry past that sign because "you might take a ride" or for some similar reason. That is voluntarily surrendering your rights whether one likes to admit it or not.

Well, we could also argue that lots of people on this forum give up their rights by not practicing constitutional carry. Do you practice constitutional carry everyday? Everywhere you go?

There's a big difference between doing things not allowed by statute and not exercising your rights within the restrictions of the laws as they are written. I know everyone has their own comfort levels and preferences tho.

goose wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

goose wrote:

TexasTornado wrote: My Grandfather says that, "rights are more often surrendered than they are taken."

I never really understood that until I started reading and posting here.

That's what we're all about up in here. Giving up our rights to carry. :-) OR just different interpretations of how best to carry on as a LTC collective to protect our rights in perpetuity.

I think a lot of people on this forum are very willing to give up their rights to carry, a little bit at a time. Ever time a thread is started about a non-enforceable sign, you see several posters advocating that people give up their right to carry past that sign because "you might take a ride" or for some similar reason. That is voluntarily surrendering your rights whether one likes to admit it or not.

Well, we could also argue that lots of people on this forum give up their rights by not practicing constitutional carry. Do you practice constitutional carry everyday? Everywhere you go?

Most people voluntarily limit their rights every day. That is unfortunate, but that is also their business. But when those folks advocate that others give up their rights, even incrementally, that is wrong, IMHO.

If someone wants to adopt a policy of not patronizing a business that posts a non-compliant "no guns" sign, that is fine, and completely understandable. If that same person then says that if they did enter the place, they would choose to not carry even though they legally can, that is sad, but ultimately still their choice to make. It is when they take the next step and insinuate that others should similarly restrict their right to keep and bear arms, that I have an issue and I feel the need to advocate against this (IMHO) wrongheaded advice.

Usually the root cause of the advice is an irrational fear of wrongful arrest coupled with an unrealistic belief that LEO's are, in general, ignorant of the law. This level of fear and ignorance is also displayed by those in the anti-gun crowd, except that they have an unrealistic fear of guns instead of an unrealistic fear of arrest. And given that we have had precisely zero documented cases of a CHL / LTC holder "taking a ride" solely for unlawful carry, when the carry was actually lawful, I would say that we can pretty clearly label this as an irrational fear.

TexasTornado wrote:

goose wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

goose wrote:

TexasTornado wrote: My Grandfather says that, "rights are more often surrendered than they are taken."

I never really understood that until I started reading and posting here.

That's what we're all about up in here. Giving up our rights to carry. :-) OR just different interpretations of how best to carry on as a LTC collective to protect our rights in perpetuity.

I think a lot of people on this forum are very willing to give up their rights to carry, a little bit at a time. Ever time a thread is started about a non-enforceable sign, you see several posters advocating that people give up their right to carry past that sign because "you might take a ride" or for some similar reason. That is voluntarily surrendering your rights whether one likes to admit it or not.

Well, we could also argue that lots of people on this forum give up their rights by not practicing constitutional carry. Do you practice constitutional carry everyday? Everywhere you go?

There's a big difference between doing things not allowed by statute and not exercising your rights within the restrictions of the laws as they are written. I know everyone has their own comfort levels and preferences tho.

Agreed. And for me there is a big difference between walking past a gun buster sign and walking past a good faith effort sign. You keep bringing up comfort. I would be very comfortable walking past that sign legally. I would be uncomfortable walking past that sign claiming I didn't know or understand their intentions. I couldn't look my boys in the eye and tell them that I was confused. I also don't really need the Chambers of Commerce pressuring our legislature to change our, currently excellent, laws just because I had to ask my lawyer to get all grammarnazi in my defense.

TexasTornado wrote:

goose wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

goose wrote:

TexasTornado wrote: My Grandfather says that, "rights are more often surrendered than they are taken."

I never really understood that until I started reading and posting here.

That's what we're all about up in here. Giving up our rights to carry. :-) OR just different interpretations of how best to carry on as a LTC collective to protect our rights in perpetuity.

I think a lot of people on this forum are very willing to give up their rights to carry, a little bit at a time. Ever time a thread is started about a non-enforceable sign, you see several posters advocating that people give up their right to carry past that sign because "you might take a ride" or for some similar reason. That is voluntarily surrendering your rights whether one likes to admit it or not.

Well, we could also argue that lots of people on this forum give up their rights by not practicing constitutional carry. Do you practice constitutional carry everyday? Everywhere you go?

There's a big difference between doing things not allowed by statute and not exercising your rights within the restrictions of the laws as they are written. I know everyone has their own comfort levels and preferences tho.

Agreed. And for me there is a big difference between walking past a gun buster sign and walking past a good faith effort sign. You keep bringing up comfort. I would be very comfortable walking past that sign legally. I would be uncomfortable walking past that sign claiming I didn't know or understand their intentions. I couldn't look my boys in the eye and tell them that I was confused. I also don't really need the Chambers of Commerce pressuring our legislature to change our, currently excellent, laws just because I had to ask my lawyer to get all grammarnazi in my defense.

And I submit you are not giving up any rights...just giving up options. You don't have a 'right' to go into that establishment. You have the 'privilege' of patronizing that establishment PROVIDED you are unarmed. They have legal grounds to deny your gun entry. This is not about rights...

*edited for spelling*

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

goose wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

goose wrote:

TexasTornado wrote: My Grandfather says that, "rights are more often surrendered than they are taken."

I never really understood that until I started reading and posting here.

That's what we're all about up in here. Giving up our rights to carry. :-) OR just different interpretations of how best to carry on as a LTC collective to protect our rights in perpetuity.

I think a lot of people on this forum are very willing to give up their rights to carry, a little bit at a time. Ever time a thread is started about a non-enforceable sign, you see several posters advocating that people give up their right to carry past that sign because "you might take a ride" or for some similar reason. That is voluntarily surrendering your rights whether one likes to admit it or not.

Well, we could also argue that lots of people on this forum give up their rights by not practicing constitutional carry. Do you practice constitutional carry everyday? Everywhere you go?

Most people voluntarily limit their rights every day. That is unfortunate, but that is also their business. But when those folks advocate that others give up their rights, even incrementally, that is wrong, IMHO.

If someone wants to adopt a policy of not patronizing a business that posts a non-compliant "no guns" sign, that is fine, and completely understandable. If that same person then says that if they did enter the place, they would choose to not carry even though they legally can, that is sad, but ultimately still their choice to make. It is when they take the next step and insinuate that others should similarly restrict their right to keep and bear arms, that I have an issue and I feel the need to advocate against this (IMHO) wrongheaded advice.

Usually the root cause of the advice is an irrational fear of wrongful arrest coupled with an unrealistic belief that LEO's are, in general, ignorant of the law. This level of fear and ignorance is also displayed by those in the anti-gun crowd, except that they have an unrealistic fear of guns instead of an unrealistic fear of arrest. And given that we have had precisely zero documented cases of a CHL / LTC holder "taking a ride" solely for unlawful carry, when the carry was actually lawful, I would say that we can pretty clearly label this as an irrational fear.

If I am not afraid of taking a ride, I am cognizant of respecting others' wishes and protecting the long term public perception of the 2A crowd as a whole, can you address my comments? Do you think we would win as a 2A collective if a CCer took that case, with that sign into the public arena? I guess I haven't taken to full jump into 100% black and white, zero grey just yet.

goose wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

goose wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

goose wrote:

TexasTornado wrote: My Grandfather says that, "rights are more often surrendered than they are taken."

I never really understood that until I started reading and posting here.

That's what we're all about up in here. Giving up our rights to carry. :-) OR just different interpretations of how best to carry on as a LTC collective to protect our rights in perpetuity.

I think a lot of people on this forum are very willing to give up their rights to carry, a little bit at a time. Ever time a thread is started about a non-enforceable sign, you see several posters advocating that people give up their right to carry past that sign because "you might take a ride" or for some similar reason. That is voluntarily surrendering your rights whether one likes to admit it or not.

Well, we could also argue that lots of people on this forum give up their rights by not practicing constitutional carry. Do you practice constitutional carry everyday? Everywhere you go?

There's a big difference between doing things not allowed by statute and not exercising your rights within the restrictions of the laws as they are written. I know everyone has their own comfort levels and preferences tho.

Agreed. And for me there is a big difference between walking past a gun buster sign and walking past a good faith effort sign. You keep bringing up comfort. I would be very comfortable walking past that sign legally. I would be uncomfortable walking past that sign claiming I didn't know or understand their intentions. I couldn't look my boys in the eye and tell them that I was confused. I also don't really need the Chambers of Commerce pressuring our legislature to change our, currently excellent, laws just because I had to ask my lawyer to get all grammarnazi in my defense.

I guess I just don't understand how the "intentions" of that sign and a gun buster sign are any different. The intent of both is to restrict the possession of a firearm on the premises. Both signs are ignorant of the current laws regarding such restrictions and neither sign applies to LTC holders currently licenced in the state of Texas.

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for business owners anymore than it is criminals, ESPECIALLY with all of the publicity that surrounded the changes in carry law. As far as it being a "good faith effort," how much effort does it really take to find this information on the txdps website?

I will address my thoughts on "respecting the owner's wishes to add to what SoccerDad said.

I understand why some people do not want to carry past a "defective" notice, because the owner presumably has made, his/her/its (entity) intentions known with the defective sign. Some regard it as a breach of manners/protocol and don't wish to do it. I personally don't care.

Most of the situation we discuss are related to public businesses who are otherwise inviting us to come on to their premises to spend our money. The law provides very specific steps for the business to make carrying a criminal offense. If they don't follow them it isn't. If the owners' intentions were so heartfelt that I should feel guilty for ignoring them, then they should demonstrate that by orally notifying me or putting up the legally prescribed sign.

Another point...the majority of businesses open to the public are owned by legal entities (partnerships, public and private corporations, limited liability companies, etc.). This diffuse ownership makes it virtually impossible for me to determine the personal intentions of the owners, if there even IS a valid set of intentions... I "own" ExxonMobil (a very small share). I want everyone to open carry in company owned stores. I don't know what Rex Tillerson (CEO) or the board, or my fellow shareholders, or the managers whom we (shareholders) have appointed wish. If the managers want to make it clear, they have to post the proper signs, or have one of their station operators tell me orally. Until then I want to all carry in Exxon facilities.

So if I go into Paw Walton's Sawmill and I don't see a PROPER 30.06 sign, I'm going to assume that Paw (John) Walton doesn't really care that much, unless maybe John Boy, or Grampaw tells me orally, which would be sufficient under 30.06.

I don't know what the "owner" of TGI Friday's wants either. I think it's a big hedge fund in NY or CT...and honestly I don't CARE what those mamby pamby wall street types think. They can post the right sign if they want, and that'll keep me out if their bad food doesn't...