TexasCHLforum.com

carlson1 wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:There are some inconsistencies in this story that make me wonder if this actually happened. The OP stated he went into the restaurant, a cafeteria, and 20 minutes later the cops showed up. He then said said the cops showed up before he had a chance to order. Then he said they must not have cooked his food since the manager called the police.

Too many inconsistencies here for me to believe this event actually happened. I think I took the bait and got reeled up to the boat and threw the hook as the net approached me.

Further to my previous post regarding inconsistencies within this thread by the OP, I've looked back at his prior postings which demonstrate he is adamantly against open carry.

I believe he has an anti-OC agenda and he is playing us all like cheap fiddles. I am even more convinced the event in this thread did not happen. I encourage you all to review his prior comments and consider how he can't keep his story straight, even in this one thread.

We are making a mountain out of a molehill that did not exist.

I'm convinced mojo84 is absolutely correct. I did a quick search of his posts and the one quoted below is typical of his attitude toward open-carry. Couple this with his failure to respond to any comment in this multi-page thread he started and there's more reason to doubt this event ever occurred. It appears that his dislike of open-carry coupled with a total lack of anti-OC incidents prompted him to invent this story.

Chas.

PSTL*PAKR wrote:For all you OC people, get ready to get banned from carrying in a lot of places.....Why aren't people happy with CC??????

I will prove it. I will do it again, and post it on youtube

Take someone unarmed to film because you will be in jail and you can't post it.

Haha. Good advice Mr. Carlson1!
Let's all stake out our local Lubys and see who catches it on film for the OP. However, I have a feeling that we'd have a better chance catching Bigfoot on film!

carlson1 wrote:

cbr6864r wrote:

Greybeard wrote:Quote: "Stunts like this are what give a bad name to open carriers. "

Yep, I am with Keith on this one. If you go looking for trouble (or ATTENTION), you CAN find it. Such behavior is NOT representative of the holders I know - or want to be affiliated with.

So when exactly does one cross the line? The signs were clearly not compliant what if it is a hand written note simply stating no guns? Or a picture of a gun with an X through it? Are you required to treat all anti gun signs as if they were compliant? The law needs to work both ways not just a single path. If business owners do not want OC or CC they need to properly post the correct sign.

I don't think it was illegal to walk past what looks like an "illegal sign." It then became legal notice when the police told him verbally don't OC. If he decides he will go back and try again if the signs are still there it is a Class A misdemeanor because he received LEGAL VERBAL NOTICE.

So the first time through the doors no law broken (if signs are actually what they appear to be), but he has now been warned verbally. Then he says, Iam going back." Now it is a Class A misdeamnor and deserves to be prosecuted if he returns not because of the signs, but because he was verbally warned.

This is not complicated.

First, 2nd, I'm wondering why the police didn't scold the business for NOT having the correct sign?? If a business doesn't want you to OC, then they need to pony up & pay the few extra $'s (legal sign) like we all have for "our rights" to be "legal" where's the hard part??

GlassG19 wrote:

carlson1 wrote:

cbr6864r wrote:

Greybeard wrote:Quote: "Stunts like this are what give a bad name to open carriers. "

Yep, I am with Keith on this one. If you go looking for trouble (or ATTENTION), you CAN find it. Such behavior is NOT representative of the holders I know - or want to be affiliated with.

So when exactly does one cross the line? The signs were clearly not compliant what if it is a hand written note simply stating no guns? Or a picture of a gun with an X through it? Are you required to treat all anti gun signs as if they were compliant? The law needs to work both ways not just a single path. If business owners do not want OC or CC they need to properly post the correct sign.

I don't think it was illegal to walk past what looks like an "illegal sign." It then became legal notice when the police told him verbally don't OC. If he decides he will go back and try again if the signs are still there it is a Class A misdemeanor because he received LEGAL VERBAL NOTICE.

So the first time through the doors no law broken (if signs are actually what they appear to be), but he has now been warned verbally. Then he says, Iam going back." Now it is a Class A misdeamnor and deserves to be prosecuted if he returns not because of the signs, but because he was verbally warned.

This is not complicated.

First, 2nd, I'm wondering why the police didn't scold the business for NOT having the correct sign?? If a business doesn't want you to OC, then they need to pony up & pay the few extra $'s (legal sign) like we all have for "our rights" to be "legal" where's the hard part??

Because it's not the place of LEO to scold anyone who hasn't committed a crime. I may be in the minority here but I don't blame the business. I blame anyone who walks past a 30.07 sign with 1/2" letters (since they know their actions will cause a confrontation) and I blame the responding officers. IMHO, once the officers determined that the sign was non-compliant they should have required whoever called actually give the customer verbal notice. The call center should also be trained to ask if compliant signs are posted before dispatching officers. If the business claims the signs are compliant and it turns out they are not then the caller should be scolded for making a false claim in a 911 call.
IMHO, education starts with LEO in these situations.

jmra wrote:

GlassG19 wrote:

carlson1 wrote:

cbr6864r wrote:

Greybeard wrote:Quote: "Stunts like this are what give a bad name to open carriers. "

Yep, I am with Keith on this one. If you go looking for trouble (or ATTENTION), you CAN find it. Such behavior is NOT representative of the holders I know - or want to be affiliated with.

So when exactly does one cross the line? The signs were clearly not compliant what if it is a hand written note simply stating no guns? Or a picture of a gun with an X through it? Are you required to treat all anti gun signs as if they were compliant? The law needs to work both ways not just a single path. If business owners do not want OC or CC they need to properly post the correct sign.

I don't think it was illegal to walk past what looks like an "illegal sign." It then became legal notice when the police told him verbally don't OC. If he decides he will go back and try again if the signs are still there it is a Class A misdemeanor because he received LEGAL VERBAL NOTICE.

So the first time through the doors no law broken (if signs are actually what they appear to be), but he has now been warned verbally. Then he says, Iam going back." Now it is a Class A misdeamnor and deserves to be prosecuted if he returns not because of the signs, but because he was verbally warned.

This is not complicated.

First, 2nd, I'm wondering why the police didn't scold the business for NOT having the correct sign?? If a business doesn't want you to OC, then they need to pony up & pay the few extra $'s (legal sign) like we all have for "our rights" to be "legal" where's the hard part??

Because it's not the place of LEO to scold anyone who hasn't committed a crime. I may be in the minority here but I don't blame the business. I blame anyone who walks past a 30.07 sign with 1/2" letters (since they know their actions will cause a confrontation) and I blame the responding officers. IMHO, once the officers determined that the sign was non-compliant they should have required whoever called actually give the customer verbal notice. The call center should also be trained to ask if compliant signs are posted before dispatching officers. If the business claims the signs are compliant and it turns out they are not then the caller should be scolded for making a false claim in a 911 call.
IMHO, education starts with LEO in these situations.

I'm still confused. If it's not the police's job to scold the caller (business) for calling in a false claim (remember the sign was NOT a legal compliant sign) & the person in control of restaurant didn't ask him to leave for OCing, the customer (WAS NOT BREAKING THE LAW) is why the LEO did not take him in. Only if the sign was of legal size & verbage & placement only then would he have broken the law, or they asked him to leave & he didn't leave,,, correct? Therefore I agree with you about the 911 call center(s) being educated, along with the business. IMO, I think that it is the businesses responsibility to either verbally ask the customer to leave, or have the correct signage, not LE, NO LAWS have been broken at that point, LE shouldn't be bothered. The 911 center should have asked caller some questions before dispatching LEO's. "Did you ask the customer to leave? Is your signage legal? Is customer carrying in a threatening manner? ETC. With a little education questions would save time, money and greif for all involved..

Isn't this fixation on signs a bit misplaced?

In the case of 30.06, it makes some sense, as the business owner ordinarily would not know you had your weapon.

With open carry, the business owner/manager/security/whoever in apparent authority can hand you a card with the notice, or verbally advise you to the same effect, and you have effective notice. No sign required. You leave or face consequences.

JALLEN wrote:Isn't this fixation on signs a bit misplaced?

In the case of 30.06, it makes some sense, as the business owner ordinarily would not know you had your weapon.

With open carry, the business owner/manager/security/whoever in apparent authority can hand you a card with the notice, or verbally advise you to the same effect, and you have effective notice. No sign required. You leave or face consequences.

I like that!

JALLEN wrote:Isn't this fixation on signs a bit misplaced?

In the case of 30.06, it makes some sense, as the business owner ordinarily would not know you had your weapon.

With open carry, the business owner/manager/security/whoever in apparent authority can hand you a card with the notice, or verbally advise you to the same effect, and you have effective notice. No sign required. You leave or face consequences.

But if it's going to be like this, what's the point in even having 30.07? I can see a lot of business owners, afraid to approach an armed stranger, calling the cops, then the cop comes out and gives the verbal notice. If that ball keeps rolling, the police are going to start running a "verbal notice service." "Hey, I gotta nut in here with a gun, can you come out and tell him to leave?" "Uh, yes sir, take a number, please."

Until you've had the experience, "almost going to jail" is most definitely not anywhere like getting put in jail.

How does he know that, you ask?

Luby's of all places should welcome law-abiding armed citizens. After all, it was a mass shooting at one of their locations that set the ball rolling for concealed carry. That being said, I understand the importance of "Day 1 OC" and appreciate those who are doing so, but it also makes a lot of sense to not be one of the first.

It's also not possible to discretely ignore an open carry ban in the same manner as concealed for obvious reasons, meaning that any indication of OC ban, whether legal or not, should be heeded.

Ruark wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Isn't this fixation on signs a bit misplaced?

In the case of 30.06, it makes some sense, as the business owner ordinarily would not know you had your weapon.

With open carry, the business owner/manager/security/whoever in apparent authority can hand you a card with the notice, or verbally advise you to the same effect, and you have effective notice. No sign required. You leave or face consequences.

But if it's going to be like this, what's the point in even having 30.07? I can see a lot of business owners, afraid to approach an armed stranger, calling the cops, then the cop comes out and gives the verbal notice. If that ball keeps rolling, the police are going to start running a "verbal notice service." "Hey, I gotta nut in here with a gun, can you come out and tell him to leave?" "Uh, yes sir, take a number, please."

IF the law is not enforced on these non-compliant signs, then they can just stick up anything in the window like this one.

tomtexan wrote:

Ruark wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Isn't this fixation on signs a bit misplaced?

In the case of 30.06, it makes some sense, as the business owner ordinarily would not know you had your weapon.

With open carry, the business owner/manager/security/whoever in apparent authority can hand you a card with the notice, or verbally advise you to the same effect, and you have effective notice. No sign required. You leave or face consequences.

But if it's going to be like this, what's the point in even having 30.07? I can see a lot of business owners, afraid to approach an armed stranger, calling the cops, then the cop comes out and gives the verbal notice. If that ball keeps rolling, the police are going to start running a "verbal notice service." "Hey, I gotta nut in here with a gun, can you come out and tell him to leave?" "Uh, yes sir, take a number, please."

IF the law is not enforced on these non-compliant signs, then they can just stick up anything in the window like this one.

Same sign posted in Killeen!

Quibble with the 30.07 sign's legitimacy all you want, go right on OCing, then when the cops show up, give em your best jail house lawyer speech.

It'll be fun and you'll learn a lot...

IF the law is not enforced on these non-compliant signs, then they can just stick up anything in the window like this one.

Out of curiosity, exactly which laws need enforcing here?

There are almost 1.8 million small businesses alone here in the State of Texas. When you stop and consider there has been virtually no direction from the legislature or DPS on how to properly handle OC, the overwhelming majority of these businesses have no clue what to due or where to get the proper signs.

RedOdonnell wrote:

IF the law is not enforced on these non-compliant signs, then they can just stick up anything in the window like this one.

Out of curiosity, exactly which laws need enforcing here?

There are almost 1.8 million small businesses alone here in the State of Texas. When you stop and consider there has been virtually no direction from the legislature or DPS on how to properly handle OC, the overwhelming majority of these businesses have no clue what to due or where to get the proper signs.

What? Resources are everywhere.

It's not difficult to put up a compliant sign.