TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote: We need to hold businesses accountable for their non-compliance to the same degree we are held for ours. Yes we have the right to walk past a non-compliant sign and we should be able to, indeed we are able to. But that is not the best way to solve the problem.

The problem needs to be addressed...everywhere we see it...(read these words carefully) in a mature, proper, effective way. Not an in-your-face, catch-me-if-you-can, I'll show you, you can't make me sort of way. That will probably require support from legislation, discussions with owners, police departments, local DAs, etc.

If we don't address the issue eventually a gun-buster sign will become the defacto 30.07 sign because 'we don't want to make waves'.

The other school of thought is that expecting and requiring .06 and .07 compliance is not too much to ask.

All well said, and all points well taken. To a degree this is already happening. Twice, already, I've avoided open carrying into a business with a "No guns" sign. The alternative is the possibility of a face-to-face with the police, who may exhibit varying degrees of sympathy. Thus, as you said, it became a defacto 30.07. Catch-22.

Additionally, many business owners will be afraid to approach an armed stranger and will call the police, thus turning the police into a defacto "verbal notification service."

Word is getting out about signage. MDA members, politicians and others are already going around posting and/or passing out signs to businesses, and online sign-printing business are already popping up (e.g. nocarrysigns.com).

This is only getting started. I suspect a legislative approach is going to be needed. Would anybody care to suggest what kind of language could be in a proposed bill that would address this situation? This sort of thing has to be started EARLY - contacts and visits made, drafts written up, etc. before the next session's committees start meeting.

This is exactly the kind of crap I was afraid of by open carry proponents. Not that I am against open carry, per se, but if you are not wanted in that establishment, even if the sign is not technically correct, then why go? Spend your money somewhere else! My fear is that many of these open carry folks are the "hey look I have a gun" crowd which could give CHL holders a bad reputation. We don't need any show offs.

Ruark wrote:This is only getting started. I suspect a legislative approach is going to be needed. Would anybody care to suggest what kind of language could be in a proposed bill that would address this situation? This sort of thing has to be started EARLY - contacts and visits made, drafts written up, etc. before the next session's committees start meeting.

Ruark - You don't have a band nor do you have a wagon to jump on to.

WildBill wrote:

Ruark wrote:This is only getting started. I suspect a legislative approach is going to be needed. Would anybody care to suggest what kind of language could be in a proposed bill that would address this situation? This sort of thing has to be started EARLY - contacts and visits made, drafts written up, etc. before the next session's committees start meeting.

Ruark - You don't have a band nor do you have a wagon to jump on to.

My suggestion for legislative relief has always been to remove the 30.06 SIGN as notice for trespassing and require it to be oral. Failing that I suggested lowering the offense to a class C. I like to think that my (self-claimed) great wisdom about these matters was the driving force behind this change . But somehow I doubt that our Texas legislators recognize my self-importance!

locke_n_load wrote:So is verbal notice effective forever?
I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

This is an interesting question....if he goes back I suppose we'll get our answer. I sure wouldn't be willing to be the test case!

The only way to fix this, if you want "businesses to abide by the law" is to remove the oral notification from both 30.06 and 30.07. That would force businesses to comply with the intent of the law and having a proper sign. The problem with removing oral notification is, unless there is a proper sign and you are carrying a handgun under authority of GC 411, there is no way at that point for the police to do anything. No crime has been committed as you aren't criminally trespassing if you haven't received notification per the statue and the police cannot physically remove you from the location as you would be protected from PC 30.05 based on the way it is written.

So, until this is "fixed" any sign that communicates that guns are not welcomed in the business means concealed carry, unless there is a properly posted 30.06 sign, in which case you should disarm or avoid the business entirely.

I'm disappointed that businesses will get away with posting non-legally binding signs and calling the police because THEY don't want to give verbal notice, effectively making the police their armed messengers, but there isn't much can be done about it until the 2017 legislative session.

Papa_Tiger wrote:
I'm disappointed that businesses will get away with posting non-legally binding signs and calling the police because THEY don't want to give verbal notice, effectively making the police their armed messengers, but there isn't much can be done about it until the 2017 legislative session.

Frankly there is no need to be disappointed because you are referring to one example that likely never happened. I also suspect as others have mentioned (maybe not in this thread) that if someone does do as you say and report people for carrying in an area that is not legally posted they will likely face penalties of some kind. HPD as already made a statement to that affect.

Papa_Tiger wrote:The only way to fix this, if you want "businesses to abide by the law" is to remove the oral notification from both 30.06 and 30.07. That would force businesses to comply with the intent of the law and having a proper sign. The problem with removing oral notification is, unless there is a proper sign and you are carrying a handgun under authority of GC 411, there is no way at that point for the police to do anything. No crime has been committed as you aren't criminally trespassing if you haven't received notification per the statue and the police cannot physically remove you from the location as you would be protected from PC 30.05 based on the way it is written.

So, until this is "fixed" any sign that communicates that guns are not welcomed in the business means concealed carry, unless there is a properly posted 30.06 sign, in which case you should disarm or avoid the business entirely.

I'm disappointed that businesses will get away with posting non-legally binding signs and calling the police because THEY don't want to give verbal notice, effectively making the police their armed messengers, but there isn't much can be done about it until the 2017 legislative session.

I don't think that there is any possibility of removing oral notification from the laws.
And I wouldn't want to remove it.

Papa_Tiger wrote: I'm disappointed that businesses will get away with posting non-legally binding signs and calling the police because THEY don't want to give verbal notice, effectively making the police their armed messengers, but there isn't much can be done about it until the 2017 legislative session.

I am curious as to what folks think that fix will involve. I agree that we don't need our LEO being the "arm of the lazy." I do suspect that the average store owner/manager wants flashing red and blue lights out front of their place as seldom as possible. It seems to me that they will start posting valid 30.07 signs if needed, fairly quickly. Anyway, I am truly curious what penalties or "encouragements" folks think might be imposed on business owners. Property rights alone would seem to muddy these waters.

TexasTornado wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So is verbal notice effective forever?
I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

This is an interesting question....if he goes back I suppose we'll get our answer. I sure wouldn't be willing to be the test case!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So is verbal notice effective forever?

Yes.

locke_n_load wrote:I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

It would be, but not for anyone who received verbal notice.

Chas.

Papa_Tiger wrote:The only way to fix this, if you want "businesses to abide by the law" is to remove the oral notification from both 30.06 and 30.07. That would force businesses to comply with the intent of the law and having a proper sign. The problem with removing oral notification is, unless there is a proper sign and you are carrying a handgun under authority of GC 411, there is no way at that point for the police to do anything. No crime has been committed as you aren't criminally trespassing if you haven't received notification per the statue and the police cannot physically remove you from the location as you would be protected from PC 30.05 based on the way it is written.

So, until this is "fixed" any sign that communicates that guns are not welcomed in the business means concealed carry, unless there is a properly posted 30.06 sign, in which case you should disarm or avoid the business entirely.

I'm disappointed that businesses will get away with posting non-legally binding signs and calling the police because THEY don't want to give verbal notice, effectively making the police their armed messengers, but there isn't much can be done about it until the 2017 legislative session.

First of all, we all need to take a deep breath and see how this plays out. It's been what, 4 days? A little too early to be discussing potential legislative remedies, I think.

Having said that, my preferred fix, which I've argued for many times here separate and apart from OC, is to remove the ability of a business open to the public to exclude licensed concealed carriers. Given that that is essentially a political impossibility at this point, I would settle for elimination of the 30.06 sign and a requirement that a business owner must orally request a concealed handgun carrier to leave the premises, with penalties only applicable if the licensed carrier refuses. If we're going to allow ourselves to be discriminated against, I want that business owner to have to look us in the eye when they turn down our business.

I'm still sorting out the OC arguments in my mind, but right now I think I'm OK keeping the 30.07 sign, or even giving a gunbuster sign the status of legal notice with respect to open carry, with the current penalty structure in place (Class C if you carry past a sign, Class A if you refuse to leave when asked).

With respect to the scenario raised in this particular thread, while I doubt the OP is legit, I am likewise troubled that it appears that police officers can be called and be construed as having given effective notice. I thought the law put that burden on the business owner or someone acting on his authority, which I assumed to mean someone employed by the owner, not a public servant.

goose wrote:, I am truly curious what penalties or "encouragements" folks think might be imposed on business owners. Property rights alone would seem to muddy these waters.

If they are dialing 911 to contact the police I guess it would be filing a false police report?(I'm not actually sure what the law is in regards to 911) If they are calling a non emergency line I suspect it would be similar to the fines you can receive if police respond to your security alarm and there was no crime.

zero4o3 wrote:

goose wrote:, I am truly curious what penalties or "encouragements" folks think might be imposed on business owners. Property rights alone would seem to muddy these waters.

If they are dialing 911 to contact the police I guess it would be filing a false police report?(I'm not actually sure what the law is in regards to 911) If they are calling a non emergency line I suspect it would be similar to the fines you can receive if police respond to your security alarm and there was no crime.

I can see this. This is getting more to the meat of it, I think. Good thoughts.

Well, it would seem at least one issue is businesses using the police to "do their dirty work". The law should state that the owner/operator of the establishment should have to give direct notice, via voice, to someone if they want them out of their establishment PRIOR to calling the police, unless they have posted the proper 30.07 sign. In Oklahoma, no sign has the force of law, and the owner/operator must rely on giving direct notice, via voice, to those carrying. If the person notified then does not leave, it's trespassing, and the police can be rightly called. I work in Oklahoma, and there don't seem to be problems up there with open or concealed carry.

TEX wrote:This is exactly the kind of crap I was afraid of by open carry proponents. Not that I am against open carry, per se, but if you are not wanted in that establishment, even if the sign is not technically correct, then why go? Spend your money somewhere else! My fear is that many of these open carry folks are the "hey look I have a gun" crowd which could give CHL holders a bad reputation. We don't need any show offs.

Yes, Tex, I'm just a big, fat, egotistical show off. One of those "open carry folks." Thanks for your input.