Page 3 of 4
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:18 pm
by goose
TexasTornado wrote: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?
What part of any of that caused you or anyone else to give up a right? I think Scott's comments about intent are spot on. My grey area is slightly wider (he doesn't have one) but we're very much in the same ballpark from my perspective. But which part of me defining my grey area remove anyone else's rights? I guess I just don't understand your soapbox. The vast majority of the world has never been to the todos website. I would venture a guess that the vast numbers of business owners haven't either. Most of them are struggling just to keep their margins square enough to pay a couple of employees. If you don't understand a single difference between that sign and a gun buster sign we're probably at an impasse. I can see a modicum of difference. Hence our discussion.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:19 pm
by Soccerdad1995
goose wrote: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.
Normally at this point, I would truncate the quoting a bit for ease of reading, but I included the full back and forth because I can not figure out which comments you are referring to. Please feel free to point out anything specific you would like me to address.
As to your question of "Do you think we would win as a 2A collective if a CCer took that case, with that sign into the public arena?", I'm not sure I follow. A LTC holder who carries concealed past that sign is not taking anything into the public arena unless they un-conceal their weapon. This would most likely be in the act of legally using deadly force to stop a threat. And yes, I do think that a citizen using a legally carried gun to stop a threat and prevent harm to themselves or others would very definitely be a "win" for 2A advocates everywhere.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:29 pm
by bblhd672
TexasTornado wrote: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?
TT - I'm just guessing here but my take is that the business declined to purchase a new, valid 30.06 sign when they bought the newly required 30.07 sign after the 2015 legislative session. Shame on them for not understanding the requirement for posting a new 30.06 sign with the valid wording.
Their intent is clear, even if that 30.06 sign is no longer a valid sign under 2015 revised code.
I understand everyone's opinions on this post - personally I wouldn't CC past that sign.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:30 pm
by goose
Soccerdad1995 wrote:goose wrote: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.
Normally at this point, I would truncate the quoting a bit for ease of reading, but I included the full back and forth because I can not figure out which comments you are referring to. Please feel free to point out anything specific you would like me to address.
As to your question of "Do you think we would win as a 2A collective if a CCer took that case, with that sign into the public arena?", I'm not sure I follow. A LTC holder who carries concealed past that sign is not taking anything into the public arena unless they un-conceal their weapon. This would most likely be in the act of legally using deadly force to stop a threat. And yes, I do think that a citizen using a legally carried gun to stop a threat and prevent harm to themselves or others would very definitely be a "win" for 2A advocates everywhere.
Your reply to me involved several paragraphs about fear of the ride. I did not express that fear. I was asking if your thoughts would be different around the idea of carrying past that sign, being discovered and the possible ramifications in the legislature.
Considering that thought that a CCer would only be "outed" if they used their weapon to stop a valid threat, and in this state likely rarely if ever face charges regardless of their location (if used appropriately with no innocent folks involved), I guess I thought we were discussing someone being found out without needing to use their weapon. If we're only discussing scenarios involving the use of firearms to stop valid threats then I'm all on board. Heck, that is why I got my CHL. If another thread pops up where we might be discussing being discovered without drawing our firearm, I'll jump in on that one.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:38 pm
by jason812
Not only would I carry concealed past that sign, I have carried past signs exactly as the one posted. If the owner cared that much about their own intentions, there would be a correct sign. When it is a hospital or similar place where you don't have the option to go somewhere else, just ignore and keep your friend hidden.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:54 pm
by rotor
Business is required by law to post correct signage for their employees. Before I retired I had a bunch of them on the bulletin board in my office. There are companies that do nothing but sell you these signs to post to make it easier although all of the required by law signs are easily found on the internet. So if you run a business you better have the right signage before OSHA or one of those other government agencies fines you.
There is no fine that I know of for posting an incorrectly done 30.06 or 30.07 sign. Even if the sign is a valid sign it may be posted where a sign is not legally post able. I recently dealt with this where a gun show promoter posted correct signage but on city owned property. The city manager had those signs removed.
A business may have the intent of banning a concealed carrier from coming into their premises but intent alone is not sufficient. There is exact legal description of signage necessary to make that intent a legal warning and if that signage description is not followed than no legal notice has been given. Therefore I would carry past this particular CC sign without problem. Would I want to do business with this firm? No but I would have no problem carrying past the sign.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:00 pm
by The Annoyed Man
Wow...... I had to actually go back and reread 30.06 several times to catch the error.
To be perfectly honest, I doubt that I would have picked up on the discrepancy if I were to see that sign in the wild. It
looks very valid until you get out the actual language of the law and begin to compare it word for word. It's close enough to perfect to fool most people on a fairly cursory examination.
But as others have pointed out, it would not matter that much to me. I take the presence of both signs to mean that they don't believe my dollars are spendable in their business, so, to heck with them.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:02 pm
by Jusme
The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow...... I had to actually go back and reread 30.06 several times to catch the error.
To be perfectly honest, I doubt that I would have picked up on the discrepancy if I were to see that sign in the wild. It
looks very valid until you get out the actual language of the law and begin to compare it word for word. It's close enough to perfect to fool most people on a fairly cursory examination.
But as others have pointed out, it would not matter that much to me. I take the presence of both signs to mean that they don't believe my dollars are spendable in their business, so, to heck with them.
To many other options to spend my money.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:22 pm
by treadlightly
I don't have the wording memorized. If I speed read a sign and see the right bulk of verbiage and "30.06", I'll feel unwelcome.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 7:03 pm
by AJSully421
treadlightly wrote:I don't have the wording memorized. If I speed read a sign and see the right bulk of verbiage and "30.06", I'll feel unwelcome.
True, but the easiest way to see if it is an old, no longer valid, sign or the new correct one is to look for the phrase "Handgun Licensing Law". If you see that, it is valid. If you do not, it is not.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:39 pm
by bblhd672
treadlightly wrote:I don't have the wording memorized. If I speed read a sign and see the right bulk of verbiage and "30.06", I'll feel unwelcome.
If you have a smartphone install the Texas3006 app - you'll always have the correct signs handy to compare. I constantly refer to the app as I move around DFW.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:40 pm
by treadlightly
My favorite anti-gun sign, not that any of them are particularly joyous things, are the ones that request license holders to please not open carry.
No possibility of a crime if you miss the sign, a clear wink to carry 'em if you got 'em. Just please cover up.
If you just have to have a no-gun sign, that one works for me.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 12:47 am
by AJSully421
treadlightly wrote:My favorite anti-gun sign, not that any of them are particularly joyous things, are the ones that request license holders to please not open carry.
No possibility of a crime if you miss the sign, a clear wink to carry 'em if you got 'em. Just please cover up.
If you just have to have a no-gun sign, that one works for me.
And I am more than happy to oblige.
I carry in the nearest HEB with a huge Safariland light bearing holster with a thin, light weight t-shirt covering the massive bulge. It is covered, so it's legal... but there is not any doubt what's under there. Here's to your 30.07 sign, HEB...
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 11:02 am
by Oldgringo
RogueUSMC wrote: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*
Right on! There does seem to be a bunch of, 'majoring in (legalistic) minors'.
Re: Ooh You Almost Had It....
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:48 pm
by flechero
You aren't giving up your rights just because you choose not to exercise EVERY ONE OF THEM daily. I also have the right to respect the wishes of someone who doesn't want my gun on their property, even if I can't be prosecuted for the wording of their sign.
I have the legal "right" to do a lot of things that are wrong, distasteful, or otherwise inappropriate for any number of reasons... doesn't mean it's always a good idea.
There are also a lot of us that don't have the time or the resources to prove to some idiot business owner that his sign, although it conveyed his thoughts perfectly, wasn't technically legal.
Not to mention, lots of potential jurors that would see that sign as close enough to count. just sayin'