TexasCHLforum.com

Kiddkop wrote:I find it somewhat amusing that people believe they have an obligation beginning 9/1 to report government entities for improper 30.06 but don't believe they have an obligation to notify private business owner. Maybe if there was a fine associated with unenforceable signage folks would think it was the right thing to do.

Mel wrote:

Kiddkop wrote:I find it somewhat amusing that people believe they have an obligation beginning 9/1 to report government entities for improper 30.06 but don't believe they have an obligation to notify private business owner. Maybe if there was a fine associated with unenforceable signage folks would think it was the right thing to do.

Big difference between unenforceable and illegal. After 9/1/15 these signs will be illegal. There is no reason to report an unenforceable sign.

Vol Texan wrote:Kiddkop,

I'm not going to engage in the mosh pit of discussion here. We have some very well learned members posting here with some strong opinions on either side, and I won't get entangled in that.

(As an aside, there are some members on this forum with whom I'll never engage on any topic here, because, as the old saying goes, "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll just get dirty, and the pig will just have fun". As a newcomer to this forum, we welcome you, and you'll soon figure out for yourself who falls within that category.)

Back on topic now: I encourage you to read this posting: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=66766&p=820110&#p819966.

I just showed you an instance where someone posted an invalid 30.06 sign, knowing full well that it had no impact on CHL holders. When asked about it, he explained the reason, and he fully expects all CHL holders to ignore it because it is improperly posted.

If this can happen once, it can happen in many places. My personal opinion is that it would be an overstatement to assume that a place posted incorrectly has this intent.

In my professional life, we have a saying. "Don't let emotion get in the way of what should be a purely data-driven decision. I have a math degree, so my way of thinking may be different, but please try this out for a change: In math, it's not necessary to prove a function is true 100% of the time. Proving it wrong in one instance is sufficient to invalidate the function. This is exactly what happened here.

So you have two camps of people arguing this subject:

• Some say, "I won't ruin it for the rest of us by informing the businesses that they have posted incorrectly."
• Others say, "I'll go ahead and tell them so that I can determine their intent."

So lets look at those two situations and see what could be the outcome using a decision tree method (for this analysis, blue is a neutral outcome, green is a result that has us gaining ground, and red is a result that loses ground):

• "I won't ruin it for the rest of us by informing the businesses that they have posted incorrectly."
  • If they don't really care, then nothing happens. Result: Nothing happens. We neither win nor lose, and they neither win nor lose.
  • If they really don't want us to carry, then nothing happens. Result: Nothing happens. We neither win nor lose, and they lose nothing, because they go on believing that nobody is carrying, while we are allowed to carry on, per Texas law.

• "I'll go ahead and tell them so that I can determine their intent."
  • If they don't really care, then they may take down their sign, or leave it posted invalid. Result: We might get the sign removed, or they may leave the old sign up.
  • If they really don't want us to carry, then they may post, and they may inform others as well. Result: We win nothing, and we lose one or more places that we can carry legally.

Note that nothing is green, because there is no situation where we gain ground.

So, assuming blue is 'neutral', and red is 'bad', what value is there in selecting the second option? I'm not trying to marginalize your perspective, but I'm trying to determine why anyone would choose an option with a potential to win nothing or lose something, when the other option has no potential for gain or loss at all.

I welcome your response.


P.S. I may be incorrect here, but I believe that some of the folks suggesting that telling the business just to determine their intent may be LEOs as well as CHL holders. If this is true (and I'm not 100% sure if it is), then their entire premise is disingenuous. They have nothing to lose, because as a LEO, they can still carry if the place gets posted properly!!! They have nothing to lose. We non-LEO CHL holders are the only ones who lose in this situation.
This was not a LEO bashing statement. A long long time ago, in a distant land, I, too, wore a badge. I no longer do, however, and I don't envy them the job anymore. The job they do now is much more difficult (and dangerous) than the one I did back in the late '80s.

Abraham wrote:Methinks a troll strolls among us...

Kiddkop wrote:

Abraham wrote:Methinks a troll strolls among us...

Me 2....I have been thinking I am being trolled because I have a different opinion than the popular thought process. Just like any message board, if you disagree with the majority opinion you MUST be a troll.

Mel wrote:

Kiddkop wrote:I find it somewhat amusing that people believe they have an obligation beginning 9/1 to report government entities for improper 30.06 but don't believe they have an obligation to notify private business owner. Maybe if there was a fine associated with unenforceable signage folks would think it was the right thing to do.

Big difference between unenforceable and illegal. After 9/1/15 these signs will be illegal. There is no reason to report an unenforceable sign.

Embalmo wrote:Why would anyone care about a business owner's legal carry opinion? Legal carry is about the legal right to carry a firearm for personal protection as often, and in as many places as possible. It's my belief that anyone foolish enough to restrict legal carry in their business is placing all of its patrons in danger, so, I'm not going to respect their "wishes" if their signage in non-compliant.

Embalmo

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Mel wrote:

Kiddkop wrote:I find it somewhat amusing that people believe they have an obligation beginning 9/1 to report government entities for improper 30.06 but don't believe they have an obligation to notify private business owner. Maybe if there was a fine associated with unenforceable signage folks would think it was the right thing to do.

Big difference between unenforceable and illegal. After 9/1/15 these signs will be illegal. There is no reason to report an unenforceable sign.

Ima hafta to say "show me". An invalid sign is not an "illegal" sign. Are you saying that there is a penalty under the law for posting an invalid sign when the new law goes into effect? You're saying that, beginning 9/1, a gunbuster's sign will land the business owner in jail? That makes no kind of sense.

And by the way, isn't 1/1/16 the implementation date for the new carry law, not 9/1/15?