TexasCHLforum.com

sugar land dave wrote:OC folks are losing their fight. Protests on their behalf have already cost the CC folks some places where we could earlier take our families and protect them. while eating or having a cup of coffee. No anymore! There's an old saying about not making enemies when you don't have to.

I don't expect any success on OC in 2015. What I do expect is (with luck) a few modest gain's for the CC crowd, but a move to outlaw OC of long guns in public places. You don't always get what you want, but you usually get what you deserve.

I hope I don't lose any more CC friendly businesses to OC protestors.

Which business has put up 30.06 signs because of OC? To my knowledge I can still carry in the places that have asked the OC crowd to stay away.

jmra wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:OC folks are losing their fight. Protests on their behalf have already cost the CC folks some places where we could earlier take our families and protect them. while eating or having a cup of coffee. No anymore! There's an old saying about not making enemies when you don't have to.

I don't expect any success on OC in 2015. What I do expect is (with luck) a few modest gain's for the CC crowd, but a move to outlaw OC of long guns in public places. You don't always get what you want, but you usually get what you deserve.

I hope I don't lose any more CC friendly businesses to OC protestors.

Which business has put up 30.06 signs because of OC? To my knowledge I can still carry in the places that have asked the OC crowd to stay away.

Since it has widely been reported in the news, can we truthfully say that we have not been notified of the business's preference for their property rights of no-carry. Would a judge believe it?

sugar land dave wrote:

jmra wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:OC folks are losing their fight. Protests on their behalf have already cost the CC folks some places where we could earlier take our families and protect them. while eating or having a cup of coffee. No anymore! There's an old saying about not making enemies when you don't have to.

I don't expect any success on OC in 2015. What I do expect is (with luck) a few modest gain's for the CC crowd, but a move to outlaw OC of long guns in public places. You don't always get what you want, but you usually get what you deserve.

I hope I don't lose any more CC friendly businesses to OC protestors.

Which business has put up 30.06 signs because of OC? To my knowledge I can still carry in the places that have asked the OC crowd to stay away.

Since it has widely been reported in the news, can we truthfully say that we have not been notified of the business's preference for their property rights of no-carry. Would a judge believe it?

Yes. Have you read 30.06? I promise you the lawyers for these companies have and they have not put up 30.06 signs. If their intent was to legally restrict CHL they would put up the signs - they have not.

I do not believe that someone on TV/Radio reading a statement from a company qualifies as legal notice under 30.06. The person verbally notifying you does not have any authority for the business and with a number of businesses having both company and franchise store you can not tell if the person who issued the statement, which was not given to you, has the authority for any particular locale you visit.

G.A. Heath wrote:I do not believe that someone on TV/Radio reading a statement from a company qualifies as legal notice under 30.06. The person verbally notifying you does not have any authority for the business and with a number of businesses having both company and franchise store you can not tell if the person who issued the statement, which was not given to you, has the authority for any particular locale you visit.

Nice move not addressing the aspect of standing in front of a judge. I'll stand by my opinion, and you may have yours. I will state that I read a purported company statement expressing their desire to not have firearms on their premises, and I believe that will be close enough for me without having to have a 30.06 sign.

Frankly, I won't lie to a leo and I certainly won't misrepresent something to a judge. I'll just go eat elsewhere.

sugar land dave wrote:Nice move not addressing the aspect of standing in front of a judge. I'll stand by my opinion, and you may have yours. I will state that I read a purported company statement expressing their desire to not have firearms on their premises, and I believe that will be close enough for me without having to have a 30.06 sign.

Frankly, I won't lie to a leo and I certainly won't misrepresent something to a judge. I'll just go eat elsewhere.

Interpretation of law always involves risk management. Your level of acceptable risk in this particular case is extremely low. However, I believe that 30.06 is clear enough that CCing into one of these places carries little to no risk of violating 30.06. In fact, although I've heard the news report that these entities do not want people OCing firearms in their establishments, I have not read or heard a single statement by someone authorized to speak for these individual locations prohibiting the licensed concealed carry of firearms. Oddly enough I know for a fact that CC is welcome by store managers at several of these individually owned franchises.
I don't know why anyone would ever feel the need to lie to either a LEO or a judge, especially when you haven't done anything to lie about.

ETA: Do you CC in establishments with gun buster signs on the door? Do you believe that the words "firearms are strictly prohibited" in your employee handbook prevent you from legally carrying at work?