TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Gosh yes, Bill, it's so nice to see people willing to step up to the plate and take the lead. I'll stand down and let you take point.

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.

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 awkward. I wouldn't OC past that sign, yet at the same time it's not legal. I don't want to get into a face-to-face with a cop. But if we take that approach, we won't OC past ANY no-guns sign, 30.07 or gunbuster or whatever.

Question: what legislation could be proposed for the next session that would resolve this? Throw some ideas at me.

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."

winters wrote:The only part of the story that doesn't make sense was about ordering food and them not cooking it. Lubys is a cafeteria style, you stand in line and order whats infront of you. Since when did they have a menu you ordered from?

Yep. Said he was waiting 20 minutes, the cops were there before he could order, they didn't cook his order... his avatar's a fake "concealed carry permit" police badge, his username is "pstl-pakr." Wanna bet this guy's never even been in a Lubby's, er, Luby's?