Search found 6 matches
Return to “Whole Foods Gun Policy”
- Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:33 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Whole Foods Gun Policy
- Replies: 108
- Views: 24511
Re: Whole Foods Gun Policy
Being 300 or so miles apart I doubt I'd run into any of your students. I'd hope they could have a conversation including differences in beliefs and survive and continue on with no problems. I don't expect everyone to agree. I just believe that adding to and taking away from are the same. They both cause change and that invalidates the sign. If one can editorialize and add to it with no effect then one should be able to edit and subtract from it with no effect. That means I could post a sign "State law 30.06, no guns allowed even with a CHL" and you would be a criminal if you entered my premises. Either it has to be identical with zero changes added or subtracted or it doesn't have to be identical, just convey the message.
- Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:21 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Whole Foods Gun Policy
- Replies: 108
- Views: 24511
Re: Whole Foods Gun Policy
So your argument is going to be that
"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"
isn't valid because a few words were removed but adding words to the "must be identical to" doesn't change the wording and make it different than what the law demands it be identical to. That's certainly an available option you are welcome to but I'm going with deleting or adding words being equal errors and both invalidating the sign. Not as a blatant test case, but as my belief.
"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"
isn't valid because a few words were removed but adding words to the "must be identical to" doesn't change the wording and make it different than what the law demands it be identical to. That's certainly an available option you are welcome to but I'm going with deleting or adding words being equal errors and both invalidating the sign. Not as a blatant test case, but as my belief.
- Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:56 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Whole Foods Gun Policy
- Replies: 108
- Views: 24511
Re: Whole Foods Gun Policy
Actually it reads "with language identical to the following". That sign's language isn't identical. It has been edited. No, I won't be the test case. I didn't shop there. I don't shop there. And I won't be shopping there. But I believe it's a valid argument the sign is nullified by being altered.
- Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:05 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Whole Foods Gun Policy
- Replies: 108
- Views: 24511
Re: Whole Foods Gun Policy
The law doesn't say anything about adding to or deleting from the text. I believe it says with the exact text. I'd argue that sign is invalid since it doesn't have the proper wording with all the addition to it.
- Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:55 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Whole Foods Gun Policy
- Replies: 108
- Views: 24511
Re: Whole Foods Gun Policy
Being retired I never think about work anymore. That would be a dilemma alright.
- Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:37 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Whole Foods Gun Policy
- Replies: 108
- Views: 24511
Re: Whole Foods Gun Policy
I can't imagine anyone carrying less than 100% of the time. Either that or where I am unable to know in advance when I will be in danger, others can miraculously know that for themselves. Until I develop that special talent I'll keep carrying all the time. Common sense demands it.