TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:

speedsix wrote:

jimlongley wrote:If the business owner's intent was to keep CHL holders from entering while armed, then he should have followed the law, at least that's what I hope the judge's attitude would be. That's something I hadn't considered in prior debates, most of which have stopped, with a great deal of confidence, at the officer being (wrong, over enthusiastic, under informed) with the assumption that the judge would set it right. So suppose the judge is nominally anti-rights, or an activist who thinks that all signage should be obeyed without regard for legislative intent.

Once again I find my own attitude reinforced: If there is a 30.06 sign, no matter how non-compliant; Stop! Do not enter; Card them, find out the owner's name and mailing address, etc and let them know you are boycotting them and why, and if their sign is not compliant, educate them, even if it means they decide to comply and put up a real sign, they are anti-rights and don't deserve your business.

And for those of you who think that the non-compliant signs are just a way for pro carry folks to cater to the antis with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" posting that will make everyone happy, here's another scenario.

You are patronizing the establishment with the non-compliant sign, and Mrs. DooGood is there with her little brat running out of control while mom ignores it. Brat comes charging up and head butts you right on the holster, pulling your cover garment away so that all may see your carry piece. Brat goes crying to mommy, "Dat nasty person hav a gun and hit me wid it." and mommy, not management, calls the cops. The cops get there, and you explain the situation, and it only takes a couple of minutes of observation to note that the kid has since head butted one officer, mommy three times, and a wall, for them to decide you didn't threaten anyone and refuse to arrest.

But they did notice the sign on the way in, and despite their sympathy for the situation that led to it, arrest you for violating the 30.06 sign.

Nope, they don't deserve my money.

I have had a similar scenario with a child running wild in Home Depot, who rammed me in my harmonica pocket, denting my C harp, and went crying to mommy that I hurt him. (I really do carry several harmonicas, in my Tru-Specs, right thigh pocket.)

...that is not a scenario...that is a dream...what a reach!!!...principles still stand...carry within the law, like we are supposed to, and if it happened like you painted it...a principle still applies...cops are to ENFORCE the law AS IT IS WRITTEN...NOT as THEY feel about it...they have no more business arresting me for carrying where there is a non-compliant sign than they would for writing me a ticket for going past a purple sign with 35 MPH written on it...the same law that tells me to follow the speed limit prescribes what the speed limit sign SHALL look like...if it doesn't...I haven't broken the law...you can dream up any number of WHAT IF situations...bottom line is did I follow the law??? did the posting store??? that's why we HAVE law...so we both know where we stand...and the cops have to follow THE LAW, too...they have no authority to arrest us when we haven't broken a law...and if we have backbone, they can be punished in court for doing it...we don't live in a police state...and we don't have to run scared...when will we all realize this?????????

...as to your C harp...carry a BUG instead and the kid'll get a headache but you'll suffer no loss...

I don't see any reach, much less a dream, I have seen similar situations occur regularly enough to just change the words and put "gun" where something else was and have a perfectly plausible scenario.

And while I agree that the LEOs are supposed to enforce the laws as written, but far too many examples of LEOs interpreting the law, uneducated in the law, or flat out ignoring the law exist to blithely assume that they will just take your word for the law. For example, the Grapevine police officers who have said they will enforce Grapevine Mills Mall's improper signage, PISD's SRO statement that he would enforce the improper signage in front of the school, and many others. And how about the DA down in Houston who swore to prosecute people protected under the new MPA law? And the cops in Philly hassling the guy for carrying openly? Too many examples exist, and lots of them follow just the scenario I proposed.

Yes, the bottom line may actually be that you followed the law and they didn't, but getting to that bottom line might take a while.

jimlongley wrote:If the business owner's intent was to keep CHL holders from entering while armed, then he should have followed the law, at least that's what I hope the judge's attitude would be. That's something I hadn't considered in prior debates, most of which have stopped, with a great deal of confidence, at the officer being (wrong, over enthusiastic, under informed) with the assumption that the judge would set it right. So suppose the judge is nominally anti-rights, or an activist who thinks that all signage should be obeyed without regard for legislative intent.

Once again I find my own attitude reinforced: If there is a 30.06 sign, no matter how non-compliant; Stop! Do not enter; Card them, find out the owner's name and mailing address, etc and let them know you are boycotting them and why, and if their sign is not compliant, educate them, even if it means they decide to comply and put up a real sign, they are anti-rights and don't deserve your business.

And for those of you who think that the non-compliant signs are just a way for pro carry folks to cater to the antis with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" posting that will make everyone happy, here's another scenario.

You are patronizing the establishment with the non-compliant sign, and Mrs. DooGood is there with her little brat running out of control while mom ignores it. Brat comes charging up and head butts you right on the holster, pulling your cover garment away so that all may see your carry piece. Brat goes crying to mommy, "Dat nasty person hav a gun and hit me wid it." and mommy, not management, calls the cops. The cops get there, and you explain the situation, and it only takes a couple of minutes of observation to note that the kid has since head butted one officer, mommy three times, and a wall, for them to decide you didn't threaten anyone and refuse to arrest.

But they did notice the sign on the way in, and despite their sympathy for the situation that led to it, arrest you for violating the 30.06 sign.

Nope, they don't deserve my money.

I have had a similar scenario with a child running wild in Home Depot, who rammed me in my harmonica pocket, denting my C harp, and went crying to mommy that I hurt him. (I really do carry several harmonicas, in my Tru-Specs, right thigh pocket.)

C-dub wrote:

speedsix wrote:

C-dub wrote:Ron, would you ask your LEO friend if a gunbuster sign is enough? It clearly states the business owners intent.

...much as I love the police...I don't ask 'em what the law is...I often know better than a lot of them do...I take the time to read it...

I would hope and expect his friend to say that the gunbuster sign was not enough. If he does he has fallen into the trap. If he says that it must be the correct wording then the follow up question would be to ask why is the wording critical, but the size is not.

Or he could just be tremendously stubborn.

C-dub wrote:Ron, would you ask your LEO friend if a gunbuster sign is enough? It clearly states the business owners intent.