Looking for Common Mans Analysis

[baldeagle]

I will allow some mid ground in my thinking...yes some establishments may need to put up a 30.06 in order to maintain their marke-ablity but are not against the 2A as a whole.

While I am not convinced that OC is any type of requirement for my family and me; I guess I look at the whole debate from more of a “follow the money” angle.
I 100% agree with the 51% signs but I am bit taken aback by a 30.06 at a shoe store. Yes, it is that storeowners RIGHT to put up a 30.06 but we clearly know where that owner stands on the the 2A. And we can choose to not support their establishment. But you also have the right to enter a 30.06 establishment, you can make the choice to disarm yourself to probably support those that may want to disarm you permanently.

Now for those establishments that don’t put the sign up because of its “ugly nature” ; well we could be forking over good money to those that use their profits to support gun banning organizations and regulations. Putting a big ol’ sign on the front of your store that says “your gun money is no good here” is fine by me. I don’t want to restrict access for anyone to defend themselves, but if I clearly know who is anti-2A then I can make informed decisions on how to spend my money. Granted only 500,000 out of 26 million (~2%) have a Texas CHL so it may not be a big market to cater to but we are growing and even my kid knows what a 30.06 looks like!

I guess this is the same reasoning that I do not go to the movies and support the ultra left lib actors by paying $10 to see a movie and another $15 for popcorn and Coke, just to have the same liberal actors tell me how bad guns are!

And that's all fine and good for you and for other equally-minded people (like myself), but we must never forget that the purpose of the CHL is to allow people to defend themselves in a stressful and life-threatening situation. The more we create situations that result in further restriction of our rights, the more people will die in situations where they could have defended themselves.

So, while being ardent about our rights and demanding that they be recognized is a good thing, it's not wise to lose sight of the fact that people's lives are on the line. Every time the antis complain about guns we point out that crime goes down where CHL is allowed, which means lives are being saved. If that argument is valid (and it most certainly is) then the obverse is equally true. The more restrictions that are placed on carry, the more lives that are at risk and the more lives that will be lost. After all, in the end, the right we should cherish the most and fight tooth and nail to preserve is not the right to carry a gun but the right to self defense.

Guns may become obsolete some day. The right to self defense never will.

[Douva]

Now for those establishments that don’t put the sign up because of its “ugly nature” ; well we could be forking over good money to those that use their profits to support gun banning organizations and regulations. Putting a big ol’ sign on the front of your store that says “your gun money is no good here” is fine by me. I don’t want to restrict access for anyone to defend themselves, but if I clearly know who is anti-2A then I can make informed decisions on how to spend my money. Granted only 500,000 out of 26 million (~2%) have a Texas CHL so it may not be a big market to cater to but we are growing and even my kid knows what a 30.06 looks like!

Why do you think the legislature didn't simply mandated gunbuster signs of a certain size and color? The wording of PC Sec. 30.06 was chosen in order to make business owners weigh the issue. The shop owner who might otherwise post a gunbuster sign simply because he's tired of visits from the Brady Campaign volunteers or because his insurance provider recommends that he do so is forced to stop and think, "Is that really worth posting a big ugly sign at the main entrance to my establishment?" Currently, most businesses decide it's not worth it, and CHL holders are, therefore, able to carry at most establishments--THE SYSTEM WORKS AS IT WAS INTENDED.

Most CHL holders are not so terrified of inadvertently giving money to a business owner who's not a staunch Second Amendment supporter that they're willing to sacrifice their ability to carry as they go about their daily routines.

[Douva]

I disagree that restricting concealed carry has anything to do with property rights.

Unfortunately, the only opinion that matters is that of the Texas Legislature, and they've long held that restricting concealed carry at private businesses DOES have something to do with property rights (one of the few rights the men and women at the Capitol tend to value even more than gun rights).

[Douva]

If you're so unwavering in your support of open carry that you're willing to sacrifice the ability of others to carry handguns as they go about their day-to-day routines, aren't you simply living up to the stereotype that open carry proponents are more interested in making a political statement than in expanding the right of personal protection?

[jimlongley]

This is all sounds very hypocritical to me, if a business or company doesn’t want the patronage of a 2nd Amendment supporting individual and would put up a sign to restrict the legal carry of a firearm, they can put one up now. It is their right!

If ‘we’ feel that, due to the overt nature of open carry, more companies will throw up a 30.06 well then that just show how that organization feels about the 2ndA.

And then I can choose NOT to spend my money on those that DON’T support legal gun ownership.

Seems like ‘we’ want to be able to go to, have access to AND financially support places that might not be in support of ‘us’!

Like my Daddy use to say, Let’s call a spade a spade and not a trowel, hoe, or a shovel!

Our mantra of "concealed means concealed" works as well for most businesses as it does for us. The current law says that in order to prohibit Concealed Carry, you have to put up a big ugly sign. A lot of businesses don't want that hassle; and as long as our concealed weapons remain that way, they won't have a need or desire to. It's an 'outta sight, outta mind' (or don't ask, don't tell) kind of thing. Open carry would change that dynamic. Texas has a total population of just over 25million. Only 500,000 are licenced to carry concealed. So we're in a VERY distinct minority (only about 2% of the total population). If a business owner/manager is pushed into siding on an issue with a 98% vs 2% split, it's not difficult to predict which side they'll try to cater to.

Lots of work went into the current 30.06 provision & it works really well. Passing an OC bill that would allow 30.06 to be applied to all forms of weapons carry would practically erase all of that hard work.

The problem is that many businesses and their employees think that just about any sign is valid, gun busters, undersize or wrongly worded 30.06, and "Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. bans gun on these premises." included. I have asked many of these folks, managers and employees, if they thought their signage was valid, and almost universally they have stated that it is. Actually one of the funniest is a Home Depot person who says that because HD's employee policy was no weapons allowed, that it also meant that HD bans guns on premises. Her statement was that, due to the employee policy, we could tell anyone that carry was not legal, and they would not be able to ever carry in a HD again.

Personally I would like to see a sign similar to 30.06, same size and shape, with adequate restrictions on invalid posting, but separate from the 30.06 notice and not cross applicable.

[canvasbck]

For give me ..... I've kinda been poring over this legalese for weeks. What are the realistic outcomes of the OC bills in plain speak. What's the hubbub about the 30.06 signs as being game changers if they have 'em up and I don't agree I'll just go somewhere else .... easy.

Please, don't flog me ....... Learned, opinions wanted

OK, I'm going to give you two scenarios below, from the vantage point of a pro 2A business that also relies on not so friendly clients to keep his/her business profitable. Let me know which one expands our rights from where they stand today and which one restricts our rights.

1) OC passes and 30.06 is amended to include OC and CC. People start carrying into the business and customers start complaining. The owner is now faced with either putting up a sign to retain the 10% of his customers who are complaining or not put up the sign and retain the 5% of his customers who are OCing. Financial situations dictate that the signs must go up to protect his business and no kind of carry is allowed in the business.

2) OC passes without amending 30.06 and any "gunbuster" sign applies to OC while 30.06 compliant signs are required to prohibit CC. People start carrying into the business and customers start complaining. The owner reluctantly puts up a gunbuster sign, knowing full well that people will still be carrying, but he will not lose his nervous nelly customers. CHL holders notice the sign, untuck their shirt and cover up their carry gun before proceeding inside.

[baldeagle]

The problem is that many businesses and their employees think that just about any sign is valid, gun busters, undersize or wrongly worded 30.06, and "Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. bans gun on these premises." included. I have asked many of these folks, managers and employees, if they thought their signage was valid, and almost universally they have stated that it is. Actually one of the funniest is a Home Depot person who says that because HD's employee policy was no weapons allowed, that it also meant that HD bans guns on premises. Her statement was that, due to the employee policy, we could tell anyone that carry was not legal, and they would not be able to ever carry in a HD again.

Doesn't this support fickman's "out of sight, out of mind" position? After all, they think they're gun free but CHL holders know they can carry there legally. So his suggestion to remove all restrictions from CHL holders (after all, who's gonna know anyway?) and apply 30.06 to OC actually makes sense.

Now, in the real world, we're never going to be able to carry in jails or courthouses, but the rest of the current restrictions are rather nonsensical since no one even knows we're armed.

[Douva]

Her statement was that, due to the employee policy, we could tell anyone that carry was not legal, and they would not be able to ever carry in a HD again.

I'm pretty sure that if the person who told you concealed carry is forbidden in Home Depot has the authority to speak on behalf of all Texas Home Depots, you are legally prohibited from carrying in a Texas Home Depot again.

Personally I would like to see a sign similar to 30.06, same size and shape, with adequate restrictions on invalid posting, but separate from the 30.06 notice and not cross applicable.

So a business would have to post sixteen square feet of signage at each entrance, in order to ban handguns on the premises? Why not also push for a provision that requires any business wishing to ban guns to keep a qualified gunsmith on sight to clean and lubricate your firearm while you're inside?

[jimlongley]

The problem is that many businesses and their employees think that just about any sign is valid, gun busters, undersize or wrongly worded 30.06, and "Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. bans gun on these premises." included. I have asked many of these folks, managers and employees, if they thought their signage was valid, and almost universally they have stated that it is. Actually one of the funniest is a Home Depot person who says that because HD's employee policy was no weapons allowed, that it also meant that HD bans guns on premises. Her statement was that, due to the employee policy, we could tell anyone that carry was not legal, and they would not be able to ever carry in a HD again.

Doesn't this support fickman's "out of sight, out of mind" position? After all, they think they're gun free but CHL holders know they can carry there legally. So his suggestion to remove all restrictions from CHL holders (after all, who's gonna know anyway?) and apply 30.06 to OC actually makes sense.
. . .

To some extent it does, but the ones who are under the illusion that they are gun free are still a danger to us, like the people in OC states who report a man with a gun, which is legal, and the cops show up and hassle him, even though it's legal. The problem as I see it, which does not match the viewpoint of many, is that, as has happened a person finds out that a CHL is carrying, and they feel that they are properly posted, so they call the police, who show up and through their own ignorance of the law, or just being badge heavy, hassle the CHL.

We have seen too many contacts between CHL holders and LEOs (who should know better) in which the LEO: A) Finds out that the CHL is armed by "normal" means and decides to disarm them (with no good reason) and give them flack about carrying, or; B) Finds out that the CHL holder, who is not carrying and did not therefore present the CHL, and raises all kinds of cain while making preposterous statements about the CHL holder's requirement to present the CHL. We know these situations have happened, and I expect them to increase when OC passes, which is why I would like to see "separate but equal" signage.

Her statement was that, due to the employee policy, we could tell anyone that carry was not legal, and they would not be able to ever carry in a HD again.

I'm pretty sure that if the person who told you concealed carry is forbidden in Home Depot has the authority to speak on behalf of all Texas Home Depots, you are legally prohibited from carrying in a Texas Home Depot again.

Actually, one person making such a statement was in apparent authority over a great many HD stores in Texas.

Personally I would like to see a sign similar to 30.06, same size and shape, with adequate restrictions on invalid posting, but separate from the 30.06 notice and not cross applicable.

So a business would have to post sixteen square feet of signage at each entrance, in order to ban handguns on the premises? Why not also push for a provision that requires any business wishing to ban guns to keep a qualified gunsmith on sight to clean and lubricate your firearm while you're inside?

Well, I don't see the first as being unreasonable, but I really doubt the second would pass.

[BHill]

For give me ..... I've kinda been poring over this legalese for weeks. What are the realistic outcomes of the OC bills in plain speak. What's the hubbub about the 30.06 signs as being game changers if they have 'em up and I don't agree I'll just go somewhere else .... easy.

Please, don't flog me ....... Learned, opinions wanted

OK, I'm going to give you two scenarios below, from the vantage point of a pro 2A business that also relies on not so friendly clients to keep his/her business profitable. Let me know which one expands our rights from where they stand today and which one restricts our rights.

1) OC passes and 30.06 is amended to include OC and CC. People start carrying into the business and customers start complaining. The owner is now faced with either putting up a sign to retain the 10% of his customers who are complaining or not put up the sign and retain the 5% of his customers who are OCing. Financial situations dictate that the signs must go up to protect his business and no kind of carry is allowed in the business.

2) OC passes without amending 30.06 and any "gunbuster" sign applies to OC while 30.06 compliant signs are required to prohibit CC. People start carrying into the business and customers start complaining. The owner reluctantly puts up a gunbuster sign, knowing full well that people will still be carrying, but he will not lose his nervous nelly customers. CHL holders notice the sign, untuck their shirt and cover up their carry gun before proceeding inside.

I certainly prefer your #2 scenario. In addition to not reducing current abilities of carry it opens up the door to OC on a larger scale. I think to get broad acceptance for OC a large percentage of people need to be desensitized to seeing people wearing arms before large scale acceptance will happen. Small steps. Additionally I think the gun buster sign should be larger and more obvious than some of the dinky almost translucent varieties I've seen in the past. 18" x 18" with contrasting colors should do it. Damage to 30.06 is a nonstarter.

Hope this didn't come out too rambling

BH