TexasCHLforum.com

Awhile back I fired off an email to some woman up in the yankeeland headquarters for the great Taco Cabana. Now why a Texas based chain selling Mexican (TexMex) food, is headquartered near Canada is without a doubt the most challenging logistical question to date, but I digress. A few months ago, it was made public that 30.06 signs would be posted in all Taco Cabana's throughout Texas. As every church-going member of this forum knows, we don't go to Taco Cabana in the daytime! We stumble in at 3am begging for breakfast tacos and 44 oz cups for water! That was a joke, but in all seriousness, it is open 24 hours, and as common sense and statistics both dictate, not to mention my own parent's voices chiming in my head, nothing good ever happens past midnight. I got very preturbed and irritated, as a lot of fellas did, and let Mrs. Buttafucco or whomever she was, know just how I felt about her company deciding that they have the authority to put an asterisk next to the 2nd Ammendment. I got the standard form-generated response. "Blah blah blah blah, safety of our customers, blah blah blah". I argued vehmenently, going back and forth for now, MONTHS with this woman and all of her cronies in the Taco Cabana parent company's legal department. I FINALLY found the saving grace from my self-inflicted boycott of the holy grail of late night dining when I received an ACTUAL PHONE CALL from the President of the company himself. My months and months of intelligent bickering, pandering, and communist accusationing came to fruition when the man asked me simply:

"Mr. Sanford, are you aware of the regulations and requirements of the 30.06 sign and how it must be displayed?"
"Yes sir, I think so." I replied.
"Well, then you are AWARE that the letters must be 1 inch high and the sign blah blah x blah blah high/wide?"
"Yes sir." I replied sheepishly.
"Then have you SEEN the 30.06 signs that we have displayed in the storefronts?"
"I guess not, I've been boycotting."
"Well let's just say that there is an "accidental" issue with the size of the signs, catch my drift?"
"I'm starting to...and I'm starting to like you more and more and am regretting foregoing TC for so long!"
"Well let's just say that this was a way to play both sides of the issue. We get the complainers and Brady advocates off of our backs because we took a proactive approach, yet we know full well the regulations requiring that sign to be enforced and valid."

I apologized to the man, and proceeded to speak with him for the next 20 minutes about the pro's and con's of carrying a mouse gun for personal protection. See ya guys later, I've got a date with a fat chick....en burrito!

The problem with that response is that the TC, if there is one, in Bedford, will still result in an arrest of an individual found to be carrying a concealed handgun by the Bedford Police who appear to be of the opinion that any sign is a good sign, whether it complies with the law or not. The same might apply in other jurisdictions.

jimlongley wrote:The problem with that response is that the TC, if there is one, in Bedford, will still result in an arrest of an individual found to be carrying a concealed handgun by the Bedford Police who appear to be of the opinion that any sign is a good sign, whether it complies with the law or not. The same might apply in other jurisdictions.

Jim, in a reply email, the Bedford Chief of Police told me that the woman you reference was charged because she had been given written notice by her employer, not due to the signage. Of course, that does not change the fact that Lt. Roberts was wrong about the law in his interview with WFAA.

I will address that with the Chief too, and we'll see what he says/does.

txinvestigator wrote:

jimlongley wrote:The problem with that response is that the TC, if there is one, in Bedford, will still result in an arrest of an individual found to be carrying a concealed handgun by the Bedford Police who appear to be of the opinion that any sign is a good sign, whether it complies with the law or not. The same might apply in other jurisdictions.

Jim, in a reply email, the Bedford Chief of Police told me that the woman you reference was charged because she had been given written notice by her employer, not due to the signage. Of course, that does not change the fact that Lt. Roberts was wrong about the law in his interview with WFAA.

I will address that with the Chief too, and we'll see what he says/does.

My son works at the BPD, but I don't want him involved and asking questions so I have not ask him any questions, but does anyone know how the woman was discovered carrying?

Edited: Just to make sure this stays on topic. People like Taco Cabana that plays both sides still bother me.

We get the complainers and Brady advocates off of our backs because we took a proactive approach, yet we know full well the regulations requiring that sign to be enforced and valid."

While this is clever, I've seen no pressure for other business to put up 30.06 signs. I've been in any number of chain restaurants and stores in Texas that do not have 30.06 signs or any "no guns" sign other than the TABC <50% sign.

In fact, I have never seen a valid 30.06 sign.

- Jim

A phone call is worth the paper it's not written on. Surely he will come to your aid if you were found to be carrying in TC (sarcasm). As someone I don't know once said, 'I was born at night but not last night!'

I know hindsight is 20/20 in this whole battle that has been waged regarding Taco Cabana...

I kinda had this feeling that someone in TC might feel this way...

But with this revelation, I also agree that when push comes to shove, no one at TC is going to step up and say..."No, we really didn't mean it..." (In your defense)

As this has been going on for a few years, I admire the tenacity and the drive (on our side of the issue) to fight this to this point...We made some very good points, and have stuck to our guns...It's had a life of its own...

I'm just glad I'm on this side...

txinvestigator wrote:Jim, in a reply email, the Bedford Chief of Police told me that the woman you reference was charged because she had been given written notice by her employer, not due to the signage. Of course, that does not change the fact that Lt. Roberts was wrong about the law in his interview with WFAA.

I will address that with the Chief too, and we'll see what he says/does.

Yes, it's Lt. Roberts' statement that I am referring to, and that statement has not been denied or corrected in your communication with the chief (that I know of anyway) so far. I hope it will prove to be different, but just the fact that that attitude exists within the command structure of ANY PD indicates to me that an arrest for ignoring an otherwise improper sign is a very real possibility.

This is one of the constant "fears" that I have and that we see in discussions here, what happens when the LE officials decide to enforce improper signage as "reasonable effort" and thus the need for better codification of the statute WRT signage.

This is also what will keep me from being a Taco C. customer until they remove the obnoxious signage, whether or not it is a "wink wink" placation of the Brady bunch.

If you had received a letter on company letterhead and signed by an authority of the company I would say it might be okay for YOU to carry at TC. You got a phone call, the contents of which cannot be proved, that will do nothing either for you or for any person carrying into TC. I will not go there because they have the sign that exists to restrict us and no one else as well as refuse to remove it. That is risking the possible loss of my rights to exercise the state sold privilege of CHL. The "non-compliant" sign will keep CHL holders out for fear and a very justified one. TC are cowards and anti-2A in my opinion. Enjoy yourself but I will be at a place that actually recognizes the futility of punishing law abiding citizens. And that is no attack on the OP. Just on the company that wants to sell me a product but refuses me the ability to defend myself and my family.

jimlongley wrote:The problem with that response is that the TC, if there is one, in Bedford, will still result in an arrest of an individual found to be carrying a concealed handgun by the Bedford Police who appear to be of the opinion that any sign is a good sign, whether it complies with the law or not. The same might apply in other jurisdictions.

ummmmm.........correct me if I wrong here, but wouldn't that be an unlawful arrest......possibly resulting in a law suit against BPD?
I spend a lot of time in Bedford and have spoken to many of the Bedford LEOs and they seem to be pretty much Pro CHL. I havnt heard any of them against it yet.

shootthesheet wrote:If you had received a letter on company letterhead and signed by an authority of the company I would say it might be okay for YOU to carry at TC. You got a phone call, the contents of which cannot be proved, that will do nothing either for you or for any person carrying into TC. I will not go there because they have the sign that exists to restrict us and no one else as well as refuse to remove it. That is risking the possible loss of my rights to exercise the state sold privilege of CHL. The "non-compliant" sign will keep CHL holders out for fear and a very justified one. TC are cowards and anti-2A in my opinion. Enjoy yourself but I will be at a place that actually recognizes the futility of punishing law abiding citizens. And that is no attack on the OP. Just on the company that wants to sell me a product but refuses me the ability to defend myself and my family.

OK....Help me out here. How can you be LEGALLY arrested for a sign that is NOT 30.06 compliant? Intent has no bearing here. The law was written as to what was a LEGAL 30.06 sign to clear up this confusion and worry. The way I see it is if a LEO places you under arrest or even hassles you, ask for his Sgnt to come to the scene and prove him wrong OR right.
Furthermore, KEEP IT CONCEALED

Target1911 wrote:ummmmm.........correct me if I wrong here, but wouldn't that be an unlawful arrest......possibly resulting in a law suit against BPD?
I spend a lot of time in Bedford and have spoken to many of the Bedford LEOs and they seem to be pretty much Pro CHL. I havnt heard any of them against it yet.

Well, Lt. Roberts interview on TV sounded pretty much anti-something.

Yes, I would expect it to be considered to be an unlawful arrest, it's just harking back to the original interview and his statement that the sign was a reasonable effort to comply with proper posting and that the arrest was based on that. I can imagine that the resulting arrest would lead to various complications, and the law suit would probably drag out for years.

RE: Original post

The phone call sort of does explain what I have considered to be the case for many of the non-compliant (8.5 x 11, in 18pt type) signs encountered. That is, a business trying to ride the fence. Saw one here just the other day posted in of all places, a hardware store. Never mind the axes, picks and such that are weapons! Not only was it on the front entrance only, but it was only after you were inside that it was visible. Their rear entrance wasn't posted though.

TC still doesn't get my business, even at the drive through.

I don't understand the cowering of places Like Taco Cabana and their insistence that they appease the Brady bunch, I did a Google search, on the terms "Taco Cabana Guns" and i pulled up a few sites all which seem to disparage Taco Cabana. Nothing absolutely nothing to praise them I've never heard of a boycott or of people avoiding a place because there is no signs. Do the Brady Bunch avoid Wallyworld or MacDonalds because there are no signs? While there are lots of antis around there really are more of us than there are of them. They are poorly organized. Think about it, Most of us probably don't even know a real card carrying Brady. Cause they barely exist. While they might be well funded by the like of George Soros, they aren't a real organization capable of boycotts or organizing anything. If the Antis actually represented a real market more significant than real gun toters, every MacDonalds, Every Wallyworld would have a no gun sign. These guys all know that putting up those signs will cost them business.

That Taco Cabana is trying to pacify the antis as a business decision is pure cow chips. Its a morality/social decision There is absolutly no fiscal reason to appease the antis, unless .... unless you actually are one yourself. Taco Cabana has made a decision, that they know will cost them business in order to make a social stand. I for one an willing to comply to their wishes. and keep guns out of their store.