30.06 sign but no 30.07

[Soccerdad1995]

And if you do enter open carrying and are told "you can't wear that in here", that will mean that you are for eternity banned from carrying on any property owned by that store, or any store with any shareholders in common with that store, even if you are later told that it's OK by the board of directors via a shareholder resolution...and public stockholder vote. You will be placed in FBI and TX DPS "rap back" system and your membership to Costco will be canceled for cause and your picture posted at the Post Office....and you will never be able to get a DoD security clearance or work at a refinery or chemical plant... and your CDL and TWIC will be revoked....

...or so I've heard.

This is ridiculous and old!

1,000%

I really wish that certain people would stop trying to scare others about doing things that are completely legal. In Scott's defense, I think he was being ironic and doing a bit of a parody about the ridiculous and very old arguments that we should all limit our rights even more than required by the law.

[mojo84]

And if you do enter open carrying and are told "you can't wear that in here", that will mean that you are for eternity banned from carrying on any property owned by that store, or any store with any shareholders in common with that store, even if you are later told that it's OK by the board of directors via a shareholder resolution...and public stockholder vote. You will be placed in FBI and TX DPS "rap back" system and your membership to Costco will be canceled for cause and your picture posted at the Post Office....and you will never be able to get a DoD security clearance or work at a refinery or chemical plant... and your CDL and TWIC will be revoked....

...or so I've heard.

This is ridiculous and old!

1,000%

I really wish that certain people would stop trying to scare others about doing things that are completely legal. In Scott's defense, I think he was being ironic and doing a bit of a parody about the ridiculous and very old arguments that we should all limit our rights even more than required by the law.

Who's trying to scare who? I think it stands to reason if someone doesn't want concealed carry in their business, they will probably not want open carry and will advise an open carrier accordingly.

There's a difference between parody and someone being a smartelec. Notice how he gave a reasonable answer to the question after he was called on his smartelec comment.

No one is trying to scare anyone into anything. Sometimes, common sense just has to prevail. If one open carries into a place that prohibits concealed carry, one shouldn't be surprised to be informed that they are not allowed to carry there.

[ScottDLS]

So you're saying my TWIC and CDL won't get revoked....if I open carry in a 30.06 posted venue?

[Soccerdad1995]

And if you do enter open carrying and are told "you can't wear that in here", that will mean that you are for eternity banned from carrying on any property owned by that store, or any store with any shareholders in common with that store, even if you are later told that it's OK by the board of directors via a shareholder resolution...and public stockholder vote. You will be placed in FBI and TX DPS "rap back" system and your membership to Costco will be canceled for cause and your picture posted at the Post Office....and you will never be able to get a DoD security clearance or work at a refinery or chemical plant... and your CDL and TWIC will be revoked....

...or so I've heard.

This is ridiculous and old!

1,000%

I really wish that certain people would stop trying to scare others about doing things that are completely legal. In Scott's defense, I think he was being ironic and doing a bit of a parody about the ridiculous and very old arguments that we should all limit our rights even more than required by the law.

Who's trying to scare who? I think it stands to reason if someone doesn't want concealed carry in their business, they will probably not want open carry and will advise an open carrier accordingly.

There's a difference between parody and someone being a smartelec. Notice how he gave a reasonable answer to the question after he was called on his smartelec comment.

No one is trying to scare anyone into anything. Sometimes, common sense just has to prevail. If one open carries into a place that prohibits concealed carry, one shouldn't be surprised to be informed that they are not allowed to carry there.

One shouldn't be surprised to be informed that they are not allowed to carry anywhere. That is one method of notification, and I would not be surprised to get that notice anywhere. I would be a bit surprised to get that notification on government owned property when it would be illegal (not one of the exempted locations), but given recent events, even that would not surprise me.

Personally, I think it is the warnings about "taking the ride" for things that are explicitly legal that is ridiculous and old. You were not saying that, but there are plenty of people who do say such things repeatedly whenever we start talking about locations where we might be able to guess that the owner is possibly against the carrying of guns. Not against it enough to research the law and put up signage that would legally prevent such behavior, just that they might be against it to some lesser degree.

I agree that an owner who is against concealed carry would be more likely than not to also be against open carry as well. If so, they are likely planning to just politely tell anyone OC'ing of their wishes instead of posting another sign. But it is possible that at least some folks might be OK with people having guns as long as they can clearly see who those people are. The only way to know for sure is to pay them a visit.

[mojo84]

The only people I recall bringing up "taking a ride" in this thread are the ones try to be smartelec.

The OP asked a valid question and most tried to give him a reasonable answer.

[ScottDLS]

You may beat the rap but not the ride. I don't have enough money to defend myself at the inevitable grand jury and just being indicted for a class C misdemeanor will cause me to lose my top secret SCI and SAP clearances and I will be shunned at my Church.

[PhilBob]

Is it at all possible that a place posting only a 30.06 sign just wants to know who is armed when they walk in and wouldn't necessarily give verbal notice?

[TVGuy]

How do we know that the owner of the establishment isn't an ardent 2A rights advocate and he/she just doesn't want people hiding their weapons. They want all to wear them proudly and in the open as they enter their place of business?

I'm not a mind reader, this could easily be the situation.

[Soccerdad1995]

The only people I recall bringing up "taking a ride" in this thread are the ones try to be smartelec.

The OP asked a valid question and most tried to give him a reasonable answer.

"In this thread" being the key words here. I'll make sure to point out the next time that I see someone posting this nonsense in a non-joking way. I am guessing it will be the next time that this question comes up, so give it a day or so.

I agree 100% that we need to just give honest answers to questions about whether something is legal, and not interject personal opinions like "well it might be legal, but do you really want to risk X, Y, and Z".

[Soccerdad1995]

How do we know that the owner of the establishment isn't an ardent 2A rights advocate and he/she just doesn't want people hiding their weapons. They want all to wear them proudly and in the open as they enter their place of business?

I'm not a mind reader, this could easily be the situation.

I don't own a business at the moment, but this is my policy in my home. I am fine with people carrying weapons, but would prefer that they stay visible so I am aware of who is and is not armed.

There are several possibilities here. Maybe the owner of the business referenced by the OP feels the same way I do. Maybe he/she would rather just let OC'ers know verbally that openly carried guns are not permitted. Or maybe they are just too ignorant to know that they need a separate 30.07 sign. Which one is most likely? Who knows.

[CleverNickname]

So if CCW is banned in a location but open carry isn't, then what's the opposite of printing? e.g., what's the minimal amount of firearm legally required to be visible? If someone carried in a way which most people would be considered to be concealed, and then somehow his gun was discovered, would any laws have been broken? All that happened was the gun was visible, which isn't illegal.

[Javier730]

The 30.06 sign reads - "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun."

If there's no 30.07 sign, would this mean that you could open carry into that same establishment ? The gun is no longer concealed.

Or you could enter with a partially visible handgun - with say part of the grip or muzzle showing.

I wonder how large of a portion of your handgun you can conceal before it is no longer considered open carry?

[Javier730]

CleverNickname, you beat me to it.

[Soccerdad1995]

So if CCW is banned in a location but open carry isn't, then what's the opposite of printing? e.g., what's the minimal amount of firearm legally required to be visible? If someone carried in a way which most people would be considered to be concealed, and then somehow his gun was discovered, would any laws have been broken? All that happened was the gun was visible, which isn't illegal.

I think it would be the same standard for violating a 30.07 sign where there is no 30.06 signage. After all, you are either concealing or you are not.

IANAL, and as far as I know this point has not actually been litigated, but I personally feel comfortable walking past a 30.07 sign with a completely visible holster as long as NO part of the gun is visible. So it would stand to reason that if any part of the gun IS visible then you are not concealing and would not be in violation of a 30.06 posting. Of course, you would want to make sure that you are never concealing. So if you were to use an open muzzle holster where the end of the barrel was visible below your shirt, that is one thing. But if it is completely covered when your hands are down at your sides, that is a whole other scenario.

If I was a defense lawyer and my client had been charged with violating a 30.06 sign (where no 30.07 sign was present), then I think my first question of the prosecution's star witness would be "did you see my client's gun?" If yes, then it sounds like it wasn't really concealed in the first place.

[rotor]

This is a silly post with silly answers but for those serious enough to think about it, it is not enough to show part of your gun to make it legal open carry as the gun must be in a belt holster or shoulder holster. So for those that carry otherwise, women with a purse or ankle holsters, showing part of your gun doesn't qualify as open carry.