A couple questions for y'all

[Katygunnut]

I need some info that will help in my continuing correspondence with the kind folks who own Jareds and Kays (among other places) regarding their decision to deprive their customers of fundamental individual liberties that are guaranteed in the 2nd Ammendment to the United States constitution. Any help is appreciated.

1. Does a valid 30.06 sign prevent the following categories of people from legally carrying into a store in Texas?
A. LEO's who are on duty and in uniform
B. LEO's who are off duty and in uniform
C. LEO's who are on duty and not in uniform (i.e. under cover officers)
D. LEO's who are off duty and not in uniform

2. Does anyone know an authoritative source for information on the following:
A. Number (or percentage) of Texas residents that own guns
B. Number (or percentage) of Texas residents that have CHL's
C. Same info (A&B) for the US as a whole.

I need the info in #1 to address their assertion that they "ban all guns and anyone carrying them" from their stores. The info in #2 is needed to explain how much their decision is costing them. I think just knowing the percentage of potential customers should be enough for them to realize that they are losing X% of their possible revenue. For most companies, even a few percentage points of possible increased revenue is a strong motivator.

Lastly, if anyone can point me to stories where store robberies have resulted in customers being robbed, hurt, or killed, that would also be very helpful.

Thanks.

[CainA]

Poke around here for portions of #2B:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... tsfy09.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-Cain

[sjfcontrol]

Regarding #1, 30.06 signs apply ONLY to people carrying under the authority of GC CH 411, Subchapter H -- i.e., a Concealed Handgun License.

This MAY include off-duty officers, but they most likely would be carrying under the LEOSA law...

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" -- to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States ...

[Excaliber]

I need some info that will help in my continuing correspondence with the kind folks who own Jareds and Kays (among other places) regarding their decision to deprive their customers of fundamental individual liberties that are guaranteed in the 2nd Ammendment to the United States constitution. Any help is appreciated.

1. Does a valid 30.06 sign prevent the following categories of people from legally carrying into a store in Texas?
A. LEO's who are on duty and in uniform
B. LEO's who are off duty and in uniform
C. LEO's who are on duty and not in uniform (i.e. under cover officers)
D. LEO's who are off duty and not in uniform

2. Does anyone know an authoritative source for information on the following:
A. Number (or percentage) of Texas residents that own guns
B. Number (or percentage) of Texas residents that have CHL's
C. Same info (A&B) for the US as a whole.

I need the info in #1 to address their assertion that they "ban all guns and anyone carrying them" from their stores. The info in #2 is needed to explain how much their decision is costing them. I think just knowing the percentage of potential customers should be enough for them to realize that they are losing X% of their possible revenue. For most companies, even a few percentage points of possible increased revenue is a strong motivator.

Lastly, if anyone can point me to stories where store robberies have resulted in customers being robbed, hurt, or killed, that would also be very helpful.

Thanks.

I am not a lawyer, but here is my understanding of the answers to some of your questions:

1. 30.06 applies only to license holders who carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411 of the Government Code - in other words, a CHL.
Law enforcement officers (both on and off duty) and a number of other folks carry under Section 46.15 of the Penal Code (Nonapplicability) which exempts them from the weapons possession and prohibited place restrictions in sections 46.02 and 46.03. Since they don't carry under a CHL, they can't commit the offense described in 30.06 because the restrictions on carry in that section only apply to CHL holders. The same is true for carrying in other places prohibited under 46.03- e.g., police stations, schools, etc.

The Texas DPS web site has resources for the number of CHL's in Texas. You might try the NRA web site for gun ownership and CHL / CCW numbers in other states.

A little Google work should get you everything else you're looking for in a very short time.

[Katygunnut]

Poke around here for portions of #2B:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... tsfy09.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-Cain

Thanks.

This is about as authoritative as you can get. So far, I see that there were over 115,000 CHL licenses issued in a 12 month period ended September 2009. Not sure if that includes renewals or just new license applications, but either way that translates to a sizable customer base. The demographic info is also interesting and should translate to a higher than average income level for CHL holders (based on race and published info regarding average income for different races, etc). I'll keep poking around to see what else I can find.

[sjfcontrol]

Poke around here for portions of #2B:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... tsfy09.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-Cain

Thanks.

This is about as authoritative as you can get. So far, I see that there were over 115,000 CHL licenses issued in a 12 month period ended September 2009. Not sure if that includes renewals or just new license applications, but either way that translates to a sizable customer base. The demographic info is also interesting and should translate to a higher than average income level for CHL holders (based on race and published info regarding average income for different races, etc). I'll keep poking around to see what else I can find.

This link... http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... tr2009.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
tells you that as of 12/31/2009 there were 402,914 active CHL licenses, and 1,881 instructors certificates. Charles has stated that the current figure is approaching 450,000

[Excaliber]

The Jewelers' Security Alliance maintains some very useful statistics on crimes on jewelers' premises. Their 2009 report indicates that robberies in such stores increased by over 14% last year. Get the full report here.

[Katygunnut]

Good info guys. Keep it coming.

Once I have the letter drafted, it should also be applicable to other retailers (with minor modifications).

[blue]

-Note that the number of CHLers is NOT the number of potential customers since most have familys.

-So If all were married and 1 child would be over 1 milllion And shopping with friends, etc., etc. =even more.

-Much more loss of business than appears on the surface.

Any public business that bans 1-3% of there customer base IS only sending them to their competition, SO...they are DOWN 1-3% AND others are UP 1-3%.
Sorta like having a 2-6% handicap self imposed.
.......................................................................................
(REAL BUSINESSMEN, AND BUSINESSWOMEN, will go to great lengths for even a 1% increase in profit.
---NOT send away GOOD customers to the competition.---!!!)
........................................................................................

[gigag04]

CHL laws have nothing to do with LEO carry, but some of take issue with 30.06 signs, and just don't shop there.

[Hoi Polloi]

Charles has stats on the low crime rates of CHL holders as well. I think I remember him saying that an intern--named Alison maybe?--compiled the info for him one summer.

Ah! Here's what I was thinking of.

[CainA]

Playing the devils advocate.

Not all CHL holders carry, either all the time, some of the time or none of the time...believe it or not.

So the theory of:

CHL Holder + 30.06 Sign = No Business

has some holes in it.

-Cain

[Katygunnut]

Charles has stats on the low crime rates of CHL holders as well. I think I remember him saying that an intern--named Alison maybe?--compiled the info for him one summer.

Ah! Here's what I was thinking of.

Perfect. Thanks.

Their initial rationale was that the gun ban is necessary in order to ensure the safety of their customers and employees, so this is most helpful.

Personally, I think their ban is due to the fact that they are owned by a UK company that has no appreciation of the importance that US citizens place on individual liberties, coupled with an irrational fear of anything related to guns. The parent company is publicly traded and their web site is very focused on their financial results. Accordingly, I think the primary focus should be to appeal to their greed.

Maybe I should remind them of what happened the last time that a UK based entity infringed on the rights of Americans (colonists at the time).

[Hoi Polloi]

Maybe I should remind them of what happened the last time that a UK based entity infringed on the rights of Americans (colonists at the time).

Comparing yourself to Boston colonists probably will not engender a British company to your cause of carrying weapons in their presence. Even if you feel that way, it is probably best to find another way of conveying your message which appropriately targets your audience's concerns.

[Excaliber]

CHL laws have nothing to do with LEO carry, but some of take issue with 30.06 signs, and just don't shop there.

I vote with my wallet when it comes to choosing what level of risk I'm willing to tolerate while spending my money.

LEO's are more aware than most that the 30.06 sign (or any version of a gunbusters, guns prohibited, gun free zone, etc.) sign actually increases the risk of violence at the posted location because it advertises that there are no effective countermeasures on site.
Criminals have no trouble getting the message and take advantage of it.

Only hopeless idealogues could think any good could come of doing something this dumb. It's akin to a bank trying to prevent robberies and burglaries with a sign that says, "Vault is Never Locked."