Invalid 30.06 Discussion

[speedsix]

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.

...it boils down to a difference in mindsets...some people worry through life about what if this and what if that and expect those in authority to disregard the law...and are willing to buckle if they do...and some people put enough faith in the law to obey it and expect(and be ready to demand)that those in authority do the same...

...I'm a part of the second group...I'm willing to fight for my rights like many others before me have...and to be the one who doesn't just tuck and roll if someone tries to bulldoze me...if I'm wrong...I'll pay the consequences...but if I'm not...they will...even if it takes a while...our country was begun by ordinary folks who finally said "This ain't right and enough's enough!!!" and we've been enjoying the fruits of their efforts since...should we do less???

[C-dub]

2firfun50 I concur. Improper signs are 'effective notice' that they don't want my business, and these can be entertaining discussions ( )

I certainly understand and agree that 'legal means legal' for signs, just as 'concealed means concealed' for us, but here is a question I haven't seen here yet. If you don't go straight to the business owner/operator and educate them about the sign, aren't you 'escalating'?? If you're willing to risk the ride because you think you can beat the bill by a fraction of an inch, how does that NOT violate our first rule??

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that not confronting someone is escalating. Confronting an owner/operator would definitely be escalating. If you were to inform them that their sign is insufficient to keep a CHL holder out they could either change it or tell you that they know, but it's just to satisfy their landlord or insurance company. Some people are ignorant of the details and some know exactly what they are doing.

[Zylo_X]

2firfun50 I concur. Improper signs are 'effective notice' that they don't want my business, and these can be entertaining discussions ( )

I certainly understand and agree that 'legal means legal' for signs, just as 'concealed means concealed' for us, but here is a question I haven't seen here yet. If you don't go straight to the business owner/operator and educate them about the sign, aren't you 'escalating'?? If you're willing to risk the ride because you think you can beat the bill by a fraction of an inch, how does that NOT violate our first rule??

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that not confronting someone is escalating. Confronting an owner/operator would definitely be escalating. If you were to inform them that their sign is insufficient to keep a CHL holder out they could either change it or tell you that they know, but it's just to satisfy their landlord or insurance company. Some people are ignorant of the details and some know exactly what they are doing.

To be clear, I did not say "confront" and I do not equate Educate with Escalate. If the owner/operator is not receptive to education, then you just leave. No problem, no escalation. As I've seen in other discussions, we are supposed to 'take the high road', like allowing someone to violate traffic laws, and run up the exit only lane, or shoulder to cut in front of us in traffic. Regardless that we know they were probably speeding, made an improper lane change, and failed to yield (and probably texting too ), we do this presumably to avoid 'escalating' a road rage. However, now we're discussing a fraction of an inch, when our common sense should make their intention clear, though not 100% legal. It seems to me, that if someone goes through the effort to scrutinize the sign all the way down to the font size, and they go in anyway, they are looking for a problem. From your quote in red above, "... some know exactly what they are doing." I'm new here, but I'm not new. I think my question (in blue above) still stands, and it seems like a convenient 'detour' from the high road.

[speedsix]

...following that line of thinking...I think I'll quit carrying altogether and just make sure I've got plenty of cash in my wallet at all times so the poor misguided soul won't have to get all psyched up more than once that day...I'll take the high road and just tell any cop who happens by that I'm donating...or, better yet, buying the young man's gun so that he can enter the seminary...


...sarcastic...yes I am!!! The HIGH ROAD you talk of is to scrupulously, conscientiously follow the letter of the CHL law and set a good example...and so should the businesses that want the 30.06 law enforced upon us, and certainly so should those LEOs charged with enforcing that law...that's why we had the law written and I don't see why folks want to give up the rights we fought so hard and waited so long to get...just to "feel good"...I've carried since I was 14...with a badge...without...without a permit...and guess what...now I carry with a permit...and I'm not giving an inch back...I will live within the law completely...but I won't be shamed, intimidated, or otherwise influenced to overlook either a business' failure to follow the law or an officer's failure to legally enforce it...

...if one of us chooses to assume that the business doesn't want his business...that's his choice...if he wants to assume that the business really is just pacifying the legal department...that's fine...I'm tired of people coming here and trying to scare or shame or intimidate those of us who live by the letter of the law and expect others to...you do your thing and I'll hootin' well do mine...loudly and proudly...

[C-dub]

To be clear, I did not say "confront" and I do not equate Educate with Escalate. If the owner/operator is not receptive to education, then you just leave. No problem, no escalation. As I've seen in other discussions, we are supposed to 'take the high road', like allowing someone to violate traffic laws, and run up the exit only lane, or shoulder to cut in front of us in traffic. Regardless that we know they were probably speeding, made an improper lane change, and failed to yield (and probably texting too ), we do this presumably to avoid 'escalating' a road rage. However, now we're discussing a fraction of an inch, when our common sense should make their intention clear, though not 100% legal. It seems to me, that if someone goes through the effort to scrutinize the sign all the way down to the font size, and they go in anyway, they are looking for a problem. From your quote in red above, "... some know exactly what they are doing." I'm new here, but I'm not new. I think my question (in blue above) still stands, and it seems like a convenient 'detour' from the high road.

CHL or not we non-LE all have no duty to do anything other than maybe report the type of driving you describe by another to the police.

Confronting or attempting to educate someone is escalating. It may not escalate to the level of violence, but it is escalating nothing to something. By your logic, I bet you also consider a non-action an action like many liberals would have us believe that not purchasing something affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated by the federal government.

[Zylo_X]

To be clear, I did not say "confront" and I do not equate Educate with Escalate. If the owner/operator is not receptive to education, then you just leave. No problem, no escalation. As I've seen in other discussions, we are supposed to 'take the high road', like allowing someone to violate traffic laws, and run up the exit only lane, or shoulder to cut in front of us in traffic. Regardless that we know they were probably speeding, made an improper lane change, and failed to yield (and probably texting too ), we do this presumably to avoid 'escalating' a road rage. However, now we're discussing a fraction of an inch, when our common sense should make their intention clear, though not 100% legal. It seems to me, that if someone goes through the effort to scrutinize the sign all the way down to the font size, and they go in anyway, they are looking for a problem. From your quote in red above, "... some know exactly what they are doing." I'm new here, but I'm not new. I think my question (in blue above) still stands, and it seems like a convenient 'detour' from the high road.

CHL or not we non-LE all have no duty to do anything other than maybe report the type of driving you describe by another to the police.

Confronting or attempting to educate someone is escalating. It may not escalate to the level of violence, but it is escalating nothing to something. By your logic, I bet you also consider a non-action an action like many liberals would have us believe that not purchasing something affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated by the federal government.

That's a bet you'd lose. Please don't assume my position based on a question asked to illuminate something I see as a contradiction. There is only one 'loaded liberal' around here that I know of, and I ain't him. I'm 'right-er' than most, and would stand with speedsix in not yielding an inch. (begin sarcasm here) If I were elected King of the World, it would be a justified shoot in defense of self and others, to take out the aforementioned driver. (pause sarcasm here). As one might infer from my a.k.a., I'm looking at the consistent application of logic. Consistently applying your logic, "Confronting or attempting to educate someone is escalating. It may not escalate to the level of violence, but it is escalating nothing to something"., I ask would you, or would you not inform a fellow CHLer that they were unintentionally exposed??
To be compared to a liberal...now that's just mean.

[apostate]

Let me get this straight.
Ignoring an invalid sign is like confronting a bad driver, and
confronting the store owner is like ignoring a bad driver.
Do I have that right?

[TxKimberMan]

...it boils down to a difference in mindsets...some people worry through life about what if this and what if that and expect those in authority to disregard the law...and are willing to buckle if they do...and some people put enough faith in the law to obey it and expect(and be ready to demand)that those in authority do the same...

I see a lot of truth in that statement

[C-dub]

Confronting or attempting to educate someone is escalating. It may not escalate to the level of violence, but it is escalating nothing to something. By your logic, I bet you also consider a non-action an action like many liberals would have us believe that not purchasing something affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated by the federal government.

That's a bet you'd lose. Please don't assume my position based on a question asked to illuminate something I see as a contradiction. There is only one 'loaded liberal' around here that I know of, and I ain't him. I'm 'right-er' than most, and would stand with speedsix in not yielding an inch. (begin sarcasm here) If I were elected King of the World, it would be a justified shoot in defense of self and others, to take out the aforementioned driver. (pause sarcasm here). As one might infer from my a.k.a., I'm looking at the consistent application of logic. Consistently applying your logic, "Confronting or attempting to educate someone is escalating. It may not escalate to the level of violence, but it is escalating nothing to something"., I ask would you, or would you not inform a fellow CHLer that they were unintentionally exposed??
To be compared to a liberal...now that's just mean.

I still fail to understand how you could possibly conclude that not informing someone that their sign is non-compliant is escalating. Just what is it that is being escalated?

To answer your question, unless their badge is right next to their holster how would I know they are a fellow CHLer?

[RPB]

Educating can be escalating

Background:
Early this week as I was going to eat, I saw a YOUNG guy walking down one of the two main highways which intersect in town with what appeared to be a rifle under an army blanket. Collapsible type stock and heavy bull barrel is what it appeared to be. Well, I delayed going to eat, wasn't going to call 911 because there was no reason to ... saw him walk into a convenience store, so I parked near the entrance with my phone handy, nothing happened so I went in, the guy worked there and was making a sandwich, so I thought good Idea, and I left to continue to my destination to eat.

So I'm eating and an ELDERLY guy I kinda know, but not really well, comes and sits at my table. I mention the incident and how I was glad I wasn't a panicky 911 false alarm guy and he informs me that guns must be unloaded, and if you have one in your car it has to be unloaded .... so, I started educating him quietly, I spoke in a low soft voice ... "No, Texas law makes no differentiation in loaded or unloaded and the Motorist Protection Act in Chapter 46 of the Penal code..." The guy turns red, starts shaking and reiterates that he knows what the law is and it must be unloaded ... I tell him he can look it up in chapter 46 of the .. he interrupts and puts his hand up says THAT'S ENOUGH!!! and loudly says he doesn't need to read anything he KNOWS what the law is and I think this guy is about to have a stroke or heart attack, he's seriously all red, shaking with adrenaline shakes and almost shouting ... I figure the guy will try to spank me if I say more, he's trying to treat me like his child and I'm not far from his age, but mentally sharper apparently ... so I just say I'm sorry, I didn't mean to upset you, I should go ahead and go now ... (Tempting to ask how he psychically knows things without reading, but I'm nicer ... Kinder... than I once was)

Best let sleeping dogs lie.
Thought I'd have to call 911 for a heart/stroke victim.

I spoke in a low soft voice ... I don't know what the guy's problem was, perhaps something personal 30 years ago in another State? or a family member of his arrested before for UCW? dunno ... but I don't intend to educate most folks ... not my job, not bringing up the topic again with that fellow either lol.

[Zylo_X]

First of all, to repeat my earlier point, I never used the word "confrontation" (except to say that I didn't use it ;), and I don't equate "educate" with "escalate". Thanks for the input RPB, but I'm not sure who your 'visitor' was. In the discussion so far, I specifically said to speak with the business owner/operator. Regardless, my apologies to all if my analogies weren't clear enough. In as plain English as I can... As I said, I'm trying to follow a consistent application of logic. We all know that at times the 'legal' thing and the 'right' thing are not always the same thing. Tho not legally obligated, we let the aforementioned 'reckless' driver go in front of us to be 'right'. So to be consistent... If after scrutinizing a 30.06 sign down to the font size, why would a CHLer risk causing a scene (escalating) on the premises?? I'm looking at this as the difference between the 'legal' thing and the 'right' thing, just like with the reckless driver. With or without a trial, this incident would surely be in the media, and generate a 'Joe Horn' scenario. What effect would that media attention have?? Couldn't we, as ambassadors, speak with the business owners/operators, and let them know that we will follow the law (and legal postings), AND vote with our $$$ by shopping, dining, etc. elsewhere?? As I said before, I too will not 'give an inch', and I believe 'legal means legal' for signs, just like 'concealed means concealed' for us, but how else can we educate and move forward??

[apostate]

As I said, I'm trying to follow a consistent application of logic. We all know that at times the 'legal' thing and the 'right' thing are not always the same thing. Tho not legally obligated, we let the aforementioned 'reckless' driver go in front of us to be 'right'. So to be consistent... If after scrutinizing a 30.06 sign down to the font size, why would a CHLer risk causing a scene (escalating) on the premises??

I agree. Why cause a scene? It's easier to politely ignore the silly sign and not mention it. That holds true whether you go inside our take yourself and your hard earned money somewhere else.

[Zylo_X]

Thanks apostate, I really do concur, but as I said, following a "consistent application of logic", otherwise that seems selfish. I'm not as concerned with the 100's that might never have an issue, but what about 'that one'? What would the publicity of 'that one' do?? Why do we invisibly acquiesce to the 'reckless driver', but pass on the opportunity make the point. I hear lots of bluster about 'not yielding', but who is moving forward??

[apostate]

If you're trying to be consistent, why do you want to "make a point" with the store owner but don't chase after the reckless driver to "make a point" with him?

[speedsix]

...Grandpa used to say "You don't have to tell everything you know"...and "choose your battles"...I never knew how wise he was...