TexasCHLforum.com

Bugler wrote:Look at the video. The 3006 is only in english. Not valid.

JJVP wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

Piney wrote:/soapbox
Once these businesses realize a 30.06 signage policy is an advertisement for robberies, perhaps these types of instances will stop. Having the ability to remove the perps' ability to continue, if you get my drift..., is part of the answer. /off

To be fair, the sign probably did not apply to these robbers, I would be surprised to learn any of them had a CHL.

You see, that's the problem with the 30.06 signs. They need to modify it.

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), or any other person or felon not licenced to carry a handgun or rifle may not enter this property with a concealed or unconcealed handgun or rifle"

See, that solves the problem.

dac1842 wrote:Here is Jared's reply. They do not get it.
I would like to respond to your e-mail concerning the Firearms/Weapons policy posted at our Jared the Galleria of Jewelry location.

Even though many states have laws permitting residents to carry concealed weapons and firearms, private employers have the right to ban weapons and prohibit persons with weapons from entering the premises. For the safety and security of our customers and store employees Jared has made the decision to ban weapons and anyone possessing them from entering the store. We are sorry that you choose not to shop with us based on this policy; I hope that you have a great day!

Sincerely,

Erica B.
Customer Care

dac1842 wrote:Well my stand on this is not going to set well here probably. First, let me see I am very pro gun and 2A. I am also all for knowing when to pull my weapon and when it is better to be a good witness.
Had I been in that store (I am aware it is not CHL friendly), wearing my weapon and someone enters the store to rob it, I am not risking turning that situation into a hostage situation. And before everyone starts to hit the reply button, I am a former LEO, with 3 years in SWAT. I do know something about how to respond.

Had shooting started that would be a game changer as long as in drawing attention to myself I would not endanger my family or other innocent bystanders, when you decide to shoot back you still have to be aware of where your bullets go and where the bad guys will go if they start to shoot at you due to your response.
When outnumbered it is better to be a good witness. Not many, if any LEO's would respond to this in any different manner if they were in the store off duty in plain clothes.
The guard in the store, in my opinion, responded properly by not responding. He was out numbered, probably out gunned.

MeMelYup wrote:

JJVP wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

Piney wrote:/soapbox
Once these businesses realize a 30.06 signage policy is an advertisement for robberies, perhaps these types of instances will stop. Having the ability to remove the perps' ability to continue, if you get my drift..., is part of the answer. /off

To be fair, the sign probably did not apply to these robbers, I would be surprised to learn any of them had a CHL.

You see, that's the problem with the 30.06 signs. They need to modify it.

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), or any other person or felon not licenced to carry a handgun or rifle may not enter this property with a concealed or unconcealed handgun or rifle"

See, that solves the problem.

I strongly disagree, with that wording 1sign will encompass all. As a CHL'r I definitely don't want that.

Abraham wrote:And there are jewelry stores that have armed security AND don't want to disarm CHLers.

I won't mention/endorse the store name that immediately comes to mind, but I will say it's located on Hwy 3 near Bay Area Blvd.