TexasCHLforum.com

The management could print up some business cards for the busboy to handout to the OCer. It's one thing to walk into a restaurant OCing and be asked to leave. It's another to sit the person down, have them order their meal, then be in the middle of eating it, and then have the busboy ask you to leave. There should've been a 30.07 sign on the door in the first place.

Tracker wrote:The management could print up some business cards for the busboy to handout to the OCer. It's one thing to walk into a restaurant OCing and be asked to leave. It's another to sit the person down, have them order their meal, then be in the middle of eating it, and then have the busboy ask you to leave. There should've been a 30.07 sign on the door in the first place.

Any restaurant that gets that far into service and then notices a gun probably isn't someplace you want to eat, I'd say.

I honestly can't see this ever getting this far but would there be a bill for services rendered as they requested you to leave with a partially eaten meal?

rotor wrote:I honestly can't see this ever getting this far but would there be a bill for services rendered as they requested you to leave with a partially eaten meal?

Seems to me the logical conversation at this point would be "Sir, I will be happy to leave. Should I leave now, before I'm finished, or after I've finished my meal? Oh, and if you say 'now', I'm obviously not paying for a meal you won't allow me to finish."

After January 1, if this happens, we should have a place to post those businesses that do not allow us in .
As well as those displaying signs, along with location. It should be front and center so they don't have to hunt for it .
We should have a form letter to send, from TEXAS CHL FORUM, explaining our posting of there place of business on our forum, as a we respectfully decline to patronize your establishment for the following reasons.
We could also include that we as CHL holders are the only ones who can openly carry a holstered pistol.
Or words to that effect.
Just throwing out a thought .
Maybe it will make then think .......Maybe........?

harrycallahan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I again urge everyone who decides to openly carry to be a statesman. If one is asked to leave by an owner, agent or employee of a property owner, it would be prudent to leave. If you ask for a supervisor, then you have legally refused to leave upon being asked to do so. This raises the offense from a Class C to a Class A misdemeanor. Yes, the Code provision requires that oral notice be given by the property owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner, but I would never try to rely a lack of authority as a defense. OCT is going to be doing this kind of thing and responsible gun owners must be viewed in stark contrast to those tactics.

Chas.

I agree with your statesman comment completely. However, I disagree with your assumption that asking for a manager creates an offense. I have no doubt you are, as I am too, tired of OCT's destructive antics and perhaps it is from there you are speaking. Respectfully I am not coming from that direction. If a busboy asks me to leave my steak dinner, I'll be happy to comply. Clearly I am not wanted. The reason I need to speak to someone in charge is not to argue my point, it is so that I may lawfully resolve the charges and leave.

I cannot conceive of a scenario where you would walk into a business establishment openly carrying a handgun and have enough time to incur a debt that must be paid, before being told to leave. In the unlikely event you did, you don't have to deal with a manager or other supervisor to pay your tab. You could also ask the person telling you to leave if you can pay your tab first.

While amended TPC §30.07 and new §30.07 do not refer to "immediately" leaving the property as is seen in the new airport security area defense (HB554), both Sections to refer to "subsequently failed to depart." It think the intent is clear; when told to get out, get out without delay and without arguing the point. I don't think any jury would buy the argument that you were wanting to see a manager so you could pay your tab.

Chas.

rotor wrote:I honestly can't see this ever getting this far but would there be a bill for services rendered as they requested you to leave with a partially eaten meal?

No, unless the person walked past a 30.07 sign.

Chas.

viking1000 wrote:After January 1, if this happens, we should have a place to post those businesses that do not allow us in .
As well as those displaying signs, along with location. It should be front and center so they don't have to hunt for it .
We should have a form letter to send, from TEXAS CHL FORUM, explaining our posting of there place of business on our forum, as a we respectfully decline to patronize your establishment for the following reasons.
We could also include that we as CHL holders are the only ones who can openly carry a holstered pistol.
Or words to that effect.
Just throwing out a thought .
Maybe it will make then think .......Maybe........?

Sorry, but that's not coming from the Forum nor will there be such a list on the Forum. While I support not allowing businesses to prohibit concealed-carry by CHLs, open-carry and its impact on a business' customers is an entirely different matter. In my view, that's up to the property owner.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I again urge everyone who decides to openly carry to be a statesman. If one is asked to leave by an owner, agent or employee of a property owner, it would be prudent to leave. If you ask for a supervisor, then you have legally refused to leave upon being asked to do so. This raises the offense from a Class C to a Class A misdemeanor. Yes, the Code provision requires that oral notice be given by the property owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner, but I would never try to rely a lack of authority as a defense. OCT is going to be doing this kind of thing and responsible gun owners must be viewed in stark contrast to those tactics.

Chas.

Agree ^^^^ If the busboy tells you to leave and you don't, when the cops get there it doesn't matter what the busboy's authority is. It matters what the manager says the busboy's authority is to the police. We don't get to decide..... I think arguing with the busboy is an invitation to the Graybar Hotel.

viking1000 wrote:After January 1, if this happens, we should have a place to post those businesses that do not allow us in .

It already exists. www.texas3006.com

As Charles said, however, the rest of your note above is a non-starter.

Haven't there been many instances where some employee has told someone that they do not allow firearms only to find out that the business does not prohibit them and it was only that one employee's opinion or irrational fear for telling the person in the first place?

Taypo wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:If asked to leave by an employee of an establishment because I were wearing a firearm, I would leave. I would then write to the establishment notifying them that I was told to leave their establishment by an employee and that I nor my family will never darken their doorway again. If it were a franchise I would also inform the main office.

This. All day long.

The only way to force a business to make a change is to convince them they're wrong, and the fastest way to do that is to hurt the pocketbook.

I think many people over estimate their ability to hurt the pocketbook. Like it or not, there are also customers will not want to see the guns. And those customers also have the ability to hurt the pocketbook.

poppo wrote:

Taypo wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:If asked to leave by an employee of an establishment because I were wearing a firearm, I would leave. I would then write to the establishment notifying them that I was told to leave their establishment by an employee and that I nor my family will never darken their doorway again. If it were a franchise I would also inform the main office.

This. All day long.

The only way to force a business to make a change is to convince them they're wrong, and the fastest way to do that is to hurt the pocketbook.

I think many people over estimate their ability to hurt the pocketbook. Like it or not, there are also customers will not want to see the guns. And those customers also have the ability to hurt the pocketbook.

And I think many people underestimate the willingness of small businesses to change for a relatively small number of customers.

I've seen policies change for a single, vocal customer on several different occasions.

Taypo wrote:

poppo wrote:

Taypo wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:If asked to leave by an employee of an establishment because I were wearing a firearm, I would leave. I would then write to the establishment notifying them that I was told to leave their establishment by an employee and that I nor my family will never darken their doorway again. If it were a franchise I would also inform the main office.

This. All day long.

The only way to force a business to make a change is to convince them they're wrong, and the fastest way to do that is to hurt the pocketbook.

I think many people over estimate their ability to hurt the pocketbook. Like it or not, there are also customers will not want to see the guns. And those customers also have the ability to hurt the pocketbook.

And I think many people underestimate the willingness of small businesses to change for a relatively small number of customers.

I've seen policies change for a single, vocal customer on several different occasions.

And usually those changes are based on a small group opposing something (like guns). While it may be possible for a small business to change policy for pro-gun customers, more often than not, it will be the other way around. Given the small number of people who will actually OC, I just don't see many businesses siding with them when several other customers complain (and they will complain).

All we can do is wait and see what happens (i.e. how many new signs go up vs. how many come down).

why agitate a situation.

They are among us (agitators)