How to deal effectively with businesses with 30.06 signs

[Rex B]

Thinking back to when I had some retail stores of my own. You can't please everyone, and every now and then I would have an unhappy customer that I was simply unable to placate. They would leave the store unhappy and I knew they would never come back. Even knowing my position was correct, this one lost customer would ruin my whole day and most of the next. I would replay every word in my mind to determine if there was something i could have said or done to keep that customer.
Now, if i ever had a day where half a dozen customers had come to me and told me that due to actions of my management team, they would no longer trade with me, I'd be in a very deep Blue Funk. And if that happened regularly over a couple weeks I would have to make a change or close the business.
Granted, in a bigger business like HPB the management team is at Corporate HQ and one step removed from the customer, so this is harder to do. They also have the support of their team, unlike an individual store manager or small business owner.
So, how to make the decision-makers of such a company experience the same angst over losing customers as I did in my own stores? Get a group together and make an appointment? Picket the HQ or stores?

[Tracker]

Sometimes your opponent is your best political ally. With so many stores being pressured by them to put up 06 it can creat a legislative atmosphere that'll bring a bill like HB 308 to the forefront and a vote in the next session. I personally didn't see HB 308 getting much traction last year...the antis argument would've been "as the saying goes if it ain't broke why change it (i.e. 30.06 laws)?" At that time were very few stores that posted 06. I can't remember the last time I saw a retail store of restaurant that posted 06 before Jan 1

[Ruark]

Those numbers indicate how many people have their LTC. I suspect there are no real statistics for how many people who have their LTC actually carry, nor how many people who have their LTC care enough about it to not patronize a business over the issue.

This is the statistical crux of the matter. It's not like a restaurant with an 06 is going to lose 2% of its customers. Probably not even a tenth of that. Say 2% of the population have CHLs. Out of that 2%, how many CC regularly? Many stop, once the thrill wears off. Out of that, how many eat regularly at that restaurant? Then out of that, how many would stop eating there because they have an 06? There's not much left. And it's not like they eat there every day. For example, my wife and I love Applebee's, but even then we eat there maybe once every couple of months.

So far the most part, I have a hard time accepting that "boycotts" will have any effect on most businesses, at least to the point that they would take down the 06.

[thetexan]

Those numbers indicate how many people have their LTC. I suspect there are no real statistics for how many people who have their LTC actually carry, nor how many people who have their LTC care enough about it to not patronize a business over the issue.

This is the statistical crux of the matter. It's not like a restaurant with an 06 is going to lose 2% of its customers. Probably not even a tenth of that. Say 2% of the population have CHLs. Out of that 2%, how many CC regularly? Many stop, once the thrill wears off. Out of that, how many eat regularly at that restaurant? Then out of that, how many would stop eating there because they have an 06? There's not much left. And it's not like they eat there every day. For example, my wife and I love Applebee's, but even then we eat there maybe once every couple of months.

So far the most part, I have a hard time accepting that "boycotts" will have any effect on most businesses, at least to the point that they would take down the 06.

I think we are complaining about the wrong thing, publicly anyway. Maybe we should address a non-anti-gun subject. Here it is...

"We don't want to come into your store because you are advertising to the world in a big, in your face way (via the signage) that everyone in your establishment is a defenseless sitting duck for any crazy person who wishes to attack. That makes your place dangerous to me and my family. You may not want guns in here BUT DON'T TELL THE CRIMINALS THAT YOU ARE ENSURING THEIR ATTACK WILL BE MET WITH LITTLE OR NO RESISTENCE!!! So until you stop bringing public attention to the defenseless condition of your patrons I will be patronizing other, safer establishments"

This tact has nothing to do with whether I carry a gun or not, or even if I like guns. I can be completely against guns but not be willing to suffer the stupidity of publicly painting a bulls eye on your establishment's front door! This way the complainants can't be pigeon holed into a group of gun crazy zealots who have a gun agenda purpose for requesting the signs be taken down.

For me, yes, I want to stay armed...but if I can't I'm certainly not going into a place that advertises a building full of innocent, unarmed, defenseless victims perfectly situated to be slaughtered.

Maybe, on that level, more people can come together and leave the gun agenda out of it and emphasis the practical dangerous nature of the signage.

Especially in the face of the logic that the people you are excluding with signs are the vetted, trained, investigated, good guys you shouldn't fear, and the dangerous bad guys you hope to exclude laugh at your signs with complete disregard.

tex

[Tracker]

I wonder if the Texas Sheriff Association would make a statement being disappointed with the 06 signs going up

[Unocat]

Didn't the new law change the penalty for CC past a 30.06 sign to a Class C max $200 penalty (essentially making it a traffic ticket)? Please correct me if I am incorrect here.

If this is the case, then one could knowingly choose to CC past a 30.06 because they value their life and livelihood more than $200. So let's say the worst happens and you have to draw or even shoot in defense. You may walk away with a ticket to appear in court or even be arrested and have to pay your $200, but you get to walk away with your life.

Just posing this as philosophical thought for discussion. I am not advocating breaking any law. and by the way, driving over the speed limit is breaking a law as well.

[cb1000rider]

Didn't the new law change the penalty for CC past a 30.06 sign to a Class C max $200 penalty (essentially making it a traffic ticket)? Please correct me if I am incorrect here.

As I've said before, I've got no real issue with a $200 fine, but as long as employers ask questions like "have you been convicted of any non-traffic offense" - that conviction is very much likely to cost a *lot* of money in my lifetime. I suspect that many people are in the same boat...

[thetexan]

Didn't the new law change the penalty for CC past a 30.06 sign to a Class C max $200 penalty (essentially making it a traffic ticket)? Please correct me if I am incorrect here.

As I've said before, I've got no real issue with a $200 fine, but as long as employers ask questions like "have you been convicted of any non-traffic offense" - that conviction is very much likely to cost a *lot* of money in my lifetime. I suspect that many people are in the same boat...

Yes, but as stated it is a Class C non-traffic misdemeanor which which will disqualify you from a presumptive attribution of reasonable necessity which you might otherwise qualify for because the nature of the Class C is non-traffic offense, should you need to use force to defend yourself while carrying a gun past the sign.

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

...

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
...
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

In (e) you would be trespassing thus not where you have a right be be at the time force is used and thus would have to retreat before using it.

The result of this will be that you will have to defend your claim of reasonable belief of immediate necessity against the prosecutor's claim that it was unreasonable...where otherwise the jury would receive instructions from the court to mandatorily find your belief reasonable.

The prosecutor's narrative would almost certainly be that no one forced you to eat at that restaurant and carry past the 30.06 and your desire to stay armed for defensive purposes is no excuse. You might be alive but you would be in deep doo doo.

tex

[Unocat]

Thanks TheTexan, that is a great clarification.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It does absolutely no good to say "I'm not advocating unlawful conduct," then go on to talk about how minor a Class C violation is in the grand scheme of things. Doing so violates Rule 4 because, taken in context, the post as a whole delivers precisely that message. Stop it now! This is the very last warning on this issue.

Lest someone think I'm overreacting, please recall the incredibly stupid comment made by Rep. Stickland during the session. Someone wrote a post or article asking if the Dutton Amendment to HB910 gave us "back door constitutional carry" because LEOs wouldn't be able to ask anyone for a license. Stickland responded with a smile saying "who do you think gave them the idea?" His comment was a major reason we saw a huge outcry against the Dutton Amendment because anti-gunners picked it up and it was all over the Internet. The Forum will not be the source for more anti-gun/anti-LTC garbage.

Chas.

[thetexan]

Didn't the new law change the penalty for CC past a 30.06 sign to a Class C max $200 penalty (essentially making it a traffic ticket)? Please correct me if I am incorrect here.

If this is the case, then one could knowingly choose to CC past a 30.06 because they value their life and livelihood more than $200. So let's say the worst happens and you have to draw or even shoot in defense. You may walk away with a ticket to appear in court or even be arrested and have to pay your $200, but you get to walk away with your life.

Just posing this as philosophical thought for discussion. I am not advocating breaking any law. and by the way, driving over the speed limit is breaking a law as well.

As each of us do our homework and study the rules, and we should...each of us should be subject matter experts to the degree we can...we have to be sure to first read any statute with a clinical sterility of statutory interpretation, free from any self-interpretation or rumor or unintended context. The words say what they say. The penalties are what they are. Legal is legal and illegal is illegal. All of us who are licensed have a responsibility to each of the rest of us to be sure and not endanger the collective reputation by sloppy or cavalier actions.

There is a lot of stuff from various sources that is just plain wrong when it comes to LTC, signs, etc. And there's alot of good stuff. Stay alert to the difference. I teach very technical subjects in very serious domains of knowledge. I would be rich if I had a dollar for every time I said to students who think they know a rule, "what does the book say". The book (the law or regulation or case determination) is the great argument stopper...the final source that trumps all other sources.

The secret service famously trains their anti-counterfeit agents by studying only authentic bills. They never study the counterfeit. This is because there are too many counterfeits....but just ONE real bill. The way you spot an counterfeit is by knowing the real thing so well that you immediately recognize the imposter when you see it. This can be applied to the law or the regulation. With 30.06 or 30.07 just for example, the statute says what and only what it says. When you hear someone say that 30.06 must be posted at each entrance, for example, the rule does not say that. .07 does but not .06. You may want it to say that but it does not. Notice I am not adding any interpretation one way or the other when I say this. It is what it is. If you want to interpret it one way then you must label that for what it is...an interpretation (assuming absent any official interpretation to go by). When you start using words like "have to", "supposed to", "got to", "must" you are saying there is a law or official interpretation that stands behind and gives authority to those imperatives. Usually there is not and those words are casually passed down from one unsuspecting, naive recipient to another. Then we sometimes end up with a lot of adults playing the children's telephone game.

tex

[jsenner]

The focus here seems to be the best way to convince businesses to change their position based on attempting to explain to them why their choice is wrong and the threat of taking business away. I know the corporate chains are a black hole, but what about talking to the owner/manager of local places that put up signs to find out what their motivation is? knowing that, it seems it'd be easier to construct a campaign that would be effective. If the reasoning is that it's a reaction to the feedback they've gotten then it seems like a surmountable issue. if it's because the owner hates guns and gun people, probably not surmountable with any campaign.

I've also thought about trying a positive approach to the pro-carry business card idea. using the whataburger case as an example, I suspect that most will still patronize a place they want to patronize, and go CC to do it. how about pointing out to the business owner that you're pro-OC and would like the business to be pro-OC - as a part of actually patronizing the business. I was thinking about a card that says this and leave it when I sign the tab, or hand it to the cashiers for the manager, etc. I'm spending money in your business and I want you to know my position. Someone here said in another thread that the antis are likely actively voicing their opinion (and in a negative, threatening way) while the pros are likely silently present. I would hope that this would leave them with the positive view that these guys are pro gun, and spending money here.

[dmccree]

I am a business owner in the D/FW area and recently received my LTC. My first reaction was to put up both the 30.06 and 30.07 because I have cash in my store. I personally have a firearm wit me at all times as well as my other employee. Only a couple people mentioned the signs, but after I thought about it, I have been on the fence about them. I am very pro gun and believe in the 2nd amendment for protection for myself and my family. I would like to thank the people on this thread that helped me decide on what to do. I have removed the 30.06 sign and left the 30.07. I realize my beliefs are not the same as everyone's, therefore my decision was to leave the sign that you may not open carry in my place business out of respect for people who are not comfortable with guns. Honestly, I haven't but 2 people open carry outside of a gun show since the law went into effect anyway. Great information for a business owner. Thanks.

[TreyHouston]

I am a business owner in the D/FW area and recently received my LTC. My first reaction was to put up both the 30.06 and 30.07 because I have cash in my store. I personally have a firearm wit me at all times as well as my other employee. Only a couple people mentioned the signs, but after I thought about it, I have been on the fence about them. I am very pro gun and believe in the 2nd amendment for protection for myself and my family. I would like to thank the people on this thread that helped me decide on what to do. I have removed the 30.06 sign and left the 30.07. I realize my beliefs are not the same as everyone's, therefore my decision was to leave the sign that you may not open carry in my place business out of respect for people who are not comfortable with guns. Honestly, I haven't but 2 people open carry outside of a gun show since the law went into effect anyway. Great information for a business owner. Thanks.

Thats great news about the 30.06 sign! I do have to ask. in the last almost 5 months you had 2 people open carry what did they do that made you unhappy? (As i am sure u know crimals dont carry their gun in a holster and LTC peeps have been vetted by the FBI)

[dmccree]

That wasn't at my business, that was just in general. I agree, no sign will keep a criminal out. After reading several forums and talking to many people, I decided just having the 30.07 would be the best option.