Austin bakery 30.06 story

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Austin

Austin bakery 30.06 story

#1

Post by Scott Farkus »

So I very rarely watch the local news here in Austin, but last night happened to flip channels when this story was coming on:

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/baguette ... /478172391

Long story short, someone entered a 30.06 posted bakery with a concealed handgun which was noticed by management, and police were called. Apparently the gun owner was simply asked to leave, no ticket or arrest (as it should be). Subsequently, the bakery's Facebook account was inundated with pro-gun messages and 1 star reviews. There were also some unclear allegations that the gun owner had come into the store a year before and asked that the sign be removed.

Here are a few things that occurred to me.

1. As I was watching the story, I kept thinking "this sure seems like a big nothing burger, why is this even newsworthy?". Then, at the end, I found my answer - some Democrat running for State Rep had set up a table there that day, apparently to show support for the bakery in its time of need or something, apparently because of the negative Facebook messages. I am assuming that's why the news media was alerted and cared enough to send a crew there.

2. This negative social media stuff is EXACTLY the kind of thing that businesses who are perceived as anti-whatever by SJW's have to put up with day in and day out. It's petty and juvenile and other things I can't say, and I wish "my side" wouldn't do it because it gives gun owners a bad name. However, these are the rules the left came up with and I'd be lying if I didn't say it's nice to see the tables turned for a change.

3. The concealed carrier should not have crossed the 30.06. I'm not going to reargue whether or not we should have 30.06 signs, but he shouldn't have crossed it, period, especially if he did so intentionally as the news story implies. However, because parts of that story didn't quite add up, I did some subsequent googling and it appears that the gun owner is question is associated with the website "The Truth About Guns". Here is his side of the story, which basically boils down to "I forgot I was carrying". Apparently, the Facebook stuff was coming from his readers, and to his credit he asks them to stop:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/0 ... led-carry/

4. I wonder how often this kind of thing happens but a Democratic politcal hopeful is not there to bring in the news cameras? I don't see gun owners going after 30.06 establishments on social media very often, and the very few times I can think of had to do with some unique circumstance. Maybe we should start? I don't know. The left has been very effective in demonizing anyone who disagrees with them, maybe we should look into how they do it and apply a little of their own medicine back.

Thoughts?
User avatar

spectre
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#2

Post by spectre »

Scott Farkus wrote:2. This negative social media stuff is EXACTLY the kind of thing that businesses who are perceived as anti-whatever by SJW's have to put up with day in and day out. It's petty and juvenile and other things I can't say, and I wish "my side" wouldn't do it because it gives gun owners a bad name. However, these are the rules the left came up with and I'd be lying if I didn't say it's nice to see the tables turned for a change.
How is it petty and juvenile? A one star review for rude service is fair. Why isn't a one star review for rude policies?

Personally, I hope the NFL and NBA suffer financially for disrespecting the American flag. The First Amendment protects their right to do it without legal repercussions but it doesn't and shouldn't protect them from financial and social repercussions. Like the KKK, they have the right to express their views, and the rest of us have the right to ostracize them.

:patriot:
I'm in a good place right now
Not emotionally or financially
But I am at the gun store
User avatar

warnmar10
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#3

Post by warnmar10 »

Alinsky rule #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

Topic author
Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#4

Post by Scott Farkus »

spectre wrote:How is it petty and juvenile? A one star review for rude service is fair. Why isn't a one star review for rude policies?

Personally, I hope the NFL and NBA suffer financially for disrespecting the American flag. The First Amendment protects their right to do it without legal repercussions but it doesn't and shouldn't protect them from financial and social repercussions. Like the KKK, they have the right to express their views, and the rest of us have the right to ostracize them.

:patriot:
As I understand this tactic, the vast majority of the 1 star reviews come from people who've never been there. They just hear about the perceived insult and pile on.

I personally have a problem giving a review, good or bad, to any place I've never been to. I very seldom leave reviews for places I do go to - it's just not my thing. Maybe it should be, I don't know.

Topic author
Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#5

Post by Scott Farkus »

warnmar10 wrote:Alinsky rule #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
Yes, this is the part that is very appealing to me.
User avatar

bbhack
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:34 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#6

Post by bbhack »

Scott Farkus wrote:
1. As I was watching the story, I kept thinking "this sure seems like a big nothing burger, why is this even newsworthy?". Then, at the end, I found my answer - some Democrat running for State Rep had set up a table there that day, apparently to show support for the bakery in its time of need or something, apparently because of the negative Facebook messages. I am assuming that's why the news media was alerted and cared enough to send a crew there.

2. This negative social media stuff is EXACTLY the kind of thing that businesses who are perceived as anti-whatever by SJW's have to put up with day in and day out. It's petty and juvenile and other things I can't say, and I wish "my side" wouldn't do it because it gives gun owners a bad name. However, these are the rules the left came up with and I'd be lying if I didn't say it's nice to see the tables turned for a change.

Thoughts?
My first thought is almost always false flag / provocateur, and it's usually right. Even if these posters were coming from his website, many of those are probably sleeping provocateurs. They pop up on demand.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
User avatar

tbrown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#7

Post by tbrown »

bbhack wrote:My first thought is almost always false flag / provocateur, and it's usually right. Even if these posters were coming from his website, many of those are probably sleeping provocateurs. They pop up on demand.
Maybe I'm a little slow tonight but I missed the connection. Are Texas CHL Forum members that contact their representatives in response to a bill discussed on this forum also false flag / provocateur according to your thought?
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country

wheelgun1958
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:40 pm
Location: Flo, TX

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#8

Post by wheelgun1958 »

If the socialists want a fight, we should give them back 10 fold. I'm done being nice.
User avatar

bbhack
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:34 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#9

Post by bbhack »

tbrown wrote:
bbhack wrote:My first thought is almost always false flag / provocateur, and it's usually right. Even if these posters were coming from his website, many of those are probably sleeping provocateurs. They pop up on demand.
Maybe I'm a little slow tonight but I missed the connection. Are Texas CHL Forum members that contact their representatives in response to a bill discussed on this forum also false flag / provocateur according to your thought?
No, not at all. The thing here is "LTCs" or "2As" attacking a merchant with online abuse. Those are in quotes because I don't believe those were the ones dishing out the abuse. Maybe a (very) few. The abuse here is nasty comments and 1 star reviews directed at the merchant. This is almost certainly subterfuge, and is the opposite of republican democracy and self governance.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#10

Post by Liberty »

bbhack wrote:
No, not at all. The thing here is "LTCs" or "2As" attacking a merchant with online abuse. Those are in quotes because I don't believe those were the ones dishing out the abuse. Maybe a (very) few. The abuse here is nasty comments and 1 star reviews directed at the merchant. This is almost certainly subterfuge, and is the opposite of republican democracy and self governance.
I wouldn't mind all the leftist antigunners going out of business. They have worked hard at attempting to destroy businesses that have done well to me and paid me good wages. A 30.06 business is by choice providing poor service to those of us that are denied entry.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 9505
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#11

Post by RoyGBiv »

Scott Farkus wrote:
warnmar10 wrote:Alinsky rule #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
Yes, this is the part that is very appealing to me.
:patriot:
Schadenfreude
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4811
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#12

Post by bblhd672 »

Scott Farkus wrote:So I very rarely watch the local news here in Austin, but last night happened to flip channels when this story was coming on:

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/baguette ... /478172391

Long story short, someone entered a 30.06 posted bakery with a concealed handgun which was noticed by management, and police were called. Apparently the gun owner was simply asked to leave, no ticket or arrest (as it should be). Subsequently, the bakery's Facebook account was inundated with pro-gun messages and 1 star reviews. There were also some unclear allegations that the gun owner had come into the store a year before and asked that the sign be removed.

Here are a few things that occurred to me.

1. As I was watching the story, I kept thinking "this sure seems like a big nothing burger, why is this even newsworthy?". Then, at the end, I found my answer - some Democrat running for State Rep had set up a table there that day, apparently to show support for the bakery in its time of need or something, apparently because of the negative Facebook messages. I am assuming that's why the news media was alerted and cared enough to send a crew there.

2. This negative social media stuff is EXACTLY the kind of thing that businesses who are perceived as anti-whatever by SJW's have to put up with day in and day out. It's petty and juvenile and other things I can't say, and I wish "my side" wouldn't do it because it gives gun owners a bad name. However, these are the rules the left came up with and I'd be lying if I didn't say it's nice to see the tables turned for a change.

3. The concealed carrier should not have crossed the 30.06. I'm not going to reargue whether or not we should have 30.06 signs, but he shouldn't have crossed it, period, especially if he did so intentionally as the news story implies. However, because parts of that story didn't quite add up, I did some subsequent googling and it appears that the gun owner is question is associated with the website "The Truth About Guns". Here is his side of the story, which basically boils down to "I forgot I was carrying". Apparently, the Facebook stuff was coming from his readers, and to his credit he asks them to stop:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/0 ... led-carry/

4. I wonder how often this kind of thing happens but a Democratic politcal hopeful is not there to bring in the news cameras? I don't see gun owners going after 30.06 establishments on social media very often, and the very few times I can think of had to do with some unique circumstance. Maybe we should start? I don't know. The left has been very effective in demonizing anyone who disagrees with them, maybe we should look into how they do it and apply a little of their own medicine back.

Thoughts?
The gun blogger/LTC holder obviously knew that the site was posted 30.06 and 30.07, yet chose to carry past the signs. I don't buy for a second that a guy who spends so much of his time talking/writing about guns "forgot" he was carrying his handgun. Then he lies to the cops about "thought it was 30.07 only." We may not like the laws restricting where we can carry, but we must obey them.
I have read "The Truth About Guns" blog a few times, but not sure I can trust them when the head guy will openly break 30.06/30.07 law and then take to social media to create a storm over the enforcement of his law breaking.
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager
User avatar

G.A. Heath
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Western Texas

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#13

Post by G.A. Heath »

bblhd672 wrote:
Scott Farkus wrote:So I very rarely watch the local news here in Austin, but last night happened to flip channels when this story was coming on:

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/baguette ... /478172391

Long story short, someone entered a 30.06 posted bakery with a concealed handgun which was noticed by management, and police were called. Apparently the gun owner was simply asked to leave, no ticket or arrest (as it should be). Subsequently, the bakery's Facebook account was inundated with pro-gun messages and 1 star reviews. There were also some unclear allegations that the gun owner had come into the store a year before and asked that the sign be removed.

Here are a few things that occurred to me.

1. As I was watching the story, I kept thinking "this sure seems like a big nothing burger, why is this even newsworthy?". Then, at the end, I found my answer - some Democrat running for State Rep had set up a table there that day, apparently to show support for the bakery in its time of need or something, apparently because of the negative Facebook messages. I am assuming that's why the news media was alerted and cared enough to send a crew there.

2. This negative social media stuff is EXACTLY the kind of thing that businesses who are perceived as anti-whatever by SJW's have to put up with day in and day out. It's petty and juvenile and other things I can't say, and I wish "my side" wouldn't do it because it gives gun owners a bad name. However, these are the rules the left came up with and I'd be lying if I didn't say it's nice to see the tables turned for a change.

3. The concealed carrier should not have crossed the 30.06. I'm not going to reargue whether or not we should have 30.06 signs, but he shouldn't have crossed it, period, especially if he did so intentionally as the news story implies. However, because parts of that story didn't quite add up, I did some subsequent googling and it appears that the gun owner is question is associated with the website "The Truth About Guns". Here is his side of the story, which basically boils down to "I forgot I was carrying". Apparently, the Facebook stuff was coming from his readers, and to his credit he asks them to stop:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/0 ... led-carry/

4. I wonder how often this kind of thing happens but a Democratic politcal hopeful is not there to bring in the news cameras? I don't see gun owners going after 30.06 establishments on social media very often, and the very few times I can think of had to do with some unique circumstance. Maybe we should start? I don't know. The left has been very effective in demonizing anyone who disagrees with them, maybe we should look into how they do it and apply a little of their own medicine back.

Thoughts?
The gun blogger/LTC holder obviously knew that the site was posted 30.06 and 30.07, yet chose to carry past the signs. I don't buy for a second that a guy who spends so much of his time talking/writing about guns "forgot" he was carrying his handgun. Then he lies to the cops about "thought it was 30.07 only." We may not like the laws restricting where we can carry, but we must obey them.
I have read "The Truth About Guns" blog a few times, but not sure I can trust them when the head guy will openly break 30.06/30.07 law and then take to social media to create a storm over the enforcement of his law breaking.
I have to point out a few things. TTAG is known to plagiarize content and other disreputable practices. Farago has been known to generate propaganda material for anti-gunners like when they 're-enacted' the Charlie Hebdo attack and claimed armed resistance would not have made a difference. The thing about Farago is that I personally suspect he enjoys chaos and his actions were completely intentional.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019

Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4337
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#14

Post by Soccerdad1995 »

Liberty wrote:
bbhack wrote:
No, not at all. The thing here is "LTCs" or "2As" attacking a merchant with online abuse. Those are in quotes because I don't believe those were the ones dishing out the abuse. Maybe a (very) few. The abuse here is nasty comments and 1 star reviews directed at the merchant. This is almost certainly subterfuge, and is the opposite of republican democracy and self governance.
I wouldn't mind all the leftist antigunners going out of business. They have worked hard at attempting to destroy businesses that have done well to me and paid me good wages. A 30.06 business is by choice providing poor service to those of us that are denied entry.
:iagree:

If a business establishes a policy that increases the risk of harm to all of it's patrons, then a review of that business definitely should point out the increased risk for anyone who might consider going there.

And I don't think it is necessary to actually patronize a business in order to have a valid reason for posting a review. A year or so ago, I took my MIL and some other family members to a Thai restaurant that had a closing time posted as 10:00 PM on the door. We arrived at 9:35 PM. The hostess looked at our party of 6 and told us that she couldn't seat us because we wouldn't be done by 10:00. We didn't throw a fit or start a protest. But I did leave a review informing other potential customers that this restaurant's posted closing time means that you need to be done and out the door by that time. I did this because this is something that people should be aware of before they simply look up the restaurant's hours and decide to go there.

Similarly, the right to self defense is a well established common law right. This bakery is lawfully threatening to have people arrested if they bring reasonable means of self defense into this store. The bakery has the legal right to do this. But I think it is very valuable for potential customers to understand that this means they will be at an increased risk of injury or death if they choose to visit that bakery. And everyone is at increased risk, not only the people who would otherwise legally carry but also the non-LTC holder who is more likely to be the victim of a crime given the sign that announces this location as a place where criminals are free to ply their trade with significantly less resistance than they might encounter elsewhere.

twomillenium
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:42 pm
Location: houston area

Re: Austin bakery 30.06 story

#15

Post by twomillenium »

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Liberty wrote:
bbhack wrote:
No, not at all. The thing here is "LTCs" or "2As" attacking a merchant with online abuse. Those are in quotes because I don't believe those were the ones dishing out the abuse. Maybe a (very) few. The abuse here is nasty comments and 1 star reviews directed at the merchant. This is almost certainly subterfuge, and is the opposite of republican democracy and self governance.
I wouldn't mind all the leftist antigunners going out of business. They have worked hard at attempting to destroy businesses that have done well to me and paid me good wages. A 30.06 business is by choice providing poor service to those of us that are denied entry.
:iagree:

If a business establishes a policy that increases the risk of harm to all of it's patrons, then a review of that business definitely should point out the increased risk for anyone who might consider going there.

And I don't think it is necessary to actually patronize a business in order to have a valid reason for posting a review. A year or so ago, I took my MIL and some other family members to a Thai restaurant that had a closing time posted as 10:00 PM on the door. We arrived at 9:35 PM. The hostess looked at our party of 6 and told us that she couldn't seat us because we wouldn't be done by 10:00. We didn't throw a fit or start a protest. But I did leave a review informing other potential customers that this restaurant's posted closing time means that you need to be done and out the door by that time. I did this because this is something that people should be aware of before they simply look up the restaurant's hours and decide to go there.

Similarly, the right to self defense is a well established common law right. This bakery is lawfully threatening to have people arrested if they bring reasonable means of self defense into this store. The bakery has the legal right to do this. But I think it is very valuable for potential customers to understand that this means they will be at an increased risk of injury or death if they choose to visit that bakery. And everyone is at increased risk, not only the people who would otherwise legally carry but also the non-LTC holder who is more likely to be the victim of a crime given the sign that announces this location as a place where criminals are free to ply their trade with significantly less resistance than they might encounter elsewhere.
Then post your review on the fact that you will not do business with them due to the 30.06 sign. Don't lie about services that you have no experience of. When you do that, you become unreliable in your ability to speak the truth of your own experience. Then you can get a Al Gore, Hillary Clinton fan club card.
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA pistol instructor, RSO, NRA Endowment Life , TSRA, Glock enthusiast (tho I have others)
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to add it to a fruit salad.

You will never know another me, this could be good or not so good, but it is still true.
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”