That seems reasonable, but the only thing I would quibble with is this: if indeed it is Whataburger’s intention to give managers some discretion in applying the “no open carry” rule, then that should be their public position because it sows confusion otherwise. They’ve taken a public stance of disallowing open carry......but then they privately tell their managers that it’s up to them to enforce it or not? To me, that’s kind of chicken manure.mojo84 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:23 amI understand and appreciate your position. I do not have a strong opinion one way or another about how they notify people since the law gives both options, signs or verbally or orally on a case by case basis. Also, from a practical sense, there are so few open carriers, I doubt this issue comes up very often. I also believe their decision to do it this way allows managers and operators the opportunity to use their own discretion whether to inform and not. I can see situations when there are no other or very few customers in the restaurant and the manager or operator decides to let it slide and then other times when there may be a packed house and the manager decides to notify. I do believe if they decide to inform someone, it should be done discretely so as to not embarrass the customer.The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:17 amCorrect, and just to be clear, my position that they should post signage was not aimed at this particular incident with a LEO, but rather was aimed generally at Whataburger’s refusal to post 30.07 signs while still insisting on their property right to bar open carry from their stores. As long as they (A) take that position, and (B) refuse to post the signs, they are (C) NOT doing the right thing.
I absolutely agree with the proposition that it is their property, and therefore their right to keep open carry out of their stores. That’s not the issue for me. The issue is their refusal to acknoledge that they have some kind of moral obligation to give their paying customers the only kind of proper notice recognized by the law BEFORE that customer sets foot inside the store. That refusal has several negative outcomes for everyone concerned:
Thus, it shows a profound disrespect for a segment of their customer base, and a casual disregard for their employees’ safety. Frankly, it comes off as their being afraid to face the music, and it’s a turn off. Don’t want open carry? Post the darn signs. What could be more simple than that?
- It places an employee in the position of having to confront an armed person about their weapon.
- It’s embarrassing to the person who is armed - who may, after all, not be dressed in a manner where they can simply cover it up.
- It creates controversy in the form of bad publicity for the gun rights crowd, and good publicity for the MAIG/MDA crowd.
Here's a twist, I disagree with the idea that one should be required to orally or verbally as some advocate in order to have them not open carry in the place of business. I believe it should be up to the property owner to decide how they want to interact and notify the customer.
I also want to point out, I do not believe the only option is to have the open carrier leave. All they need to do is cover up their gun. If a shoulder rig is worn, all it takes is a jacket or cover shirt.
But you’re certainly right that open carriers represent a fairly small segm,ent of the overall LTC community. I do OC myself on occasion, but more often than not, I conceal. And like Jusme mentioned above, if given notice, I’d just untuck my shirt and cover up. I just don’t like it when a company has a policy which “sucks” people in, only to subject them to possible notice.....without any kind of predictability. I prefer when a company either fishes or cuts bait, instead of keeping people on tenterhooks.