TexasCHLforum.com

Now and in the near future we will see the rotten fruits of OCT's actions.

XDgal wrote:What is cruelly ironic is, neither 30.06 or 30.07 have any barring on the carry of long guns. It is still legal to carry those into businesses. They can be asked to leave and if they don't, they will face a trespassing charge, but the signs won't stop them from entering.
XDgal

Sad but true. OCT people won't be as affected by signage as us! Why is that not suprising. Everytime I hear about open carry from somebody, "those idiots with ak47s and bandoliers" always pops up. Can't fault me for saying the truth, that OCT and associated groups did more damage than good, because everybody with a thinker between the ears knows it.

XDgal wrote:What is cruelly ironic is, neither 30.06 or 30.07 have any barring on the carry of long guns. It is still legal to carry those into businesses. They can be asked to leave and if they don't, they will face a trespassing charge, but the signs won't stop them from entering.
XDgal

A regular no firearms sign applies to the carry of rifles into business.

mojo84 wrote:

XDgal wrote:What is cruelly ironic is, neither 30.06 or 30.07 have any barring on the carry of long guns. It is still legal to carry those into businesses. They can be asked to leave and if they don't, they will face a trespassing charge, but the signs won't stop them from entering.
XDgal

A regular no firearms sign applies to the carry of rifles into business.

Right. So now they have to put up 3 signs... Regular, 30.06, & 30.07. Orrrrr...they could just ask you to leave if you're annoying them by being "tactical" with your AR, or open carrying a pistol (if they even notice).

glockenhand wrote:The irony are some of posts that I have read here. Openly carried handguns are a complete new mode of carry for Texans and the businesses that operate in this state. Of course signs will appear now just as they did at the beginning of concealed carry and then so again once 30.06 arrived. Blaming a single entity or person demonstrates something else entirely and it ain't good.

I suppose you don't blame President Obama for Obamacare either, do you? Blame is justified when he who is blamed has done the deed and directly influenced the result. I can blame Chas for being the first to call you out on the nonsense above, therefor leaving me to be "not first" to reply to your comment. If you can prove any of our statements to be false, please pm me and let me know, until then, save the ozone.

mojo84 wrote:

XDgal wrote:What is cruelly ironic is, neither 30.06 or 30.07 have any barring on the carry of long guns. It is still legal to carry those into businesses. They can be asked to leave and if they don't, they will face a trespassing charge, but the signs won't stop them from entering.
XDgal

A regular no firearms sign applies to the carry of rifles into business.

Does a gunbuster have legal grounds for rifles? I'm not aware of it being legal notice.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

XDgal wrote:What is cruelly ironic is, neither 30.06 or 30.07 have any barring on the carry of long guns. It is still legal to carry those into businesses. They can be asked to leave and if they don't, they will face a trespassing charge, but the signs won't stop them from entering.
XDgal

A regular no firearms sign applies to the carry of rifles into business.

Does a gunbuster have legal grounds for rifles? I'm not aware of it being legal notice.

It's my understanding they do. Why would they not?

This is true! Correct. just 30:06 conceal - just 30:07 can conceal carry etc...

mojo84 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

XDgal wrote:What is cruelly ironic is, neither 30.06 or 30.07 have any barring on the carry of long guns. It is still legal to carry those into businesses. They can be asked to leave and if they don't, they will face a trespassing charge, but the signs won't stop them from entering.
XDgal

A regular no firearms sign applies to the carry of rifles into business.

Does a gunbuster have legal grounds for rifles? I'm not aware of it being legal notice.

It's my understanding they do. Why would they not?

I don't recall anything in the penal code, quoting you are trespassing with a firearm if there is a sign saying no guns. Acts just like a place with no signs in regard to open carry of a handgun. If you get notice to leave, then you must leave.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

XDgal wrote:What is cruelly ironic is, neither 30.06 or 30.07 have any barring on the carry of long guns. It is still legal to carry those into businesses. They can be asked to leave and if they don't, they will face a trespassing charge, but the signs won't stop them from entering.
XDgal

A regular no firearms sign applies to the carry of rifles into business.

Does a gunbuster have legal grounds for rifles? I'm not aware of it being legal notice.

It's my understanding they do. Why would they not?

I don't recall anything in the penal code, quoting you are trespassing with a firearm if there is a sign saying no guns. Acts just like a place with no signs in regard to open carry of a handgun. If you get notice to leave, then you must leave.

The sign is the notice. Nothing in the penal code says how notice has to be given to non-CHL's or regarding rifles, just that is has to be given. Their wasn't a requirement for a 30.06 and 30.07 sign until the legislature decided there needed to be specific signage that conveyed proper notice.

The issue with no gun or gun buster signs is that 99.999% of the ones I have seen are simply a handgun with a circle and a slash through the gun. Someone with OCT/OCTC/CATI/ect. will say that these signs are only providing notice that unlicensed handguns are prohibited, or are a poor attempt to ban licensed handgun carry. Once that happens we will see even more signs posted and calls to regulate the carry of long guns. If you have a no-firearms allowed sign then OCT/OCTC/CATI/ect. will walk in with their pre-1899 and/or BP replica firearms and say that these are not firearms per the law and we will then see even more signs and even more calls to regulate unlicensed carry of anything.

The truly ironic point of this all is that OCT/OCTC/CATI/ect. will be building a new coffin for unlicensed carry for the next few legislative sessions by doing so.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

glockenhand wrote:Blaming a single entity or person demonstrates something else entirely and it ain't good.

Coming to the defense of the person/entity that have caused Texas gun owners problems while issuing veiled insults to those who opposed those destructive tactics demonstrates much more. Don't do it again. Your goal is to stifle criticism of OCT and/or Grisham and that's not going to happen.

Chas.

Charles, I don't know what your overt threat in "Don't do it again" is suppose to mean. I have not done anything wrong. I have worked in corporate security for the past 25 years. While things have definitely changed in that time, most of our thought processes have not. I have officed out of New York, Arizona and now Texas. In each case we follow the same criteria in determining any local or regional site codes we must follow. We begin with federal law, then state and local law. Once that matrix is compiled, legal interprets the code. After that process risk management is consulted. Other variables do come into play as well, but I assure you that local politics do not. It is a monies game pure and simple. I have heard of OCT and/or Grisham. I have even heard of you Charles. Some good...some not. However, I assure you that our decision to post 30.06 & 30.07 at our Texas sites has nothing to do with local issues you've descrived. Truth is, from a risk perspective we don't like anyone that we don't employ to enter our premises with a firearm and that includes local law enforcement (off duty) or armed civilians.
Now Charles ( both of you I guess), I don't fully understand the rift between you and the entities you've mention. I can however recognize intolerance and around here at least on the surface, it feels rampant. I could be wrong and I hope I am. But never in my life would I dream of speaking to anyone in a manner as those here have done to me.

edit:
re: obamacare, no one likes it it. It is a badly written law that attempts to solve an issue it wasn't designed to solve. However, it was amusing to hear legal gripe about interpreting it. Anyone who voted for it I hold accountable. As I understand it, dems from around Hillary Clinton's time were/are the real architects of it. Obama just penned it.

glockenhand wrote:Charles, I don't know what your overt threat in "Don't do it again" is suppose to mean. I have not done anything wrong. I have worked in corporate security for the past 25 years. While things have definitely changed in that time, most of our thought processes have not. I have officed out of New York, Arizona and now Texas. In each case we follow the same criteria in determining any local or regional site codes we must follow. We begin with federal law, then state and local law. Once that matrix is compiled, legal interprets the code. After that process risk management is consulted. Other variables do come into play as well, but I assure you that local politics do not. It is a monies game pure and simple. I have heard of OCT and/or Grisham. I have even heard of you Charles. Some good...some not. However, I assure you that our decision to post 30.06 & 30.07 at our Texas sites has nothing to do with local issues you've descrived. Truth is, from a risk perspective we don't like anyone that we don't employ to enter our premises with a firearm and that includes local law enforcement (off duty) or armed civilians.
Now Charles ( both of you I guess), I don't fully understand the rift between you and the entities you've mention. I can however recognize intolerance and around here at least on the surface, it feels rampant. I could be wrong and I hope I am. But never in my life would I dream of speaking to anyone in a manner as those here have done to me.

I may not be Charles but I can see your position and that of Charles clearly. Your employer (it would seem a larger one) is one of the few that are not involved in the knee jerk reaction, keep in mind not all companies have corporate security and in the case of those that do not all choose to post signs discriminating against the most law abiding segment of the population. The approach you used in your post looked to me that you didn't want people pointing the finger at the "Open Carry folks" for causing the numbers of signs prohibiting self defense to increase. The truth is some companies will post irregardless of what OCT/CATI/OCTC/ect. does, but of all those that I have talked to not one has said anything other than they want to keep "those nuts marching around with ARs and AKs" out. Those that I have spoke to have come to me with the impression that 30.07 applies to unlicensed long gun carry as well as licensed handgun carry, when that is addressed they seem content to not post 30.06/30.07 notices and deal with the issue as they would have before.

glockenhand wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

glockenhand wrote:Blaming a single entity or person demonstrates something else entirely and it ain't good.

Coming to the defense of the person/entity that have caused Texas gun owners problems while issuing veiled insults to those who opposed those destructive tactics demonstrates much more. Don't do it again. Your goal is to stifle criticism of OCT and/or Grisham and that's not going to happen.

Chas.

Charles, I don't know what your overt threat in "Don't do it again" is suppose to mean. I have not done anything wrong. I have worked in corporate security for the past 25 years. While things have definitely changed in that time, most of our thought processes have not. I have officed out of New York, Arizona and now Texas. In each case we follow the same criteria in determining any local or regional site codes we must follow. We begin with federal law, then state and local law. Once that matrix is compiled, legal interprets the code. After that process risk management is consulted. Other variables do come into play as well, but I assure you that local politics do not. It is a monies game pure and simple. I have heard of OCT and/or Grisham. I have even heard of you Charles. Some good...some not. However, I assure you that our decision to post 30.06 & 30.07 at our Texas sites has nothing to do with local issues you've descrived. Truth is, from a risk perspective we don't like anyone that we don't employ to enter our premises with a firearm and that includes local law enforcement (off duty) or armed civilians.
Now Charles ( both of you I guess), I don't fully understand the rift between you and the entities you've mention. I can however recognize intolerance and around here at least on the surface, it feels rampant. I could be wrong and I hope I am. But never in my life would I dream of speaking to anyone in a manner as those here have done to me.

edit:
re: obamacare, no one likes it it. It is a badly written law that attempts to solve an issue it wasn't designed to solve. However, it was amusing to hear legal gripe about interpreting it. Anyone who voted for it I hold accountable. As I understand it, dems from around Hillary Clinton's time were/are the real architects of it. Obama just penned it.

Good response.

I must note, you detail one specific corporation. We here tend to look at the whole picture, which includes every business that you could stop at from one end of I10 to the other, from one end of I35 to the other, and everything in between. Forgive my animosity towards "corporate" mindset, but I simply don't care much about what they think. What matters to me, is how every local place handles it.

Your posts acts as if "politics" have nothing to do with business. If your business is like that, then I congratulate you in finding such a ray of sunshine, but for the rest of us, it does not exist. There may be many who don't realize it yet, but it's practically impossible to escape politics. I would love to get away from politics, but that seems to be an impossibility.

glockenhand wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

glockenhand wrote:Blaming a single entity or person demonstrates something else entirely and it ain't good.

Coming to the defense of the person/entity that have caused Texas gun owners problems while issuing veiled insults to those who opposed those destructive tactics demonstrates much more. Don't do it again. Your goal is to stifle criticism of OCT and/or Grisham and that's not going to happen.

Chas.

Charles, I don't know what your overt threat in "Don't do it again" is suppose to mean. I have not done anything wrong. I have worked in corporate security for the past 25 years. While things have definitely changed in that time, most of our thought processes have not. I have officed out of New York, Arizona and now Texas. In each case we follow the same criteria in determining any local or regional site codes we must follow. We begin with federal law, then state and local law. Once that matrix is compiled, legal interprets the code. After that process risk management is consulted. Other variables do come into play as well, but I assure you that local politics do not. It is a monies game pure and simple. I have heard of OCT and/or Grisham. I have even heard of you Charles. Some good...some not. However, I assure you that our decision to post 30.06 & 30.07 at our Texas sites has nothing to do with local issues you've descrived. Truth is, from a risk perspective we don't like anyone that we don't employ to enter our premises with a firearm and that includes local law enforcement (off duty) or armed civilians.
Now Charles ( both of you I guess), I don't fully understand the rift between you and the entities you've mention. I can however recognize intolerance and around here at least on the surface, it feels rampant. I could be wrong and I hope I am. But never in my life would I dream of speaking to anyone in a manner as those here have done to me.

edit:
re: obamacare, no one likes it it. It is a badly written law that attempts to solve an issue it wasn't designed to solve. However, it was amusing to hear legal gripe about interpreting it. Anyone who voted for it I hold accountable. As I understand it, dems from around Hillary Clinton's time were/are the real architects of it. Obama just penned it.

Sorry, but you don't have the full story. The thing with Grisham and OCT/OCTC goes back several years with things they have stated on this board, while "testifying" before the legislature, with some of their marches and interviews. They have attacked the views of people on this board and placed veiled threats. They want it their way or not at all, refusing any compermise, then claim credit for the little that gets passed despite their antics.

Some of the others can give you more information with references if they want. You can do a search on this site for Grisham, OCT, OCTC and read the arguments for for yourself.