TexasCHLforum.com

Shadow41 wrote:If I see a 30.07 sign, compliant in size or not, I'm not going in as OC. I'll know exactly what the property owners stance is, so why go in anyway just to be verbally told to leave or have the police notified of someone trespassing with a firearm. Maybe you can argue your way out, maybe not. Either way it's bad. Just cover it before you go in, or just leave. Maybe some people are just looking for trouble. Personally I'm not, and I'm not interested in giving LTC's a bad name. Just not a smart move IMO.

Sorry for the rant

thetexan wrote:
{snip}
How many of us are afraid to risk the ride rather than to insist that establishments are just as responsible to follow the compliance law as we are to follow compliant notices?
{snip}

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mayor wrote:looks like an 8.5x11. I'd have told them i didn't notice something so small, apologized and left.

They gave me no warning when I went in. Cops got there beforwe I was able to order...

You said 20 minutes later. Was the line that long? I haven't seen a line that long in Luby's in many years.

Manager might of called the police. So they didnt bother cooking my food since they already knew police was on the way Im guessing

Oldgringo wrote:

thetexan wrote:
{snip}
How many of us are afraid to risk the ride rather than to insist that establishments are just as responsible to follow the compliance law as we are to follow compliant notices?
{snip}

That would be moi, for one.

I spent a few hours in the Nashville jail on a Saturday night back in '62. That experience has held me for lo these many years.

thetexan wrote:I guess I have mixed feelings about all of this.

It irks me that one half of the parties in the contract (so to speak), the sign posting establishments, do not have to post compliant signs. If someone can call the police on OCers why isn't there a way to do something about their non-compliance?

We are expected to live by the specifics of the law, but they don't have to. And, when it comes down to a contest between the two, the establishment is given the benefit of the doubt the offender, who technically is not offending, is scolded, arrested, or worse as if the burden of fulfilling the contract (the law that specifies requirements to both parties) rest solely on the OCer.

That's a sad system.

How many of us are afraid to risk the ride rather than to insist that establishments are just as responsible to follow the compliance law as we are to follow compliant notices? Do we fear they, whoever they are, may take our freedom away from us if we protest too much?

Why should a LEO have anything to say at all to a OCer when he is being completely lawful. IN FACT, IT IS THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS FAILING TO ABIDE BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE LAW!!! Of all people the LEO should know that the OCer has done nothing wrong and rather than making him to feel like a criminal why not advise the establishment to get ITS act together?

The LEO should, if asked by the establishment, give his verbal 30.06 or 30.07 notice and be on his way. I almost want to say how dare they presume to admonish the OCer for doing nothing but following the law as written. That requires the LEO to be solidly clear on the law which most are. Fairness in the application of a law written to and for both parties is not too much to ask.

So I am torn about how to feel about this kind of situation.

To quote Hamlet...."...Thus, conscience, does make cowards of us all. And thus the native hue of resolution, is sullied ore' the pale cast of thought."

And let me add, I am one of those who would rather retreat and fight on another battlefield of legislation and try to make a point in front of a family eating their dinner at a restaurant and make life more difficult for the rest of OCers.

BUT IT TICKS ME OFF THAT IS SHOULD BE THIS WAY!!!

tex

TPC 30.07 wrote:An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mayor wrote:looks like an 8.5x11. I'd have told them i didn't notice something so small, apologized and left.

They gave me no warning when I went in. Cops got there beforwe I was able to order...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mayor wrote:looks like an 8.5x11. I'd have told them i didn't notice something so small, apologized and left.

They gave me no warning when I went in. Cops got there beforwe I was able to order...

You have been verbally warned now, so when you enter carrying openly again, you will have committed a Class A Misdemeanor. Something tells me Luby's, the police and the DA will prosecute to the full extent of the law. You will face one year in jail, a $4,000 fine and loss of your LTC for seven years.

Chas.

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

thetexan wrote:I guess I have mixed feelings about all of this.

It irks me that one half of the parties in the contract (so to speak), the sign posting establishments, do not have to post compliant signs. If someone can call the police on OCers why isn't there a way to do something about their non-compliance?

We are expected to live by the specifics of the law, but they don't have to. And, when it comes down to a contest between the two, the establishment is given the benefit of the doubt the offender, who technically is not offending, is scolded, arrested, or worse as if the burden of fulfilling the contract (the law that specifies requirements to both parties) rest solely on the OCer.

That's a sad system.

How many of us are afraid to risk the ride rather than to insist that establishments are just as responsible to follow the compliance law as we are to follow compliant notices? Do we fear they, whoever they are, may take our freedom away from us if we protest too much?

Why should a LEO have anything to say at all to a OCer when he is being completely lawful. IN FACT, IT IS THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS FAILING TO ABIDE BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE LAW!!! Of all people the LEO should know that the OCer has done nothing wrong and rather than making him to feel like a criminal why not advise the establishment to get ITS act together?

The LEO should, if asked by the establishment, give his verbal 30.06 or 30.07 notice and be on his way. I almost want to say how dare they presume to admonish the OCer for doing nothing but following the law as written. That requires the LEO to be solidly clear on the law which most are. Fairness in the application of a law written to and for both parties is not too much to ask.

So I am torn about how to feel about this kind of situation.

To quote Hamlet...."...Thus, conscience, does make cowards of us all. And thus the native hue of resolution, is sullied ore' the pale cast of thought."

And let me add, I am one of those who would rather retreat and fight on another battlefield of legislation and try to make a point in front of a family eating their dinner at a restaurant and make life more difficult for the rest of OCers.

BUT IT TICKS ME OFF THAT IS SHOULD BE THIS WAY!!!

tex

Totally agree with you.

howdy wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

mayor wrote:looks like an 8.5x11. I'd have told them i didn't notice something so small, apologized and left.

They gave me no warning when I went in. Cops got there beforwe I was able to order...

You said 20 minutes later. Was the line that long? I haven't seen a line that long in Luby's in many years.

Manager might of called the police. So they didnt bother cooking my food since they already knew police was on the way Im guessing

Can you clear up the spelling of this restaurant. Is it a Ma and Pa "Lubby's" or the Cafeteria "Luby's". You said you were there for 20 minutes and they had not cooked your food so I can only believe it is not the Cafeteria. I go to Luby's all the time and there are no signs at the two in my area.

locke_n_load wrote:So is verbal notice effective forever?

locke_n_load wrote:I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?