TexasCHLforum.com

Before deciding to make a point with people who most likely don't want you in their premises, consider this:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-dow ... g-firearm/

KLB wrote:Before deciding to make a point with people who most likely don't want you in their premises, consider this:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-dow ... g-firearm/

Thanks for posting that article. It definitely makes one pause to think about walking past a sign. However, IMHO, there are so many things that went wrong within the contents of this article. It's sad someone had to lose their life over someone else's opinion.

KLB wrote:Before deciding to make a point with people who most likely don't want you in their premises, consider this:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-dow ... g-firearm/

Interesting article, but not really on point, IMHO.

In the Erik Scott case, Costco had no policy against guns (they still don't BTW), so this wasn't a case of someone walking past any signage. That case is an example of extreme negligence on the part of the LEO's that shot him, in my opinion. The only fault I have for Mr. Scott is his choice to carry even though he was taking prescription pain meds that most likely contributed to the outcome by dulling his senses and slowing his reaction to the LEO's conflicting commands.

Caliber wrote: I could be incorrect, but I don't agree. HB910 amended (changed) the law rendering the old language no longer part of the law. Therefore, the old language has no force of law.

HB910 contains the following:

SECTION 43. Section 30.06(c)(3), Penal Code, is amended to
read as follows:
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by license holder with of license to carry a
concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code ([concealed] handgun licensing law), may not
enter this property with a concealed handgun"

The word "concealed" was struck through in the bill thus removing it and was replaced with "licensing law". "license" was struck through as was "with". So legally, the change would render the old signs un-enforceable. My original thought was that the change of a few words was not enough to make a difference as the old sign still showed "intent". But then I got to thinking that if the law changed, why don't they have to follow the new law?

My guess is that businesses that still have the old sign either don't know about the change, know about it but don't care, know about it and are too cheap to change it, or figure that LTCers wont cross the line anyway. Depending on where it is and why I'm there, I'll probably go ahead and carry concealed if it is the old invalid sign. To me it is no different that I've seen at some stores where they have merchandise stacked in front of the sign where it can't be seen. It doesn't meet the law.

If I was "made" and was asked to leave, I would without any fuss. If I was asked why I entered when they have a sign, I would then tell them that the law changed and so did the sign requirements and their sign was no longer valid. If they called the police, I would explain the situation to them also and make it clear that since I was asked to leave I would. I would hope that the police would be satisfied with that.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

KLB wrote:Before deciding to make a point with people who most likely don't want you in their premises, consider this:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-dow ... g-firearm/

Interesting article, but not really on point, IMHO.

In the Erik Scott case, Costco had no policy against guns (they still don't BTW), so this wasn't a case of someone walking past any signage. That case is an example of extreme negligence on the part of the LEO's that shot him, in my opinion. The only fault I have for Mr. Scott is his choice to carry even though he was taking prescription pain meds that most likely contributed to the outcome by dulling his senses and slowing his reaction to the LEO's conflicting commands.

I think if you Google Costco firearm policy you will find that they do have a no gun policy. They may not have their stores posted but apparently it is part of their membership agreement. If you want to shop there that is your business. I shop at Sam's Club.

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

KLB wrote:Before deciding to make a point with people who most likely don't want you in their premises, consider this:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-dow ... g-firearm/

Interesting article, but not really on point, IMHO.

In the Erik Scott case, Costco had no policy against guns (they still don't BTW), so this wasn't a case of someone walking past any signage. That case is an example of extreme negligence on the part of the LEO's that shot him, in my opinion. The only fault I have for Mr. Scott is his choice to carry even though he was taking prescription pain meds that most likely contributed to the outcome by dulling his senses and slowing his reaction to the LEO's conflicting commands.

I think if you Google Costco firearm policy you will find that they do have a no gun policy. They may not have their stores posted but apparently it is part of their membership agreement. If you want to shop there that is your business. I shop at Sam's Club.

I just joined the local Costco this past August. I read the membership agreement closely, specifically looking for any mention of a firearms policy, and saw nothing. So unless it changed in the last 4 months, there is no prohibition.

This is obviously a Texas specific statement. To be fair, I have not read their membership agreement for Nevada.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

KLB wrote:Before deciding to make a point with people who most likely don't want you in their premises, consider this:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-dow ... g-firearm/

Interesting article, but not really on point, IMHO.

In the Erik Scott case, Costco had no policy against guns (they still don't BTW), so this wasn't a case of someone walking past any signage. That case is an example of extreme negligence on the part of the LEO's that shot him, in my opinion. The only fault I have for Mr. Scott is his choice to carry even though he was taking prescription pain meds that most likely contributed to the outcome by dulling his senses and slowing his reaction to the LEO's conflicting commands.

I think if you Google Costco firearm policy you will find that they do have a no gun policy. They may not have their stores posted but apparently it is part of their membership agreement. If you want to shop there that is your business. I shop at Sam's Club.

I just joined the local Costco this past August. I read the membership agreement closely, specifically looking for any mention of a firearms policy, and saw nothing. So unless it changed in the last 4 months, there is no prohibition.

This is obviously a Texas specific statement. To be fair, I have not read their membership agreement for Nevada.

Costco's policy regarding firearms states, "Costco policy prohibits firearms to be brought into the warehouse, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers." It can be found under the "General Policies" heading at http://www.costco.com/member-privileges-conditions.html. The policy does not comply with 30.06 or 30.07 requirements, therefore it does not have any force of law, but they are prohibited by policy. I would not be surprised if they ask you to leave if they discover that you are carrying.

jkurtz wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

KLB wrote:Before deciding to make a point with people who most likely don't want you in their premises, consider this:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-dow ... g-firearm/

Interesting article, but not really on point, IMHO.

In the Erik Scott case, Costco had no policy against guns (they still don't BTW), so this wasn't a case of someone walking past any signage. That case is an example of extreme negligence on the part of the LEO's that shot him, in my opinion. The only fault I have for Mr. Scott is his choice to carry even though he was taking prescription pain meds that most likely contributed to the outcome by dulling his senses and slowing his reaction to the LEO's conflicting commands.

I think if you Google Costco firearm policy you will find that they do have a no gun policy. They may not have their stores posted but apparently it is part of their membership agreement. If you want to shop there that is your business. I shop at Sam's Club.

I just joined the local Costco this past August. I read the membership agreement closely, specifically looking for any mention of a firearms policy, and saw nothing. So unless it changed in the last 4 months, there is no prohibition.

This is obviously a Texas specific statement. To be fair, I have not read their membership agreement for Nevada.

Costco's policy regarding firearms states, "Costco policy prohibits firearms to be brought into the warehouse, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers." It can be found under the "General Policies" heading at http://www.costco.com/member-privileges-conditions.html. The policy does not comply with 30.06 or 30.07 requirements, therefore it does not have any force of law, but they are prohibited by policy. I would not be surprised if they ask you to leave if they discover that you are carrying.

That's interesting. I would think that if they really cared they would put it in the membership agreement. I haven't read their policies, so I have no idea what may or may not be in there.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: That's interesting. I would think that if they really cared they would put it in the membership agreement. I haven't read their policies, so I have no idea what may or may not be in there.

I would think that if they really cared they would post 30.06 and 30.07 signs. Even if they put the correct language in the membership agreement it would do nothing to inform non-members visiting the store that carry is not allowed. As long as you stay concealed then you will never receive oral notice and can continue to carry knowing that you are not doing anything wrong.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Interesting article, but not really on point, IMHO.

In the Erik Scott case, Costco had no policy against guns (they still don't BTW), so this wasn't a case of someone walking past any signage.

Correct that Costco had no signs. So poor Erik Scott had no notice. In the case of a standalone 30.06 sign, we have practical if not legal notice that open carry will not likely be welcomed. Who among us wants to risk setting in motion a sequence of events similar to what happened to Scott? Some may, and they are free to do so. I will not.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:That case is an example of extreme negligence on the part of the LEO's that shot him, in my opinion.

No doubt, but Scott's still dead. "The LEO's were negligent" is a heckuva thing to have on your tombstone.

KLB wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Interesting article, but not really on point, IMHO.

In the Erik Scott case, Costco had no policy against guns (they still don't BTW), so this wasn't a case of someone walking past any signage.

Correct that Costco had no signs. So poor Erik Scott had no notice. In the case of a standalone 30.06 sign, we have practical if not legal notice that open carry will not likely be welcomed. Who among us wants to risk setting in motion a sequence of events similar to what happened to Scott? Some may, and they are free to do so. I will not.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:That case is an example of extreme negligence on the part of the LEO's that shot him, in my opinion.

No doubt, but Scott's still dead. "The LEO's were negligent" is a heckuva thing to have on your tombstone.

2 Things. First, Eric Scott was carrying concealed, not openly. He accidently exposed his weapon, but he definitely did not intentionally carry openly. So this whole discussion is a bit of a red herring on the topic of the OP.

Second, yes it is a heckuva thing to have on your tomb stone, as is every other thing that can be put on a tombstone. But I refuse to limit my freedoms solely because some ignorant and negligent individual may cause me harm. And even if I was solely motivated by fear, and nothing else, I would still be better off carrying wherever I legally can do so. The odds of being killed by a LEO while legally armed are much, much lower than the odds of being killed by a criminal if I decided to be unarmed.

thetexan wrote:

AshMan wrote:Hi all,

I tried searching for this topic, but couldn't find anything regarding my question. I recently went to a Domino's Pizza after work to grab dinner & there they were on the front doors... a legit 30.06 & a 30.07. My question though is... If you post a 30.06 which states you can't bring a concealed carry gun into the facility in the 1st place... WHY would you need to post a 30.07? Logic dictates to me that you don't want me bringing a weapon that's concealed into your place, why would I bring it in openly?! That would be WAY worse to me... That's how I'm reading it anyway. Is that Texas law? You have to post both if you don't want any guns what so ever on premises? If anyone could clear that up for me, I'd appreciate it.

Sorry If it's a confusing question, I personally still can't get over a Domino's take out place not wanting anyone to carry in the 10' front area you stand in when waiting to pick up your pizza...

The confusion is in the perceived purpose of the sign.

Legally, it makes no difference what the owner wants. Read this whole post before jumping to conclusions....

Technically we are not interested in the actual desires and wishes of the owner but only the desires and wishes that the owner chooses to openly publish (or orally convey) by properly posting a sign as per 30.06 and .07.

The owner, in this case, is stating, by sign, that he is not prohibiting you from carrying openly but wants to stop concealed. Probably because he can catch open carriage and orally stop it thus reducing the ugly sign real estate.

But, that is his choice and so what. Carry openly and risk being told orally which would be a permanent prohibition.

The rules are clear.

Tex

With respect, You are correct on the perceived purpose of the signs. I would like to press you on your statement because it's confusing to me & I'd like to understand it more.

The owner posted BOTH signs, 30.06 & 30.07. The rules are far from clear when BOTH signs are posted to me. You stated that "The owner, in this case, is stating, by sign, that he is not prohibiting you from carrying openly but wants to stop concealed." How is that? When they have posted the 30.06 that specifically states that "may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"... to me, the words "MAY NOT ENTER" they ARE prohibiting you from carrying openly.

AshMan wrote: When they have posted the 30.06 that specifically states that "may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"... to me, the words "MAY NOT ENTER" they ARE prohibiting you from carrying openly.

30.06 prohibits concealed carry, not open carry. 30.07 covers open carry.

To follow up what Texan is saying. 30.06 sign legally prohibits a LTC holder from carrying. 30.07 signs at all entrances legally prohibits LTC holders from carrying openly. Beyond that, neither conveys sufficiently (in my opinion) what the owners' thoughts, desires, and world view, on guns openly or concealed are... And I don't care. I will ignore the notice if it is not posted or not properly/legally posted and CONCEAL and CARRY. It's not my concern what the owners' thoughts are and since most publicly open businesses that I enter have diffuse ownership (public companies, private corporations, LLC's, etc.) it is impossible to know. I suspect a business posted with 30.06 would verbally prohibit open carry if they noticed, but I don't open carry that often, so I really don't care. And if I wanted to, I would open carry until someone told me to get out.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:First, I would not assume that anyone who posts 30.06 also does not want open carry. To me, open carry is a lot less "sneaky" than concealed carry, and for me, I would prefer that a visitor to my property make it clear whether they are armed.

I'd rather just know if I'm dealing with a real gun owner or some Glock weenie.