TexasCHLforum.com

Sangiovese wrote:

Glock_Tacular wrote: Because I was sitting on a stool and adjusting myself frequently to make sure my shirt didnt slide up.

You mentioned that you wanted feedback, so I'll add this. I don't think it has been mentioned yet. Frequently adjusting yourself is one of the giveaways that allow people to notice that you're carrying. If your clothing is appropriate for your gun/holster, then you shouldn't need to constantly adjust yourself. Put it on. Cover it up. Leave it alone.

Its called big guy problems. I'm constantly adjusting even when I don't carry. I wasn't constantly adjusting my piece. 6"3" 260lbs its hard to sit any where comfortably.

Oldgringo wrote:"Concealed is concealed" or did someone say that already? From what I've seen/read here, Hooters was/is not the problem.

I've often had a question that reading this topic has brought back to mind...

I understand once a person has been given verbal notice that they must leave the premises or be in violation. For sure, lets say for example the "person in charge" comes up and says "hey, I noticed your gun when your shirt came up and I am asking you to leave" kind of scenario.

But, what about in a case where that person doesnt know for sure: just thinks, assumes, guesses, etc. Nothing illegal about lying to a store manager is there? Could you say to the manager, "well, what you THINK or ASSuME is not my concern" and then if asked to prove it let them know you dont have to prove anything to them? Then, finish your meal ASAP and boogie on outta there lol

I dont know, my gut tells me that that would be a no go. Personally, I think if "management" says I must leave if I am carrying, regardless of whether or not THEY know, since I know, then, as the Borg say, "resistance is futile"

However, it's a question I've often pondered, so I thought I would throw it out there for discussion.....

CCreyeder wrote:I've often had a question that reading this topic has brought back to mind...

I understand once a person has been given verbal notice that they must leave the premises or be in violation. For sure, lets say for example the "person in charge" comes up and says "hey, I noticed your gun when your shirt came up and I am asking you to leave" kind of scenario.

But, what about in a case where that person doesnt know for sure: just thinks, assumes, guesses, etc. Nothing illegal about lying to a store manager is there? Could you say to the manager, "well, what you THINK or ASSuME is not my concern" and then if asked to prove it let them know you dont have to prove anything to them? Then, finish your meal ASAP and boogie on outta there lol

I dont know, my gut tells me that that would be a no go. Personally, I think if "management" says I must leave if I am carrying, regardless of whether or not THEY know, since I know, then, as the Borg say, "resistance is futile"

However, it's a question I've often pondered, so I thought I would throw it out there for discussion.....

My Momma (R.I.P.) always told me, among other things, if I had to ask, I probably knew the answer. YMMV.

If someone with apparent authority tells you to leave for ANY reason, you need to leave. Even if the "reason" is not related to CHL/PC 30.06 it can still be "notice" under PC 30.05 for any other legitimate non-gun-related reason they dream up.

It's easy to know when you are not wanted. Leaving is a valuable method of desculation.

CCreyeder wrote:I've often had a question that reading this topic has brought back to mind...

I understand once a person has been given verbal notice that they must leave the premises or be in violation. For sure, lets say for example the "person in charge" comes up and says "hey, I noticed your gun when your shirt came up and I am asking you to leave" kind of scenario.

But, what about in a case where that person doesnt know for sure: just thinks, assumes, guesses, etc. Nothing illegal about lying to a store manager is there? Could you say to the manager, "well, what you THINK or ASSuME is not my concern" and then if asked to prove it let them know you dont have to prove anything to them? Then, finish your meal ASAP and boogie on outta there lol

I dont know, my gut tells me that that would be a no go. Personally, I think if "management" says I must leave if I am carrying, regardless of whether or not THEY know, since I know, then, as the Borg say, "resistance is futile"

However, it's a question I've often pondered, so I thought I would throw it out there for discussion.....

If you don't leave & the manager calls the cops, then you're in some hot water. As a matter of practice, the cops will ask you for your ID, and once that happens it's all downhill from there. I might be inclined to play the "it's a medical device (my thoracic perforator that keeps my heart from stopping) that I'm not going to let you see/inspect" card & GTHO. But it's risky. I'm more likely to simply leave immediately if asked. Whether I pay the bill or not would depend on how the actual conversation takes place, though.

Yeah I would just take the 'if you are carrying' out of the question. If management poses it that way, just clarify with "are you asking me to leave, or can I stay?" and ignore answering the 'if' part. If your concealment has failed enough that someone reasonably guesses you're carrying, the jig is up, it's no benefit to you to continue pressing the matter and the law is not on your side at that point.

Man, as a noobie, I learned some very good leasons in this thread. Lesson learned-If asked to leave, just leave, and leave my "card"....

Lesson learned-If asked to leave, just leave, and leave my "card"....

Oh, Lesson #1- make sure concealed is just that..CONCEALED.

Jim Beaux wrote:It's easy to assume that a chain such as Hooters has a legal staff that is versed in the laws and does not depend on the counsel of its patrons.

But not always correct. I recall a few decades ago when some legal wizard at Bonanza Steak House corporate got a great idea one day and looked up to see if Sizzler had properly filed to cover its trademarks. Glory Be! They had not. So he filed for those trademarks, then wrote a letter to Sizzler informing them that Bonanza owned the Sizzler trademarks, and please commence remitting royalties or refrain from use forthwith, etc etc.

A lawyer at Sizzler got this unhappy letter and was devastated, but then went to the trouble to look up Bonanza Steak House's trademarks, which had not been protected either, so he claimed them, then offered to trade.

So you can't assume that just because they have lawyers they know what they are doing is legal, proper, etc.

JALLEN wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:It's easy to assume that a chain such as Hooters has a legal staff that is versed in the laws and does not depend on the counsel of its patrons.

But not always correct. I recall a few decades ago when some legal wizard at Bonanza Steak House corporate got a great idea one day and looked up to see if Sizzler had properly filed to cover its trademarks. Glory Be! They had not. So he filed for those trademarks, then wrote a letter to Sizzler informing them that Bonanza owned the Sizzler trademarks, and please commence remitting royalties or refrain from use forthwith, etc etc.

A lawyer at Sizzler got this unhappy letter and was devastated, but then went to the trouble to look up Bonanza Steak House's trademarks, which had not been protected either, so he claimed them, then offered to trade.

So you can't assume that just because they have lawyers they know what they are doing is legal, proper, etc.

I believe the operative word here is, "assume" when broken down phonetically is well...er, uh ...you know.

TexasCajun wrote:

CCreyeder wrote:I've often had a question that reading this topic has brought back to mind...

I understand once a person has been given verbal notice that they must leave the premises or be in violation. For sure, lets say for example the "person in charge" comes up and says "hey, I noticed your gun when your shirt came up and I am asking you to leave" kind of scenario.

But, what about in a case where that person doesnt know for sure: just thinks, assumes, guesses, etc. Nothing illegal about lying to a store manager is there? Could you say to the manager, "well, what you THINK or ASSuME is not my concern" and then if asked to prove it let them know you dont have to prove anything to them? Then, finish your meal ASAP and boogie on outta there lol

I dont know, my gut tells me that that would be a no go. Personally, I think if "management" says I must leave if I am carrying, regardless of whether or not THEY know, since I know, then, as the Borg say, "resistance is futile"

However, it's a question I've often pondered, so I thought I would throw it out there for discussion.....

If you don't leave & the manager calls the cops, then you're in some hot water. As a matter of practice, the cops will ask you for your ID, and once that happens it's all downhill from there. I might be inclined to play the "it's a medical device (my thoracic perforator that keeps my heart from stopping) that I'm not going to let you see/inspect" card & GTHO. But it's risky. I'm more likely to simply leave immediately if asked. Whether I pay the bill or not would depend on how the actual conversation takes place, though.

That is my thought as well. I like "thoracic perforator"!

And, A-R brings up an excellent point as well and one that had totally slipped my mind. Boring me, I havent ever been asked to leave an establishment (for any reason) lol

CCreyeder wrote:But, what about in a case where that person doesnt know for sure: just thinks, assumes, guesses, etc. Nothing illegal about lying to a store manager is there? Could you say to the manager, "well, what you THINK or ASSuME is not my concern" and then if asked to prove it let them know you dont have to prove anything to them?

Even if a manager says something as simple as "we don't allow guns here" that's enough for oral notice. They don't have to know if you're carrying or not.

I lifted “thoracic perpetrator“ from another thread. I'm not that clever....