Fashion Place Mall Cheesecake Factory

[bagpiper]

...
to get out your "firearm do's and dont's" manual before crossing the county line into Clark County.

Thanks for the info.

[bagpiper]

Sorry, Charles, we'll now return your post to its regularly scheduled channel.

No problem. There has to be some advantage to lack of moderator. And a little good natured thread drift is one of them.

[JoeSparky]

Solus=Karl. Both on ignore list so dont see what they post unless it is quoted. Much more pleasant experience now.

You don't need to know what kind of device or tool was used to send this

[Karl]

Very well said, Charles. It appears that Karl's goal here is to butt heads with just about anybody, but it does seem like he really makes quite a point of arguing with you.

I don't know that he's singled me out worse than anyone else. Maybe I just react more strongly or sooner to his style of posting than do some of our more charitable members here.

My intention really is to ignore him. Feeding trolls is one of the surest ways to have them hang around and get even more vocal.

I'm just about finished with OCDO because of the conduct of a couple of trolls that seem to have driven away most of the civil and sensible folks, leaving the rapid anarchist missionaries and other overt anti-government types and the trolls as the majority voices. I'd hate to see one jerk have a similar effect here.

But handing out garbage legal advice is materially damaging to sites like this where folks may be looking for guidance on what is legal or socially acceptable. Opinions about what should be, can be ignored. Assertions that are materially in error about what law or culture is are another matter.

Charles

Not singling you out per se.

But your postings are ludicrous.

You don't read. You just spout.

Read Heller when you get a chance.

And take a refresher CFP class your next chance.

[UtahCFP]

So here is a fun "compare and contrast" for you. Having been a CFP instructor in Utah for about a decade (am not one at the moment) and now being a "License to Carry" (LTC) instructor here in Texas, its interesting to note how the two states handle "gun-buster" signs.

In Utah, the places where you can't carry are pretty clearly spelled out -- if it's not on the list, it's not on the list. A person representing the property owner can always ask you to leave, which gets us to trespass laws, but then again they can ask you to leave for any ol' reason (not prohibited by law).

In Texas, there are official signs for saying you can't carry concealed, as described in section 20 of the penal code (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm). The signs take two forms: the 30.06 (http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/ ... 30-06.html) which pertains to concealed carry, and 30.07 (http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/ ... 30-07.html) for open carry. These two signs, which have specific wording, font size, readability, and placement requirements, are considered to be "written communication" providing notice in the section saying "[F]or purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication".

The idea is that, in Texas, you need to have "effective consent" to carry a handgun on someone's property. The 30.06 and 30.07 signs are clear indicators of not having effective consent, but the gun buster signs are not so clear. Did the property owner choose to use a gun-buster sign knowing that some people would feel comforted by them while LTC holders would recognize them as not being official (and able to carry), or did the property owner actually mean no guns at all -- and does that apply to law enforcement as well? So you could be arrested for carrying at a location with a gun-buster sign, and then it would be up to the courts to figure out if you actually committed an offense. With 254 counties in Texas, there are at least 254 different flavors of how that could play out. I know of at least one case where a judge considered a gun buster sign to be an effective communication.

So what is missing from the Texas code is saying the ONLY (posted) written form for giving notice is the 30.06 and 30.07 signage. The way I look at it -- in Utah, the gun-buster sign expresses an opinion; in Texas the gun-buster sign may or may-not be considered by the property owner to be an effective communication of notice.

</sigh> I miss the clarity of the Utah laws.

[jfwright1955]

So here is a fun "compare and contrast" for you. Having been a CFP instructor in Utah for about a decade (am not one at the moment) and now being a "License to Carry" (LTC) instructor here in Texas, its interesting to note how the two states handle "gun-buster" signs.

In Utah, the places where you can't carry are pretty clearly spelled out -- if it's not on the list, it's not on the list. A person representing the property owner can always ask you to leave, which gets us to trespass laws, but then again they can ask you to leave for any ol' reason (not prohibited by law).

In Texas, there are official signs for saying you can't carry concealed, as described in section 20 of the penal code (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm). The signs take two forms: the 30.06 (http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/ ... 30-06.html) which pertains to concealed carry, and 30.07 (http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/ ... 30-07.html) for open carry. These two signs, which have specific wording, font size, readability, and placement requirements, are considered to be "written communication" providing notice in the section saying "[F]or purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication".

The idea is that, in Texas, you need to have "effective consent" to carry a handgun on someone's property. The 30.06 and 30.07 signs are clear indicators of not having effective consent, but the gun buster signs are not so clear. Did the property owner choose to use a gun-buster sign knowing that some people would feel comforted by them while LTC holders would recognize them as not being official (and able to carry), or did the property owner actually mean no guns at all -- and does that apply to law enforcement as well? So you could be arrested for carrying at a location with a gun-buster sign, and then it would be up to the courts to figure out if you actually committed an offense. With 254 counties in Texas, there are at least 254 different flavors of how that could play out. I know of at least one case where a judge considered a gun buster sign to be an effective communication.

So what is missing from the Texas code is saying the ONLY (posted) written form for giving notice is the 30.06 and 30.07 signage. The way I look at it -- in Utah, the gun-buster sign expresses an opinion; in Texas the gun-buster sign may or may-not be considered by the property owner to be an effective communication of notice.

</sigh> I miss the clarity of the Utah laws.

Thanks for posting these comparative facts. Very interesting. I couldn't help but find the irony / humor in the "30.06" code classification. There's a lot to be said for the clarity of Utah's laws to remove as much ambiguity as possible. While they may not be perfect, they're about as good as it gets, and certainly when compared to some other States.

[Karl]

Thanks DrDave. Great explanation and comparison.

[UtahCFP]

Thanks for posting these comparative facts. Very interesting. I couldn't help but find the irony / humor in the "30.06" code classification. There's a lot to be said for the clarity of Utah's laws to remove as much ambiguity as possible. While they may not be perfect, they're about as good as it gets, and certainly when compared to some other States.

The "thirty aught six" is good example Texas humor.

[jfwright1955]

Thanks for posting these comparative facts. Very interesting. I couldn't help but find the irony / humor in the "30.06" code classification. There's a lot to be said for the clarity of Utah's laws to remove as much ambiguity as possible. While they may not be perfect, they're about as good as it gets, and certainly when compared to some other States.

The "thirty aught six" is good example Texas humor.

Indeed. Gotta love the Texans for weaving in a good firearm reference. Someone was probably watching 2999, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, okay now it's time to introduce the code.

[manithree]

My intention really is to ignore him. Feeding trolls is one of the surest ways to have them hang around and get even more vocal.

...
But handing out garbage legal advice is materially damaging to sites like this where folks may be looking for guidance on what is legal or socially acceptable. Opinions about what should be, can be ignored. Assertions that are materially in error about what law or culture is are another matter.

I agree on both counts. This board was a great resource for me when I first started carrying. Seeing it cluttered with Fudd opinions and rudeness is frustrating. Seeing all the new provably incorrect interpretations of the law is much worse.

That's why I took a stand on the "you can only shoot in defense of your own life" nonsense. Hopefully future readers will see the bad grammar, obtuseness, and lack of facts on one side and make the correct choice. Even if it did require engaging a troll. Ok, I actually enjoyed it, but it still goes against my principles.

[bumpylight]

So you're saying that it's almost as if a gun-friendly manager at that location decided to pay lip service to a nominally hoplophobic corporate directive, knowing perfectly well that precious few people would notice or care about a barely visible sign that in any case held no real force under the laws of Utah. The corporation's lawyers and policy wonks are happy, and the customers are presumably as happy as they can be with the restaurant's food and service.

[....]

[....] I ate at the Cheesecake Factory at Fashion Place Mall. I OC'd my full sized 1911, with the obligatory "I Voted" sticker on the holster.

[....]

On the way out of the restaurant I turned around to look for signs again. Only then did I notice a "ghost buster" style no gun sign in the least conspicuous location it could be placed on the inner set of doors. Nothing on the outer doors. The sign was modest sized, maybe 7 inches per side. But it was placed in the lowest, left corner sidelight window next to the inner set of doors. These inner doors, open outward, and with the door open it is all but impossible to see the sign. [....]

[....]

[bumpylight]

Please stop being so shy about expressing your true opinions about the recent eruptions of blabbering nonsense on this board, mister bagpiper. Tell us what you really think!

The responsible thing to do is to pull your arrogant head out of your rectal orifice and stop being a jack hat.

[...] You're entitled to your anti-RKBA, bootlicking opinions.

[....]

The last bit below puts me in mind of random possible T-shirts:

"My right to LIVE IN PEACE outweighs your right to be AN IDIOT" (Handgun image appears above text with image of drooling leftist idiot appearing below text.)

"The right to FIGHT BACK is everything good in America." (Handgun image appears above text.)

"Guns are GOOD. Anti-constitutional idiots are REPULSIVE." (Handgun image appears above "GOOD" while image of drooling leftist idiot or possibly masked thug appears below "REPULSIVE."

In any case, well said!

[....]

[...] I no more call ahead to ask if I've welcome with my gun than I'd call ahead to ask if I'm welcome with a black, Asian, Atheist, Republican, or homosexual friend. If someone has an issue, they can ask me to leave. Until then, I assume public establishments are open to the public, including those of us who carry guns, who wear T-shirts with politically incorrect statements on them, who have body art that mind offend certain sensibilities, and so on and so forth.

[....]

[Karl]

I hope that businesses with no-handguns policies will post them on their websites so that I will know to avoid patronizing them.

I normally check out a restaurant's menu online before I go there. That way I already know what I want when I get there and I can order it with my drinks right away.

If I see that they don't want guns there then I can google another restaurant.

Economic boycotting is the most effective way of dealing with the anti gun crowd.

[bagpiper]

So you're saying that it's almost as if a gun-friendly manager at that location decided to pay lip service to a nominally hoplophobic corporate directive, knowing perfectly well that precious few people would notice or care about a barely visible sign that in any case held no real force under the laws of Utah. The corporation's lawyers and policy wonks are happy, and the customers are presumably as happy as they can be with the restaurant's food and service.

That is not an unreasonable interpretation.

Kind of like how a lot of Utah employers had official corporate policies against private guns even in cars in the parking lot, but never made any effort to enforce those policies. The policies were mandated by east or left coast corporate HQ, or flowed down from NYC-based HR organizations that promised safe harbor against highly complex employment law. But they just made no sense in Utah where large numbers of very valued employees were going to do a little shooting during lunch or after work, or carried during the commutee.

Fortunately, our parking lot preemption law has given explicit legal protection to most private sector employees now, and our State preemption protects most government employees.

And as most here know, almost nobody notices even an OC'd firearm. So it isn't like carrying a gun in Utah is likely to cause any disruptioin in any business. The smallest effort not to OC all but assures that the types who get uptight about guns, will never notice it.

Charles

[D-FIN]

Glad I finished skimming before posting a response looks like it was already well said. Bagpiper