30.07 signs appear in TX

If I own a business and I post a no firearms sign (any sign) and someone violates my wishes by crossing it, they will get tossed out the door.
Click to expand...
If you lay hands on someone who hasn't broken any laws and "toss them out the door" of a property open to the public, you will likely end up in courts. Criminal court first and civil court next.

Even with a legally compliant sign posted, the owner of property open to the public has no right to do anything other than ask the person to leave and/or call the police. If he chooses to call the police the trespasser may be cited and fined when the police arrive.

Without a legally compliant sign posted the property owner has exactly the same rights. He may ask the person to leave and/or call the police. The difference is that when the police arrive the person will not be cited since they are not violating any laws unless he gave them verbal notice that no guns were allowed as opposed to just asking them to leave. By the way, this scenario is exactly the same as not posting a sign at all--which tells you how worthwhile it is to post a non-compliant sign in TX.
 
Reference the original post:

I've been in three (maybe four?) HEB stores since I read the OP and I have yet to see a 30-07 sign.

Actually, I've not yet seen one anywhere.

Is there a link to the reports you've been watching, Glenn?

Eh, never mind. I had time to do a little websearch-fu on my own and I see what's out there.
 
Last edited:
I've always found it interesting how some people are more afraid of the firearm that they and all the honest world can see...and not those that are hidden away.
 
I'll still go to HEB. Good store and people. Accidental printing / sight is the only OC advantage to me.
Otherwise it's just a "Mr. Bad guy shoot me first" request.
 
I won't stop shopping there, either.

I will, however, make a point of noticing when I can give custom to those businesses who don't find it necessary to restrict OC.

I feel I have an interest in promoting the idea, whenever I can, that carrying a gun is a family friendly act which fits within a family friendly environment.

I'd like to see it become socially acceptable.
 
Last edited:
steve4102 said:
...and no you do not have a "Right" to carry on private property, you may be given permission, but you cannot lose what you never had.
Click to expand...

Think about it more closely. Private property is not all the same. There are domiciles. There are buildings, like office buildings, open to the public, where everything's generally unlocked to allow visitors, but where visitors are not common. And then there are businesses that are open to the public.

A customer doesn't have a right to be in your store; store management can kick customers out for any common sense reason, generally. But don't mistake that for a right of the business owner to take whatever arbitrary actions they see fit against customers they don't like or have ideological disagreements with. If the customer is not being disruptive in a commonly recognized way, and you pick on them anyway, you might get sued—and you'll deserve it.

Customers don't have a right, necessarily, but they should have the expectation that whatever commonly acceptable, non-disruptive behavior exists outside the doors of your business, can continue inside. If you don't like it, your best option is to politely explain to the customer why you'd rather they not do whatever it is they're doing.

There's also a necessary balancing step. If what they're doing isn't really disruptive but you don't like it anyway, and abiding by your restrictions is going to cause them grief—leaving a gun at home where it's useless, or in the glove compartment where it could get stolen, and where it's useless if there's a violent crime between their car and your store, or inside your store—your request isn't so reasonable anymore.

Pretending that property rights allow property owners to impose their will on anyone who steps onto the property, regardless of the nature of the private property, is a black and white philosophical view that has no basis in reality.
 
As far as Firearms are concerned. They are inanimate objects and do not have rights, they are things.

One does NOT have the Legal Right to possess or carry a firearm( a thing) on any private property. One may be given permission, permission comes in many forms, but there is No Legal or Constitutional Right attached.

If it was a Right, then any and all signs prohibiting possession and carry would be in violation of what, the Bill of Rights, Civil Rights laws.

I stand by my original statement.

You cannot lose what your never had.
 
Last edited:
Have any of these signs been upheld in a court challenge? IT seems to me that a place of business that is open to the public cannot discriminate against its customers. I understand the private property rights, to a point, but the business PPR do not extend too far. A store can require shirts and shoes, but not the kind or color of those items (shirts and shoes would arguably fall under the health code). A store cannot ask a patron to leave because he is holding his boyfriends hand and kissing him in the store, or can it? I know many cities have HROs that protect the LGBT community, so this may not be on point, but I remember a time when the actions were in violation of the law (I don't mean kissing...). The LGBT community did not go quietly into the night simply because the masses thought their actions to be improper; they escalated them to the point of changing norms. Now we have laws in place protecting LGBTs.
The 2nd AMD. is a right, yet we act like it is granted at the caprice of the state. I wonder what would happen in a civil court case where a person challenged the store owner's right to forbid them from openly carrying a firearm.

I could be way off on the analogy between OC and LGBT movement in the 80s and 90s. Just a thought I had when I was reading some of the post castigating those that have fought the fight for open carry. I would like to see a time when seeing someone with a firearm, open carry or accidentally exposed CC, is as normal as seeing someone wearing jeans in bass pro shop.
 
Last edited:
From str8shot:
"....a place of business that is open to the public cannot discriminate against its customers."

By law, they can't discriminate against certain protected classes (ie: sex, race, religion, etc.). Unfortunately, gun owners aren't a protected class. Probably never will be.

"I wonder what would happen in a civil court case where a person challenged the store owner's right to forbid them from openly carrying a firearm."

The challenger/plaintiff would lose.
 
Of course you're right; discrimination against a protected class is already illegal. And of course gun owners are not a protected class.

I wonder how far the store owner's rights go in customer selection. Can a store owner ask a person to leave because they have a red shirt on instead a blue shirt? I realize this becomes very academic and probably has no real world application.

I am sure the plaintiff would lose the case, unless a cogent argument could be made to a jury that the discrimination violated a Constitutional right, and that jury was sympathetic to the Constitution. But of course you are right. The appeal would overturn any jury ruling in favor of the citizen, so we shouldn't even consider it. Let's just go along with it and take joy in the small victories.
 
An unintended consequence - I saw some new 'ghost busters' signs around town (that's a red circle with something crossed out). They don't have force of law but maybe the business thinks that will fool some gun folks or make antigun folks more secure.

Of course, if Pro-gun OsCar asks about it and they say they don't want guns - you have be notified and banned from carry in that place.

I, personally, have the opinion that if you have a business that it open to the public (not your home), you should not be able to ban except for highly technical reasons. My reason is that you have invited the public in and you expect tax payer funds to provide the police and fire responses to danger. If you want to remove my right to protect myself, you should not expect my tax money to provide you with emergency service.
 
you should not be able to ban except for highly technical reasons. My reason is that you have invited the public in and you expect tax payer funds to provide the police and fire responses to danger. If you want to remove my right to protect myself, you should not expect my tax money to provide you with emergency service.
Click to expand...

Which is why I always find it odd the government buildings - supported by tax dollars from the public - are off limits.
 
Can a store owner ask a person to leave because they have a red shirt on instead a blue shirt?
Click to expand...
Yes, they can. They can't discriminate against someone who is a protected class. They can, however, do so based on behavior. They may not be able to refuse service based on my ethnicity or religion, but they can tell me not to use profane language. They can insist on a dress code.
 
Even if a firearm owner was a "Protected Class", these signs do not say "No Gun Owners Allowed", they say no guns.

The gun owner is welcome, his/her gun is not.
 
Obviously, if there was a move to protect gun carrying as a protected right, similar to being a protected class - the gun would be protected.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in the near future.
 
Interesting side effect again - another new ghost buster sign at a local house of worship. Never had one before.

I wonder if folks don't want to post the large and obnoxious 30.07 but want to make a statement.

If they ever got rid of the 30.06/07 rules, the state would be blanketed with signs.

That would be a gift from the OC crowd.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Interesting side effect again - another new ghost buster sign at a local house of worship. Never had one before.

I wonder if folks don't want to post the large and obnoxious 30.07 but want to make a statement.

If they ever got rid of the 30.06/07 rules, the state would be blanketed with signs.

That would be a gift from the OC crowd.
Click to expand...


...and you know this how?
 
I like how they do it here in Minnesota better.

They can post a sign " No guns allowed" If I choose to carry any way.
As I normally do unless they have armed security for my protection.
If I print and they see it. They can ask me to leave.
I would leave.
The only time it would be a problem is if I refuse to leave.
Then I could be charged with trespass. ( not a gun crime)

Seems like a reasonable accord at least in the context. The Do gooders still get to feel like they are doing some thing. And I dont have to go unprotected if I choose not too.

Must be aware of the places this is not the case. Government agencies and schools. Dont want to carry there, It would be a crime and not worth the cost.

Minnesota also has one other weird thing they do.
I can Carry at the state capital inside the chambers. I just have to show my permit when I enter.( I think they just changed that. used to have to get a permit for your permit. Kinda dumb)
but at the county court house. Heck no they will throw me in jail and take away my rights.
 
Last edited:
I think here in Alabama the property owner, or his representative, must tell you to leave, signs don't count.

I support the 2A whole heatedly, but as others hear have stated, people need to exercise some reasonable judgement. If I walked into the local mall with an AK, I would expect to get told to leave, at a minimum. Perhaps even arrested by over jealous cops - and frankly I can't blame them. If you are concerned in the mall, carry concealed or at the least very inconspicuously. As others have said, walking down the bread aisle with a battle rifle under your arm you are just being a butt hole, imho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top