Let's Try Again
Underlined Text Bushwacker's OP
Italicized Text – apjonas' (my) reply to Bushwacker's OP
Bold Text – Tubo’d 1's reply to my reply to Bushwacker's OP
Plain Text – apjonas' (my) reply to Turbo'd 1's reply to my reply to Bushwacker's OP
***** - topic divider
First of all, the paragraph is your friend. Use it.
Agreed.
Well, at least we started out singing Kumbaya.
******
This was a Wal*Mart that sells alcohol, right?
What is your point? Are you thinking of the "51%" sign and sorta equated it to the 30.07 sign? By Law, they mean different things....
The point is that the OC restriction under consideration is the prohibition (by the owner who doesn’t want to lose his liquor license) against carry by a non-licensed person at a business that sells alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption. I understand the difference between on-premise and off-premise although apparently many posters conflate or confuse the two. I know of no Wal*Mart that has a bar in the garden section, so restrictions for on-premise consumption establishments aren’t of interest here.
******
I told her that she has no right to check permits of open carriers unless she was l.e.o. and then she needed an r.a.s...
She certainly has the right to ask to see your permit and eject you should you refuse to comply.
He wasn't buying cigarettes, beer, guns or (obviously) hard liquor [we know this because Wal*Mart CAN'T sell liquor in Texas!] and was 'detained' by a civilian for the brazen act of breaking NO Law --and asked for his 'papers'.
She wanted to verify that he was licensed since (and I wish people would get this point) permitting an unlicensed person to carry a firearm (concealed or openly) could result in the loss of her boss’ liquor license.
By your later logic (see below), ANYONE working there is instantly an "Authority" capable of speaking for the entire company. That said, if that's the companies policy: POST ALL NECESSARY SIGNS, as dictated BY LAW, and have a MANAGER simply ask them to leave. Most likely they'll try to make their point while leaving yet --the business itself will be left with a shopping cart full of [unsold] goods needing restocked/spoiled/thawed, no money and a future non-customer.
No. I think (and it should be assumed) that any employee who approaches an OC and requests display of an LTC has been delegated authority to do so. Whether she is speaking for the entire company or not is irrelevant (I am pretty sure she isn’t). What matters if she has the (apparent) authority to speak for the store in question. I think it is a better policy to have a manager make the request but that is not always possible, hence the delegation.
If you are so insulted by the request, then by all means, abandon your cart and depart. You could have carried concealed and avoided the issue completely. Are you interested in shopping or shoving your beliefs down some little girl’s throat?
*****
I said well that may possible get you a charge of impersonating an officer, that is a felony
Oh, please. This statement is silly. Unless you are so dense that you think a small female wearing a blue Wal*Mart smock is a LEO.
Can't speak for Texas, yet in Nevada there IS a State Code that addresses the matter of someone approaching you under the "Color of the Law", which may apply here as well in that: a citizen cannot ask another citizen for ID arbitrarily. The Law must somehow factor in. Given that they lacked the proper signage... you do the math.
Only an idiot would interpret this interaction as being under “color of law.” I will leave it for you to decide if that was the situation in this case.
*****
,also corperate wallmart policy allows what the state allows I have the number do you want it ,but if you deny me my legal right to carry you may also be in trouble with another new tx law ...
There is no general right to carry on private property. Texas requires a permit to carry in a business that sells alcohol for off-premise consumption. Allowing an non-licensee to carry could cost the business its liquor license. Since Wal*Mart is following state law, by your standard you don’t have a valid complaint.
Following State Law is my litmus test. Texas required (until 01/01/2016) a License to carry concealed OR a long gun (without license!) --Now it allows for the LICENSED carry that is open. All the same, if a business DOESN'T like it, they don't create the rule of Law but the Law gave them the Right to tell them to go away. While I've never been 'trespassed' for OC, how many stories can you relate to us that tell a different story?
Again state law says that a Wal*Mart (or any store) that sells alcohol for consumption off-premise could lose its liquor license if it permits an unlicensed person to carry in the store. Wal*Mart could choose to assume that anybody in OC mode is licensed just as they could assume that anybody who wants to buy beer is 21. They thought it prudent not to do so.
In any event, notice by somebody with apparent authority negates the need for any sign. Don’t be such a drama queen. You were not “accosted,” you were addressed in a polite manner.
"Apparent authority", you say? "Addressed", you say? "negates the need for any sign", you say? That last one is pretty telling as to where you stand between Lawful and Authoritarian. There ARE ACTUAL LAWS regarding those signs.
Please read the all the relevant statutes - carefully. It will help you from looking foolish.
Who is the REAL "drama queen" here?
I dunno. You are certainly are in the running to be a finalist.
A sure way to see more 30.07 signs is to act like a jerk when openly carrying. Give it some thought.
I'd be inclined to address the harassment of the store Manager's personal policy, as they set the tone: reacting to a person breaking no laws by bringing the largest guy they could find [on their payroll] to act as muscle for the intent of both; "We hired you because you're both big and stupid." and that "I'm the Boss and I'M RIGHT".
What harassment? Does a question from a diminutive female make you soil your trousers? Sheesh. I don’t think having co-workers attend her was indicia of a possible attack. I rather think it was to protect her in case you turned out to be less than the gentleman that you are.
30.07 basically TELLS you that 'You're not welcome here', still, is it being a jerk or standing up for ones Constitutional Rights? Many people, especially HERE on this forum, hate/d the idea of open carry of long guns by Texans (when that was all we were 'allowed') and we were mocked... yet, despite all the videos you'll see portraying them as idiots and reckless... they helped make this happen. So the way I see it, +apjonas (does the AP stand for the Associated Press? That would be interesting as I quoted you above!), you're simply here to cast doubt and dispersion on a Right you so dearly despise.
Please let me know if I've mishandled this
A P = Andrew Percival. There is no constitutional right to carry a firearm onto somebody else’s property. Don’t know much about the long gun issue except to say it’s not relevant here. I wouldn’t say you mishandled as much as misunderstood.
