WalMart Workers on Pistol Patrol

[WalkingWolf]

But they do not recognize our RKBA WW....unfortunately ... send out that email? Any response?

Last time I sent a email it took months for a response. NO, I have not sent it yet, still writing it, it takes me sometime to compose what I say. But I would not expect anything for several weeks at the least.

 

[bushwacker]

Is there statutory foundation for this in Texas law?

how about this idea that I already used .... see my permit ,are you a law enforcement officer if so ,do you have a r.a.s. because we know from supreme court ruling of deeberry vs United states . us vs brown, prounce vs Delaware .ect ,ect that you must have r.a.s. to check for licensing officer. oh your not an officer. but aren't you attempting to enforce the govt side of the contract that Is between them and myself on my carry rights? if not then please show me in that contract where you are allowed to play third party enforcement . if you can't show ,then I take that you are attempting to impersonate an officer and that may be a felony charge as well as violate my rights decided by the supreme court unless you can show where you have jurisdiction over the supreme court. can you please show that jurisdiction at this time?
Here's an idea, we could start going to Walmart with our pre 1899 bp's on our side and if /when they ask if we have a permit for that just say no, no I don't and if they say your suppose to have a permit to carry that thing then say hum I didn't know that , I thought texas just became an open carry state. don't say anymore just go about your shopping let them call the cops just to find out that they may have filed a false report/call of customer illegally carrying ... I would like to call our pre 1899 bps as our Walmart specials

 

[qednick]

how about this idea that I already used .... see my permit ,are you a law enforcement officer if so ,do you have a r.a.s. because we know from supreme court ruling of deeberry vs United states . us vs brown, prounce vs Delaware .ect ,ect that you must have r.a.s. to check for licensing officer. oh your not an officer. but aren't you attempting to enforce the govt side of the contract that Is between them and myself on my carry rights? if not then please show me in that contract where you are allowed to play third party enforcement . if you can't show ,then I take that you are attempting to impersonate an officer and that may be a felony charge as well as violate my rights decided by the supreme court unless you can show where you have jurisdiction over the supreme court. can you please show that jurisdiction at this time?
Here's an idea, we could start going to Walmart with our pre 1899 bp's on our side and if /when they ask if we have a permit for that just say no, no I don't and if they say your suppose to have a permit to carry that thing then say hum I didn't know that , I thought texas just became an open carry state. don't say anymore just go about your shopping let them call the cops just to find out that they may have filed a false report/call of customer illegally carrying ... I would like to call our pre 1899 bps as our Walmart specials

Not sure the BP pistols would fly due to their signage outside that basically says the only weapons allowed are handguns and accompanied by a licensed individual. On saying that, I do like the BP pistol idea. Now that OC is legal for license holders--and it's been all over the news--anyone carrying a BP pistol without a license now will not be as likely to run into encounters with LE...because people will just assume it's a licensed individual carrying.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

how about this idea that I already used .... see my permit ,are you a law enforcement officer if so ,do you have a r.a.s. because we know from supreme court ruling of deeberry vs United states . us vs brown, prounce vs Delaware .ect ,ect that you must have r.a.s. to check for licensing officer. oh your not an officer. but aren't you attempting to enforce the govt side of the contract that Is between them and myself on my carry rights? if not then please show me in that contract where you are allowed to play third party enforcement . if you can't show ,then I take that you are attempting to impersonate an officer and that may be a felony charge as well as violate my rights decided by the supreme court unless you can show where you have jurisdiction over the supreme court. can you please show that jurisdiction at this time?
Here's an idea, we could start going to Walmart with our pre 1899 bp's on our side and if /when they ask if we have a permit for that just say no, no I don't and if they say your suppose to have a permit to carry that thing then say hum I didn't know that , I thought texas just became an open carry state. don't say anymore just go about your shopping let them call the cops just to find out that they may have filed a false report/call of customer illegally carrying ... I would like to call our pre 1899 bps as our Walmart specials

So, put on some big ruse and lie and all that? Sounds like a lot of trouble, and what do we gain? Not a fan of this plan to be honest. If you want to get pissed at someone, get pissed at the TABC. Even before open carry passed, anyone licensed by the TABC to sell alcohol would be subject to having their license revoked if they allowed people to carry firearms in the business.

Of course, if you have a BP revolver that isn't a firearm under Texas law, maybe you could simply explain that fact to the manager and carry on.

Not sure the BP pistols would fly due to their signage outside that basically says the only weapons allowed are handguns and accompanied by a licensed individual. On saying that, I do like the BP pistol idea. Now that OC is legal for license holders--and it's been all over the news--anyone carrying a BP pistol without a license now will not be as likely to run into encounters with LE...because people will just assume it's a licensed individual carrying.

It's never been illegal to carry beyond the blue TABC signs, even if it was a form of carry that didn't require a license, like carrying a long gun. The signs are extremely misleading. The TABC apparently doesn't have the authority to prohibit carrying in establishments that sell, so instead they coerce the licensees to do their bidding with threats of license revocation. I'm guessing that's where this whole issue of Walmart managers asking for OCers' LTCs came from - the old TABC rules essentially required licensees (to sell alcohol) to ask those carrying weapons "unlicensed" to leave if they saw them. If someone has an LTC the licensee is not subject to license revocation as a result of allowing them to carry on the premises.

To see what I'm referring to go to page 104 (as marked on the pages) and start with (f) at the bottom. http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/code/84th/AllTitles.pdf

Except as provided by Subsection (g) or (j), the commission or administrator shall cancel an original or renewal dealer's on-premises or off-premises license if it is found, after notice and hearing, that the licensee knowingly allowed a person to possess a firearm in a building on the licensed premises. This subsection does not apply to a person:

who possesses a handgun the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, unless the person is on the premises of a business described by Section 46.035(b)(1), Penal Code

(for reference, 46.035(b)(1) is for 51% businesses)

 

[apjonas]

Be Reasonable

You cannot fault the alcoholic beverage licensee (ABL). Cancellation of his license is mandatory if he knowingly permits (with some exceptions) possession of a firearm on the premises. OC is pretty much "knowing." How can the ABL determine if you fall into an exception unless it is obvious (LEO uniform) if he doesn't check? This is a state statute, not just an administrative rule.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

You cannot fault the alcoholic beverage licensee (ABL). Cancellation of his license is mandatory if he knowingly permits (with some exceptions) possession of a firearm on the premises. OC is pretty much "knowing." How can the ABL determine if you fall into an exception unless it is obvious (LEO uniform) if he doesn't check? This is a state statute, not just an administrative rule.

Thanks for the clarification on rule vs. statute. Here is a link to the code: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/AL/htm/AL.11.htm#11.61

IMO, not a lawyer, but, I think it would have been better for them to just remain in ignorance about shoppers' license statuses. They are not knowingly allowing an unlicensed person to carry on their premises if they're unaware of the person's licensing status. I would think they'd be fine in that scenario. It is quite a different scenario than the LGOC scenarios of before.

 

[qednick]

So, put on some big ruse and lie and all that? Sounds like a lot of trouble, and what do we gain? Not a fan of this plan to be honest. If you want to get pissed at someone, get pissed at the TABC. Even before open carry passed, anyone licensed by the TABC to sell alcohol would be subject to having their license revoked if they allowed people to carry firearms in the business.

Of course, if you have a BP revolver that isn't a firearm under Texas law, maybe you could simply explain that fact to the manager and carry on.



It's never been illegal to carry beyond the blue TABC signs, even if it was a form of carry that didn't require a license, like carrying a long gun. The signs are extremely misleading. The TABC apparently doesn't have the authority to prohibit carrying in establishments that sell, so instead they coerce the licensees to do their bidding with threats of license revocation. I'm guessing that's where this whole issue of Walmart managers asking for OCers' LTCs came from - the old TABC rules essentially required licensees (to sell alcohol) to ask those carrying weapons "unlicensed" to leave if they saw them. If someone has an LTC the licensee is not subject to license revocation as a result of allowing them to carry on the premises.

To see what I'm referring to go to page 104 (as marked on the pages) and start with (f) at the bottom. http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/code/84th/AllTitles.pdf


(for reference, 46.035(b)(1) is for 51% businesses)

Like I said, I wasn't sure about the BP pistols. Since they're not considered "firearms" under state or federal law. I just wasn't sure where these new signs sprung up from or what statute may be behind them (hadn't researched yet). Plus they use the word "weapon" and not "firearm". I think you're correct that it's deliberately misleading.

Edit: I just posted that before seeing your last post. I'm going to have to look at this all in detail when I have the time.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Like I said, I wasn't sure about the BP pistols. Since they're not considered "firearms" under state or federal law. I just wasn't sure where these new signs sprung up from or what statute may be behind them (hadn't researched yet). Plus they use the word "weapon" and not "firearm". I think you're correct that it's deliberately misleading.

Edit: I just posted that before seeing your last post. I'm going to have to look at this all in detail when I have the time.

Well, I didn't mean they are deliberately misleading... If I said that, I could be in error. But I think that both the old version and new version of the sign are definitely misleading.

I have been told that the old sign referred to the increase in penalty if you carry beyond one unlawfully. Like, even pre-new-year, if you were carrying a handgun illegally, with no license, and carried beyond a TABC blue sign, then your unlawful carry offense became a felony.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.02 it is a class A misdemeanor unless on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages, in which case it is a 3rd degree felony. Yikes! So anyway, that is supposedly what the old version of the sign was referring to, although it obviously failed to convey that information. The new version... I don't know what's up with the new version.

Let me know what you find out, though. Most of the information I've been given was just, you know, talk, without much reference.

 

[rushcreek2]

This too will pass. ( One of my favorite standby comments, by the way )

This is Walmart's initial offering to the "sheeple".

Walmart greeters will soon tire of this new assignment.

What is - "open carry" ? Answer: When carry is observed...by the observer.

People are not used to observing "open carry".

Therefore....It will probably require some time....and conditioning... for them to get accustomed to the CHANGE IN TEXAS LAW REGULATING licensed "open carry" - per the power delegated to the Legislature UNDER the Texas Constitution.

I repeat - it is now the LAW in Texas that a person LICENSED by the State to carry a hangun - MAY "open carry" said handgun.

 

[WalkingWolf]

$1,053,231,009 2014 Texas alcohol taxes from the sale of alcohol, probably a sizable portion from Walmart. That is over ONE BILLION dollars, does anybody think that the TABC is actually going to screw with this. It would employment suicide, as well as political suicide.

I have no doubt Walmart knows this, would not doubt if assurances have already been made. I have no doubt it will blow over when shoppers decline the request, IF it is even ever tried.

 

[apjonas]

If Showing Your CHL When Asked

is too much of burden, the state could make it simpler by giving places that sell alcohol for take away the same status as those that sell for on premise consumption (i.e. prohibited). You also have the option of going concealed or patronizing a Wal*Mart that doesn't sell booze. I know a few Texans who curse up a storm, but not in the presence of ladies or children. It is called civility, being a good neighbor, showing maturity, etc. Your local Wal*Mart (or any other alcohol selling store) is a part of your community and its employees are your neighbors. Why not take the extra step to keep them clear of legal problems? After all, they could ban OC if they really wanted to.

 

[bushwacker]

Thanks for the clarification on rule vs. statute. Here is a link to the code: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/AL/htm/AL.11.htm#11.61

IMO, not a lawyer, but, I think it would have been better for them to just remain in ignorance about shoppers' license statuses. They are not knowingly allowing an unlicensed person to carry on their premises if they're unaware of the person's licensing status. I would think they'd be fine in that scenario. It is quite a different scenario than the LGOC scenarios of before.

don't know where people get that t.a.b.c. is go to take away a business license just because they allow a person with a gun on the property if that was the case then there would not be any need for 51% signs, lots of business in texas sell and serve alcohol and allow carry ( like restaurants ) just not in the 51% consumption profit areas. like I said this is texas not new mexico where no guns any where that alcohol is sold even walmarts ... however I have been told that it is commonly accepted that if you don't go down the booze isle of walmarts then you would more than likely be allowed to slide by ... but why chance it

 

[BigStack]

don't know where people get that t.a.b.c. is go to take away a business license just because they allow a person with a gun on the property if that was the case then there would not be any need for 51% signs, lots of business in texas sell and serve alcohol and allow carry ( like restaurants ) just not in the 51% consumption profit areas. like I said this is texas not new mexico where no guns any where that alcohol is sold even walmarts ... however I have been told that it is commonly accepted that if you don't go down the booze isle of walmarts then you would more than likely be allowed to slide by ... but why chance it

It is just propaganda by the anti gun crowd... and because the tab is worried about remaining relevant the don't discourage this myth but actually encourage it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[bushwacker]

So, put on some big ruse and lie and all that? Sounds like a lot of trouble, and what do we gain? Not a fan of this plan to be honest. If you want to get pissed at someone, get pissed at the TABC. Even before open carry passed, anyone licensed by the TABC to sell alcohol would be subject to having their license revoked if they allowed people to carry firearms in the business.
Of course, if you have a BP revolver that isn't a firearm under Texas law, maybe you could simply explain that fact to the manager and carry on.

Don't know where you are going with the ruse ,lie, and all that, statement I don't see any problem with questioning their ideal of jurisdiction and giving them some need to do some research in areas on what authority they have/dont have over our rights/permitted rights .... also why tell them about the black powder thing , when the idea is to let their actions bite them in the ass and eventually (after a few times)they will mellow out( why even take a black powder in if you are going to tell them all about it, that would kind of counter productive no brainer there. duhhhhh) , no one says you have to be an ass to these people, but you don't have to prove your innocence every time you go shopping also. as it stands now (since my first encounter on news year) the Walmart in irving does not seem to have a problem with open carry now. maybe I did something right in not caving and encouraging them to do some research ,been there a few times since with no issues. So what have you done? to sum it up if you roll over now for tx walmarts employee power plays , then it will be much longer to get the point across that o-carrying is really a non issue.

 

[notalawyer]

Thanks for the clarification on rule vs. statute. Here is a link to the code: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/AL/htm/AL.11.htm#11.61

IMO, not a lawyer, but, I think it would have been better for them to just remain in ignorance about shoppers' license statuses. They are not knowingly allowing an unlicensed person to carry on their premises if they're unaware of the person's licensing status. I would think they'd be fine in that scenario. It is quite a different scenario than the LGOC scenarios of before.

Correct, TABC would have to prove that the individual in question did not have a handgun permit and the store knew that and yet still permitted them to remain.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

don't know where people get that t.a.b.c. is go to take away a business license just because they allow a person with a gun on the property if that was the case then there would not be any need for 51% signs, lots of business in texas sell and serve alcohol and allow carry ( like restaurants ) just not in the 51% consumption profit areas. like I said this is texas not new mexico where no guns any where that alcohol is sold even walmarts ... however I have been told that it is commonly accepted that if you don't go down the booze isle of walmarts then you would more than likely be allowed to slide by ... but why chance it

It is just propaganda by the anti gun crowd... and because the tab is worried about remaining relevant the don't discourage this myth but actually encourage it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Hmm maybe because A) that's what it says in the statutes and rules and B) IIRC that's what certain businesses say they were threatened with if they continued allowing LGOCers in their businesses that sold alcohol.

 

[BigStack]

Please show me the statute/law/rule.... that says someone legally carrying a licensed handgun in a place that sells alcohol can cost the operator of business their liquor license.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Please show me the statute/law/rule.... that says someone legally carrying a licensed handgun in a place that sells alcohol can cost the operator of business their liquor license.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I never said that. Please re-read whatever post you thought you saw that in.

 

[BigStack]

The whole statute you cited or someone cited before places the burden of proof on the tabc/prosecutors that the owner of store knew that a criminal was walking around the store carrying a gun. There is almost no way a store owner/manager can know this unless the perp walks in and screams I have no chl and am open carrying. Or if the owner knew the man personally and was witness to the man previously being convicted of a felony. Basically the whole "knowingly allow" statement is a catchall to prevent gross negligence.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[qednick]

Well, I didn't mean they are deliberately misleading... If I said that, I could be in error. But I think that both the old version and new version of the sign are definitely misleading.

I have been told that the old sign referred to the increase in penalty if you carry beyond one unlawfully. Like, even pre-new-year, if you were carrying a handgun illegally, with no license, and carried beyond a TABC blue sign, then your unlawful carry offense became a felony.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.02 it is a class A misdemeanor unless on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages, in which case it is a 3rd degree felony. Yikes! So anyway, that is supposedly what the old version of the sign was referring to, although it obviously failed to convey that information. The new version... I don't know what's up with the new version.

Let me know what you find out, though. Most of the information I've been given was just, you know, talk, without much reference.

I'm not up to speed on any sign changes other than the new 30.07 signs, which is where my confusion is coming from. That sign that I noticed at WalMart on Jan 1st I actually thought it was something the WalMart folks had put together themselves and spat out on a laser printer. Then you kindly pointed me/us to the PDF of the actual signage. I still don't know if this is a "replacement" for the blue signs or if this is something additional, since WalMart et al are still also posting the regular blue signs.
It's a cause for confusion that I need to try and nail down.

Also, as far as BP pistols go, though they are not considered "firearms" under state or federal law, would they still be considered a "weapon"?? If so, does this now mean someone walking in with, say, a 5.5 inch fixed blade knife on their belt could be running afoul of the law? I know you didn't specifically say it was deliberately misleading but nonetheless these new signs appear to be misleading or confusing at best.