Zero guns allowed at work!!! What are your options??

[cycleguy2300]

First of all read the current laws enacted. Any place you go in Texas can restrict you bringing in a firearm, even your mother-in-law into her house on Thanksgiving. Your job is no exception. With the CC bill enacted most folks think they can pack anywhere, openly or concealed, they are very wrong. Even with CC there are still restrictions. I believe they are all good laws. I doubt any business that bans firearms for employees has this sign but I see it many places I carry. I also see No Firearms Allowed and abide by them as well and leave in truck or exit..

View attachment 343040

Strictly speaking leaving your guns in your vehicle is still a violation as a TABC "PREMISE" is the entire property, but concealed is concealed...

Its almost 2a I'm short on sleep and been working on cars, packing and driving all day so don't feel like double checking...

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

Strictly speaking leaving your guns in your vehicle is still a violation as a TABC "PREMISE" is the entire property, but concealed is concealed...

Its almost 2a I'm short on sleep and been working on cars, packing and driving all day so don't feel like double checking...

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

Strictly speaking, the TABC blue sign was repealed in HB1927.

 

[leVieux]

I retired from the Navy in 1991. Nearly everyone on a ship carried a knife. Usually a decent size folder or sometimes a fixed blade in a sheath on the hip. Served 19½ years out of 26 on ships and never knew of an incident of violence with a knife. Heard of a dozen or more ND's from people futzing around with "unloaded" 1911's or shotguns. Usually at a base's main gate or on the Quarterdeck or turning the "unloaded" weapons back into the armory after a Security Alert evolution which were done daily while inport. Some of those resulted in death. Back during my time the Navy did a very poor job of training people with guns. I think the Navy got better at that after 911. But that was 20+ years ago. I have no clue what is actually happening now in the Navy or other services but underneath my tin foil hat I suspect that the leadership will never allow its people to have weapons stateside aside from a trusted cadre of the politically correct.

I never received a single training session with weapons, aside from the main guns and missiles, in my 26 years. The Navy isn't "gunny" like the Army or Marines. Yet I was issued a 1911 when I promoted to E-4 and carried one until I promoted to E-6 while standing Quarterdeck watches on 2 Destroyers. I trained Security Alert teams as a CWO. Most of what I know about gun safety I learned at civilian gun ranges, friends or from books. I thought it ironic that when I got my CCW here in Florida I got a waiver for gun safety training because I was ex-military. Sure, I was always safe with guns...after 2 dangerous ND's and one GSW involving alcohol but I attribute that to being E-6 and below and mixing beer with guns. All of that was before I turned 25. I have been a better man since then.

I think the Marines get it right with their Everyone-Is-A-Rifleman doctrine. I'd like to see all the Services hold all their members to a high standard in gun proficiency and allow them to exercise their 2A rights freely. But I don't see it happening because the woke wonks in DC and the Pentagon have already made it known that vets pose an imminent threat of domestic terrorism.

“O, brave new world​

that has such people in't!”​

>
The “Deck Guards” on the USS Cole were carrying “empty” M16’s, w/o ammo.

Insane STUPIDITY from Command. . . . .

Remember that Bush II wanted to send 200 UNARMED U S Marines into a commie-infested “terrorist-held” South Pacific Island on a “humanitarian mission” ?

Recall that the then-Mayor of San FranSICKO threatened to call the SFPD to run the Matines off “”His” Golden Gate Bridge”. If we had a POTUS with balls, they shouldda said “OK, go ahead and TRY!”

What could go wrong ?

We’re seeing just about everything which could go wrong from LibTard STUPIDITY now. . . . . .

leVieux
.

 

[CaliGunner]

Pepper Gel Gun. Decent range (think 5-7 yards), and if you score a direct hit in the face, that person is out of the fight for at least 30-60 minutes, even if they run water over their face.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Strictly speaking, the TABC blue sign was repealed in HB1927.

I was speaking more towards red/51% signs, but I had forgotten that. Thanks.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

I was speaking more towards red/51% signs, but I had forgotten that. Thanks.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

The 51% locations changed, too. Now if there’s an F&B certificate co-located, it can’t he a 51% location.

 

[magholder]

I choose for myself how I am going to protect myself. Regardless of company policies.

 

[leVieux]

>

Are they going to SEARCH you with dogs ?

The situations many describe are a CONFLICT OF “RIGHTS”, and we have been losing to the corporate attorneys & lobbyists, who are concerned with one legal side.

One “answer” would be to lobby for some concessions; like making all “premises” owners/managers financially responsible for any injuries to employees & visitors caused by their one-sided “policies”.

Of course, a total boycott would work, but we don’t seem to have adequate “public support”.

To wit: Last State ”NRA-Afilliate” organization meeting I attended, almost all of the Officials were wearing “LEVI’S” brand jeans. When I pointed-out the HYPOCRISY of their wearing ads for one of our anti-2A archenemies, they didn’t respond properly.

Indeed, I just returned from a Hill Country feral hog hunt, at which I heard of multiple shopping trips to “COSTCO”, another 2A ENEMY !

How many of us here on TGT still have “PROGRESSIVE Insurance” policies, buy “YETI” (over-priced)” coolers, etc. ?

We must consider this all part of the big WAR we are now in, and quit aiding our enemies !

LeVieux
.

 

[Darkpriest667]

Property rights are what we're talking about here. If I own property do I have the right to bar activity on it. The answer is yes.

Unless you're a public employee in which case the constitution should supercede any rules on government property as far as firearms, but Dell has a legit 30.05/30.06/30.07 sign on the building 2 and 1 and I respect it. I don't agree with their decision but I accept that it's their property and they can make the rules on their property.

Kind of like no shoes no shirt no service. Private property and business owners have rights too.

 

[Tnhawk]

Property rights are what we're talking about here. If I own property do I have the right to bar activity on it. The answer is yes.

Unless you're a public employee in which case the constitution should supercede any rules on government property as far as firearms, but Dell has a legit 30.05/30.06/30.07 sign on the building 2 and 1 and I respect it. I don't agree with their decision but I accept that it's their property and they can make the rules on their property.

Kind of like no shoes no shirt no service. Private property and business owners have rights too.

Business owners should accept the responsibility for providing a safe environment, if they choose to have rules restricting an individuals ability to provide for their own safety.

 

[leVieux]

Business owners should accept the responsibility for providing a safe environment, if they choose to have rules restricting an individuals ability to provide for their own safety.

Amen, but they won’t, unless forced to, by folks like us !
Remember that your Texas Legislature passed a special “GEICO” law, just to help their San Antonio employees !

 

[SARGE67]

Business owners should accept the responsibility for providing a safe environment, if they choose to have rules restricting an individuals ability to provide for their own safety.

Talking about a slippery slope there....

 

[ghorman]

The 51% locations changed, too. Now if there’s an F&B certificate co-located, it can’t he a 51% location.

What changed about the 51%. A lot of the time I’m the DD for the group. Can i legally carry in 51% places now?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

What changed about the 51%. A lot of the time I’m the DD for the group. Can i legally carry in 51% places now?

Welcome to the Forum!

What do you have to sell?

 

[toddnjoyce]

What changed about the 51%. A lot of the time I’m the DD for the group. Can i legally carry in 51% places now?

You may not legally carry in a place that is required to display the TABC red sign.

What changed is how TABC determines if a red sign is required. You can use the TABC public inquiry system to look up in real time if a location requires the red sign. Under “Gun Sign” unless it says “Red”, the location is not a 51% location.

Under the old rules, the place below was a red sign/51% location. Now it’s not. You should tale a look at their Fb page to understand how drastic the change is.

 

[ghorman]

You may not legally carry in a place that is required to display the TABC red sign.

What changed is how TABC determines if a red sign is required. You can use the TABC public inquiry system to look up in real time if a location requires the red sign. Under “Gun Sign” unless it says “Red”, the location is not a 51% location.

Under the old rules, the place below was a red sign/51% location. Now it’s not. You should tale a look at their Fb page to understand how drastic the change is.

Thank you for the information. I’ll take a look.

 

[roadkill]

You may not legally carry in a place that is required to display the TABC red sign.

What changed is how TABC determines if a red sign is required. You can use the TABC public inquiry system to look up in real time if a location requires the red sign. Under “Gun Sign” unless it says “Red”, the location is not a 51% location.

Under the old rules, the place below was a red sign/51% location. Now it’s not. You should tale a look at their Fb page to understand how drastic the change is.

Was it a rule change or did the lack of alcohol sales during the Covid lockdowns combined with many bars starting to offer food in an effort to reopen during the lockdowns (when restaurants could be open but not bars) skew their alcohol receipt totals? Then when calculating alcohol receipts upon license renewal resulted in a non 51% location status.

 

[leVieux]

Property rights are what we're talking about here. If I own property do I have the right to bar activity on it. The answer is yes.

Unless you're a public employee in which case the constitution should supercede any rules on government property as far as firearms, but Dell has a legit 30.05/30.06/30.07 sign on the building 2 and 1 and I respect it. I don't agree with their decision but I accept that it's their property and they can make the rules on their property.

Kind of like no shoes no shirt no service. Private property and business owners have rights too.

This is but o9ne side of the argument, we do understand, ut don’t necessarily agree with your one-sided conclusion. Indeed, that is what this dispute is about.

Tell me, which other baic enumerated Constitutional RIGHT of visitors are “property owners” allowed to negate ?

We ask for some balance of these conflicting rights !

leVieux

 

[Darkpriest667]

This is but o9ne side of the argument, we do understand, ut don’t necessarily agree with your one-sided conclusion. Indeed, that is what this dispute is about.

Tell me, which other baic enumerated Constitutional RIGHT of visitors are “property owners” allowed to negate ?

We ask for some balance of these conflicting rights !

leVieux

The original written was pursuit of life, liberty, and property. Just understand the constitution was written, in it's most original form, to protect the individual rights of property owners from the government.

It's one reason eminent domain is such a CRAPPY supreme court decision. Kelo v New London fucked us hard.

 

[leVieux]

The original written was pursuit of life, liberty, and property. Just understand the constitution was written, in it's most original form, to protect the individual rights of property owners from the government.

It's one reason eminent domain is such a CRAPPY supreme court decision. Kelo v New London fucked us hard.

Understood, but, when any “premises owner” is a public business which invites and solicits public entry, they should have a burden of protecting those they try to disarm, and should be liable for injuries/damages they cause, or faciitate, to those who do enter.

And, i ask again, which other basic enumerated RIGHT should be permitted to be denied ?

leVieux