Dallas TX no guns sign have the force of law.  You'll get arrested if you go into a store with a no guns sign.

Depends on what you mean my "no gun sign". In TX if a business does not want to allow concealed/open carriers they must display Texas Statue 30.06 (no pun intended) for conceal carry, and/or 30.07 for open carry in a conspicuous manner with minimum 1 1/2" tall lettering. Normally they are printed on the doors of the business.

"“PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL
CODE (TRESPASS BY LICENSE
HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED
HANDGUN), A PERSON LICENSED
UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411,
GOVERNMENT CODE (HANDGUN LICENSING
LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH
A CONCEALED HANDGUN” "

"“PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.07, PENAL
CODE (TRESPASS BY LICENSE
HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED
HANDGUN), A PERSON LICENSED
UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411,
GOVERNMENT CODE (HANDGUN LICENSING
LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH
A HANDGUN THAT IS CARRIED OPENLY”


The little gun-buster sticker(alone) on a door doesn't count.

there is some confusion and misinformation here so i'll try to sum it up.

§134-9  Licenses to carry.
(a)  In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property, the chief of police of the appropriate county may grant a license to an applicant who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more or to a duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation of the age of twenty-one years or more to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.

Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated, the respective chief of police may grant to an applicant of good moral character who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more, is engaged in the protection of life and property, and is not prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm, a license to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor unconcealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.

The chief of police of the appropriate county, or the chief's designated representative, shall perform an inquiry on an applicant by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, to include a check of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases where the applicant is not a citizen of the United States, before any determination to grant a license is made.  Unless renewed, the license shall expire one year from the date of issue.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0009.htm

i copy-pasted subsection (a) from the statute at issue.  i split subsection (a) into different lines so you can see how it is constructed.  i also bolded and underlined the important areas of the subsection.  the first sentence has to do with the application for concealed carry licenses.  the second sentence has to do with application for open carry licenses.  this case deals with the second sentence.

the main holding of the case is that the phrase "is engaged in the protection of life and property" is unconstitutional since it places a limitation on citizens (non-law enforcement, and non-security guards) who apply for open carry licenses.

so what does this mean?  this means that citizens (non-law enforcement, and non-security guards) can apply for an open carry license and will not be denied based solely upon the fact that they are not "engaged in the protection of life and property".  citizens will still need to show that there is "urgency" or a sufficient "need".

where is this case going, supreme court?
how long will it take to get a final ruling?

3 months to 3 years depending what the state does.

3 months to 3 years depending what the state does.

knowing our state, they'll probably attempt to drag it out as long as possible.  Just like they're dragging out preventing the public from carrying.  It's  kinda ironic though, by stalling, they're actually weakening their position with the supreme court, which is swinging more conservative. 

A privately owned business has the right to ask you to leave your guns outside.  Buffalo Wild Wings in Vegas has a prominent sign by the entry that says No Guns Allowed.  I carry my concealed weapon in there anyway as no one can see it and the sign does not have the force of law.  However, if I was open carrying or someone noticed my CCW and I was asked to leave because of it, I would have to comply or get arrested for trespassing.  This was the NV law as explained in the CCW class I took at Front Sight and that is the law in all other states as far as I know.  Much like a business cannot refuse service because you are black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female or whatever, but they can do the no shirt, no shoes, no service thing.

^^^This, in NV, no gun signs don't have the weight of the law.  Even in casinos.  They can ask you to disarm/check firearm.  Then ask you to leave if you refuse.  Then call PD if you refuse to leave and trespass you.

The bill of rights is so the government can't censor you.  Private companies can do as they wish.  Like if you told someone to leave your home because they were armed, or protesting something.

Agreeing with TooFewPews here...I guess the question will be what does regulated mean? Will they modify the law enough and just remove the portion pertaining to engaged in? What is the definition of urgency or need? Even the term "engaged in the protection of life and property" is ambiguous. Aren't we all in that profession every day? It's OUR life and OUR property we actively engage in protecting everyday when we wake up. Or will they just make open carry legal in all aspects? Who knows? We can only hope for the best and the State is held to the 1st portion of the second paragraph below.

"We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, which the State of Hawaii “has understandably sought to fight . . . with every legal tool at its disposal.” Wrenn, 864 F.3d at 667. We see nothing in our opinion that would prevent the State from regulating the right to bear arms, for the Second Amendment leaves the State “a variety of tools for combatting [the problem of gun violence], including some measures regulating handguns.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 636.
But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. We would thus flout the Constitution if we were to hold that, “in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of [the State] has no other limit than its own discretion.” Reid, 1 Ala. at 616. While many respectable scholars and activists might find virtue in a firearms-carry regime that restricts the right to a privileged few, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 636.""


While still a major victory for the rights of the people, it will still be a long uphill battle. The State has many lawyers and legislators and can drag this out as long as they want to arguing semantics. So until the SCOTUS drops the hammer and says "ISSUE!", we are still a May Issue State at the discretion of the local PD chief 

...but they can do the no shirt, no shoes, no service thing.

Ah, I see. Good point.

Illegal to use staws in CA, but legal to knowingly give someone HIV.

Illegal to use staws in CA, but legal to knowingly give someone HIV.

Actually, having sex without disclosing you have HIV used to be a felony until about a year ago.

Now, it's still illegal to do, but the penalty is the SAME as giving a customer a plastic straw.



Knowingly giving someone AIDS/HIV == Giving someone a plastic straw

 

Actually, having sex without disclosing you have HIV used to be a felony until about a year ago.

Now, it's still illegal to do, but the penalty is the SAME as giving a customer a plastic straw.



Knowingly giving someone AIDS/HIV == Giving someone a plastic straw

 

So will they give them a ticket?  Like jaywalking?

So will they give them a ticket?  Like jaywalking?

Giving someone a plastic straw has max penalties of 6 months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

That's PER STRAW.

My mother had major problems with arthritis in her hands. She found using a cup/glass extremely painful. Using a straw at public restaurants was not just a convenience.

I'm waiting for this law to be challenged as discriminating against people with physical disabilities.

I'm waiting to see if an illegal immigrant handing out plastic straws gets immunity under "sanctuary."

I'm waiting to see if an illegal immigrant handing out plastic straws gets immunity under "sanctuary."

That's the loop hole.  We will see them slapping straws making sounds on the side walk (like Vegas hooker cards).

Or my straw identifies as a clarinet.

How did a meaningful thread like Update Young v. State (County) of Hawaii turn into this...straws and AIDS in California

Same way Dana Loesch got drawn into the conversation...

As Mac would say...."Focus"

Giving someone a plastic straw has max penalties of 6 months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

That's PER STRAW.

My mother had major problems with arthritis in her hands. She found using a cup/glass extremely painful. Using a straw at public restaurants was not just a convenience.

I'm waiting for this law to be challenged as discriminating against people with physical disabilities.

Does a restaurant have to provide any other medical equipment to its customers ??
There will be no challenge to this law as it dosnet ban straws, only a straw mad of plastic, People are welcome to bring either their own reusable straw OR the restaurant if it chooses to do so can provide a non plastic alternative.

 

Does a restaurant have to provide any other medical equipment to its customers ??
There will be no challenge to this law as it dosnet ban straws, only a straw mad of plastic, People are welcome to bring either their own reusable straw OR the restaurant if it chooses to do so can provide a non plastic alternative.

 

The comment is not about being forced to provide straws or other items to accommodate people with disabilities.  It's about punishing them if they make the decision to do so. Exact opposites.

I read a couple more articles about this, and one stated the rule-makers added a physical disability exception after it was brought to their attention.

How to turn a stupid law into a complicated, stupid law.

How did a meaningful thread like Update Young v. State (County) of Hawaii turn into this...straws and AIDS in California

Same way Dana Loesch got drawn into the conversation...

As Mac would say...."Focus"

If you watched the video, you'd know the answer to both questions.

The first part of the video was on topic.

^^^This, in NV, no gun signs don't have the weight of the law.  Even in casinos.  They can ask you to disarm/check firearm.  Then ask you to leave if you refuse.  Then call PD if you refuse to leave and trespass you.

The bill of rights is so the government can't censor you.  Private companies can do as they wish.  Like if you told someone to leave your home because they were armed, or protesting something.

but a baker has to bake anyone a cake

The first part of the video was on topic.

Exactly.
Just like this thread.

The first part ... was on topic.

I gotta say sincerely
Good job Wolfwood! 
Onward and upward.

Gotta hope Young wins his civil award or where do we send our donations.