TexasCHLforum.com

remington79 wrote:The 30.06 law needs to be repealed and signs should NOT have the force of law. The argument goes both ways first about property rights and then you have the other side where you have an inherit right to self defense. I can see both sides of the issue.

Right now I live in Idaho and will be moving back to East Texas this summer. I have had my CHL before when I was living there so I'm aware of the laws and requirements. I also go to this forum often because of A: the maturity that is found here and B: to keep current on events. In Idaho you can carry everywhere including professional sporting events and in bars. Signs do NOT have the force of law. There is also no requirements about signs but since they don't carry the force of law is doesn't matter. There have been no problems here with violence or other issues. There was a shooting downtown a few years back and both parties were in the bar. However, all the fighting took place outside away from the bar and the person who did fire had to go to his vehicle to retrieve his pistol. In this case being allowed to carry in a bar was not an issue. He was found not guilty by jury and it was found to be a self defense case. Personally I think designated drivers should be allowed to carry.

As I said signs don't have the force of law here. Both times my wife gave birth I carried right past the sign at the hospital. The first few times I didn't' even see the sign since it was at waist height and and was on a clear background on a glass window. Now one can make the argument about property rights verse the right to protect one's life. Here if the owner of where the sign is posted asks you to leave then you leave. If you don't you can get charged with CIVIL trespass not criminal. This is important to note because in Texas it would be criminal and you would have your right to self defense stripped away. Here you can carry past the sign without legal trouble and you also don't have to worry about not seeing a sign. There is only an issue if you are seen carrying and you don't leave when asked. There has never been an issue here and it's a win win for both parties.

As I have gotten older I keep taking a stronger stance on things. In my 20's I didn't think twice about the signs. Now that I'm in my 30's I have a problem with them. If you are really concerned about property rights stop worrying about 30.06 signs and work on getting imminent domain reined in and repeal property taxes. Right now if you don't pay property taxes you get your land seized, you're paying rent to the government.

BenGoodLuck wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

BenGoodLuck wrote:We need 30.06 now for the same reason we needed it in 1997. Without it, any no-gun sign will be effective and thousands of locations CHLs can currently carry will be off-limits over night. Training wheels? Really? No, it's Hoover Dam preventing a flood of generic "no guns" decals from decorating doors as they did from 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997.

Not even Texas gun owners, much less the 97% of Texans without a CHL, will ever support stripping a private property owner of his/her ability to bar armed CHLs from their property and the Texas Legislature will never pass such a bill. (I realize your position is that they can still bar people by asking them to leave, but that's a non-starter.) There is absolutely no chance it would pass and it doesn't matter how other states handle trespass matters. We may as well discuss how life would be on Mars. As I mentioned earlier, I couldn't even get support for the concept that owners of commercial property open to the public shouldn't be able to bar armed CHLs.

Your discrimination argument won't fly in the legislature, or in court. CHLs are not a protected class so there's no legal discrimination.

Chas.

Do you mean that without 30.06, people could rely on 30.05? Was 30.06 passed specifically because 30.05 allows for oral or written notice of any kind? If that's the case, I see your point. Can you explain what 30.05 Section f means?

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun.

It seems that 30.05 allowed for someone with a CHL to enter the property despite having received notice.

android wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:
And why do I get to invoke the criminal power of the state to enforce my (underwear) color prejudices? I think I would like to ban CHL holders from entering my premises, even when they're not carrying. Class B as long as I put up a 30.05 notice (circle-slash CHL replica)....and Republicans...and Redskins fans, and people who eat pork... If the 30.05 interpretations that were floated when CHL first passed (pre-30.06) are correct, all of my examples above are still Class B misdemeanors, or class A if you were CWR or CWWPU (carrying while Republican) or carrying while wearing pink underwear.

Businesses that are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC should have no such right to ban entry based on religion, race, sex or what you might have in your pockets or under your shirt and have such silliness be prosecutable as a crime.

BenGoodLuck wrote:There are many states where 'no-gun' signs have no force of law and they also don't have a 30.06 type regulation. My idea is to repeal the signs and allow law-abiding, permit holding citizens to freely carry anywhere. Why should a private entity have any right to tell me I can't carry on their premises.