Any time you trespass with a firearm, it is punishable by a class A misdemeanor not just chl/30.06. The charge can be the same if you are caught trespassing anywhere for any reason with a firearm. I think that is what is lost in a lot of these discussions.Scott Farkus wrote:Thank you, that is very helpful. I see where you're coming from.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Tex. Penal Code §30.06 was not part of the original CHL bill (SB60 in 1995). It was added by HB2909 in 1997.
Prior to the creation of TPC §30.06 in 1997, TPC §30.05 applied to everyone including CHLs and any generic "no guns" sign or small decals were enforceable. That's precisely why §30.06 was created. We didn't go out of our way to make it easier to exclude armed CHLs, we made it much harder. The goal was to make very sure that a CHL didn't inadvertently enter a store and face a Class A misdemeanor charge because they missed a small decal.
As for other groups, I can prohibit anyone other than a CHL from entering my property by using small §30.05 sign or decal, so long as I'm not trying to exclude them because they are in a protected class.
Many people who were not here in 1995 - 1997 are not fully aware why and how TPC §30.06 is so critically important to CHLs. That's why I always tell the history of §30.06 in all of my CHL classes.
Chas.
Let me ask this for clarification. Say I didn't want people with tattoos in my store. I post a "No Tattoos" sign on the door. Somebody in a long sleeve shirt comes in and as he's reaching for a can of tuna, his sleeve rises up to reveal a tattoo. What are the legal implications? I can theoretically call the police and have that person arrested for trespassing, and potentially subject to the same penalties as crossing a 30.06 sign?
I guess I'm trying to confirm that 30.06 deals with trespassing, not necessarily carry. Which means if we were to try to attack this legislatively, we'd have to approach it more from that angle and that's why you get the resistance you do?
If my understanding then is correct, I'd have to say that the trespassing laws themselves seem particularly harsh, not just for CHL but for everything. It seems more reasonable to me to first require a verbal request to leave with a kind of "no harm, no foul" out, then impose the penalties if the person refuses.
Anyway, very interesting discussion and I'm learning a lot. Thank you for allowing it.
To play devils advocate, should the penalty be lessened for tresspassig with a fire arm just because you are a CHL holder?
For the record, I choose not to shop where I cannot carry if it can be avoided.