TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: In my view, it will be the most significant CHL-related bill to pass since SB60 in 1995.

Chas.

(The TexasCHLForum equivilent of the Facebook Like button

)

srothstein wrote:
remington79 wrote:What reason would you kill any attempt to repeal it? Or are there certain things about 30.06 that those organisations would repeal?
One reason I support keeping it is because it actually requires specific wording and a specific size to keep a CHL out with force of law. I believe we are the only state that has this requirement. If we repeal 30.06, all of the no guns allowed signs become valid notice, as they are in other states.

Actually, I know of at least one other state that has a sign requirement, that's Missouri. However, it is not near as onerous as Texas since it only has to be 11" x 14" and state 'No Concealed Handguns' in the wording of at least 1" letters in any language. I have seen a few of these signs while visiting that state.

BenGoodLuck wrote:
Charles L. Cotton 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.

Charles can correct me if I am in error, but 30.05 Section F nullifies the generic 'no guns' signs as being a valid notification for a CHL holder. Then, 30.06 becomes the trespass code for a CHL, which specifies the proper notification required for a CHL to be restricted from entering. So, if you take away 30.06, then any standard sign, including the little small red slashed circle signs with a gun (gun busters sign) become valid notification. If you are not a CHL holder, like open carrying a long gun, then 30.05 is still applies to you.

Bottom line, 30.06 is a GOOD thing for CHL because of the really onerous requirements for a business to meet notification standards to keep us out. As stated, the best thing that could be done would be to reduce the penalty level of 30.06 to lesser charge.

BenGoodLuck wrote:
chamberc wrote:So basically you oppose property owner rights when they trump yours as a non-property owner? I'm assuming this extends to not being able to ask me to leave your property if I so desire to sit down and take a poop on your front yard?
I don't oppose property owner rights. If you put up a sign saying "No Pooping on My Yard", I will abide by that. If there's no sign and I take a dump, and the property owner asks me to leave, I will. I'm opposed to a law that preemptively keeps me off someone's property just because I'm concealed carrying. No one else is singled out for this type of preemptive treatment.

Section 30.05 covers your scenario:

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

And lookee here: the penalty for 30.05:

(d) An offense under this section is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor, except as provided by Subdivisions (2) and (3);
(2) a Class C misdemeanor, except as provided by Subdivision (3), if the offense is committed:
(A) on agricultural land and within 100 feet of the boundary of the land; or
(B) on residential land and within 100 feet of a protected freshwater area; and
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if:
(A) the offense is committed:
(i) in a habitation or a shelter center;
(ii) on a Superfund site; or
(iii) on or in a critical infrastructure facility; or
(B) the person carries a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.

We have 30.05; why do we need 30.06?

Charles explained it totally in his post above. Without 30.06 any sign will be valid. You would have to modify 30.05 or another statute to decriminalize carry for trespassing with a handgun. The big sign is a big deterrent for a business to post. So, leave it alone and maybe modify 30.06 to reduce the penalty from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 4 matches

Re: Repeal the 30.06 law

Re: Repeal the 30.06 law

Re: Repeal the 30.06 law

Re: Repeal the 30.06 law