SoccerDad said what I have been trying to say for some time, but I struggled to say as succinctly. I think many of us are on the same page as Charles in thinking that 30.06 perhaps should be rendered ineffective for locations open to the general public....and that this would not be a significant burden on Texans' property rights. I also have to also respect his political experience in saying there is no will to get this done in the Legislature. I believe that that is the reason that people are suggesting further reducing the penalty or decriminalizing a violation of 30.06. At least it was reduced to the lowest level criminal offense, akin to a seat belt violation.Soccerdad1995 wrote:Bolding mineCharles L. Cotton wrote:I know a lot of folks want to point to other states as an example of what Texas should adopt as gun laws. Among those states are New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Hawaii just to name a few. Texas gun owners recoil at the thought and rightfully so. However, they turn around and talk about Oklahoma, Vermont (that elected Bernie Sanders Senator) and Arizona, just to name a few more, when those states have laws they like. Funny how that double standard works. I don't care what other states do! I'll take Texas gun and self-defense laws over every other state, when all things are considered.
I've already explained why I'm against rendering 30.06 and 30.07 signs ineffective. I think private property owners have the right to prevent people from entering their property. I think it's wrong to force a property owner to let you enter, then force them to confront you and tell you to leave. How does that possibly seem fair? Remember, TPC §§30.06 and 30.07 also apply to my home and yours, not that I think either of us would post such signs.
I've also said that I would support a move to render TPC §30.06 (but not TPC §30.07) ineffective for commercial property open to the public. That's a completely different matter in my view, because commercial business property, especially property open to the public, is already regulated more than non-commercial private property. There's absolutely no political traction for this proposal, so the idea of neutering 30.06/30.07 signs is DOA.
Chas.
Charles -
Allow me to address the part of your post that I have bolded. I think the problem is that there is no "fairness" here. I am not interested in posting a 30.06 or a 30.07 sign. I would be more interested in posting a sign at my home that barred anyone who had voted for B. Hussein Obama, among other issues. If we want to be fair, then a plumber who walks past my sign having in fact voted for this individual should be subject to criminal penalties. We all know that ain't going to happen.
OK. You could rightly point out that we shouldn't compare a belief / past action with the carrying of an object. So let me use another example. If I post a sign, in English and Spanish, that very clearly says you are trespassing if you come on my property unarmed, should I be able to call the police when someone shows up without a weapon? Or should I simply have the right to say to them "hey, you must have missed the sign. You need to go unless you are carrying a weapon that I can't see."?
To me, there is nothing unfair about giving my fellow property owners the same rights that I have. They shouldn't have "special" rights just because the thing they don't like is specifically addressed in the law.
Andwith you on requiring businesses that are open to the public to actually be open to all of the public.
Let's also recall that MPA and the "parking lot law" both effectively nullified 30.06 on certain property. The parking lot law even imposed the Legislature's will on the private employee/employer contract. Both are, in my mind, a more significant imposition than requiring verbal notice against CC on publicly open businesses. Finally, we have the complete exemption from 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 for OFF DUTY Peace Officers and Special Investigators (Feds) for OC or CC. As nearly as I can tell this was added in 2013, and it seems more of an affront to private property rights than simply requiring verbal notice for restricting CC.