prosecution over impromper 30.06 postings

[boomerang]

I prefer to patronize companies that want my business but sometimes expediency or social obligations take precedence. At those times, I give the same respect to a non-compliant sign that I imagine a Texas Peace Officer would give the sign. After all, a simple "ghostbuster" sticker has the same meaning for both of us.

[Liberty]

I prefer to patronize companies that want my business but sometimes expediency or social obligations take precedence. At those times, I give the same respect to a non-compliant sign that I imagine a Texas Peace Officer would give the sign. After all, a simple "ghostbuster" sticker has the same meaning for both of us.

Depends on the sign. I usually ignore a gunbusters sign, because I figure it wasn't a sincere effort t to keep me out. The 30.05 sign was legal sign at one time. When they post a sign like that they are telling me they don't want me to go into their store while armed. I will gladly co-operate and take my business elsewhere.

The San Antonio Chamber of commerce is antigun and lobbied hard to kill the parking bill in last years legislature. I used to make a couple trips a year their with my family, and visit the Riverwalk area. I won't even stop their for gas anymore. They don't want gun carrying folk, and they ain't gonna get me. I might be the only one avoiding them in my own little private boycott, but I can know I'm right, and feel good about not supporting the antis.

[srothstein]

You walk into a burgershack with a ghostbuster no gun on the door..ignoring it, yet you get outted by a massive anti-gunner manager that slapped that thing on the door and the police are called...who is more in the wrong..the manager who DOESN'T own the property or you for ignoring the false no guns sign??

Legally or morally?

Legally, neither of you is wrong. The law allows the owner, OR a person acting with the apparent authority of the owner like a manager, to post the signs or make the rules. The manager is not wrong for expressing his desire to keep guns off his property. He has not done so in a way that is legally enforceable on you, but he has expressed his wishes and done so in a legal manner. The sign is in fact legally enforceable on other legal pistol carriers (say a traveler or a military person).

You are not legally obligated to obey the non-compliant sign. It has no legal meaning to you. You are not legally wrong for entering.

Morally, you are both wrong. The manager is wrong for not expressing his desires in a proper and clear fashion that is legally enforceable. IMHO, he has a moral obligation to make things clear so others can know what he wants.

You are morally wrong for entering a store that does not want you to enter with a gun. I am assuming you saw the sign and thought it meant for you to stay out with a CHL and weapon, but that is not necessarily a fair conclusion. If the sign is not clear as to his desires, you are only wrong if you thought he was trying to apply it to you.

[rb4browns]

I think a number of posters here are way off the mark. CHL holder or not, there is no inherent right to carry a concealed weapon one someone else's private property.

Do they have an obligation under law to properly advise you in writing or warn verbally that they do not want you (or me) to carry on their property? Yes. But that is only a fair warning for you (and me) to avoid criminal prosecution and give you fair notice to either leave or not enter the property with your (or my) weapon. It has nothing to do with your (or my) inherent right to carry a concealed weapon on their property.

You have every right to avoid doing business with folks who post a 30.06, I respect that. But to say if a sign is slightly off the requirements so therefore you can do whatever you want on their property is to thumb your nose at someone else's rights that IMHO clearly trump yours in a situation like this. SO what if we had to jump through hoops to get our CHL and we have to continue to walk a tightrope sometimes? That has nothing to do with someone elses private property rights.

[Photoman]

I think a number of posters here are way off the mark. CHL holder or not, there is no inherent right to carry a concealed weapon one someone else's private property.

Property owners do not enjoy unrestricted freedom to set rules for property that is open to the public.

[nitrogen]

I realise I might be a bit extreme in my views, but I view "no guns" signs a lot like people nowadays would view "No Blacks" signs.
They are wrong at public places, hands down.

Having said that, most places that place no guns signs of ANY kind don't get my business. There are a few I'll patronize anyway, but I'll ignore the signs.

[rb4browns]

I think a number of posters here are way off the mark. CHL holder or not, there is no inherent right to carry a concealed weapon one someone else's private property.

Property owners do not enjoy unrestricted freedom to set rules for property that is open to the public.

I understand that as a *general* principle. But not allowing people to have concealed weapons on their property is well within their rights and there is no inherent "right" to carry concealed on private property with public access against the owner's wishes.

The law is clear (to me), by virtue of any verbal notification being valid, that the intent under law is that the property owner has every right to deny access to someone with a concealed weapon.

[rb4browns]

I realise I might be a bit extreme in my views, but I view "no guns" signs a lot like people nowadays would view "No Blacks" signs.
They are wrong at public places, hands down.

Having said that, most places that place no guns signs of ANY kind don't get my business. There are a few I'll patronize anyway, but I'll ignore the signs.

I understand your sentiment, but as I pointed out in my response to Photoman "no guns" is not equivalent to "no blacks" (or "no jews") when we're talking about the law. I personally don't see that there is a moral equivalent - I see no constitutional right to carry on someone else's property regardless of public access when they have expressed their wishes. I too would most likely not do business with them but that's a personal choice rather than an issue of rights.

[frankie_the_yankee]

[ I personally don't see that there is a moral equivalent - I see no constitutional right to carry on someone else's property regardless of public access when they have expressed their wishes. I too would most likely not do business with them but that's a personal choice rather than an issue of rights.

[boomerang]

A gunbuster sign has the same meaning for me as it does for a Texas Peace Officer.

Does a Texas Peace Officer violate the rights of a business owner if, while armed, he walks past a gunbuster sticker on a restaurant door to eat lunch?

[GrillKing]

A gunbuster sign has the same meaning for me as it does for a Texas Peace Officer.

Does a Texas Peace Officer violate the rights of a business owner if, while armed, he walks past a gunbuster sticker on a restaurant door to eat lunch?

Doesn't apply to a peace officer, from PC30.05:

(g) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other
weapon was forbidden; and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace
officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized
state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of
Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or
special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an
official duty while carrying the weapon.

[Photoman]

The law is clear (to me), by virtue of any verbal notification being valid, that the intent under law is that the property owner has every right to deny access to someone with a concealed weapon.

Don't confuse laws with rights.

[boomerang]

Doesn't apply to a peace officer, from PC30.05:

That's what I said. A non-compliant sign has the same meaning for me as it does for a Texas Peace Officer.

Some people are saying it's morally wrong for an armed CHL to enter a building with a gunbuster sign. I'm asking if they apply the same standards to armed Peace Officers.

[GrillKing]

Doesn't apply to a peace officer, from PC30.05:

That's what I said. A non-compliant sign has the same meaning for me as it does for a Texas Peace Officer.

Some people are saying it's morally wrong for an armed CHL to enter a building with a gunbuster sign. I'm asking if they apply the same standards to armed Peace Officers.

I am on pain meds for a kidney stone. It is affecting me. Sorry.

[rb4browns]

A gunbuster sign has the same meaning for me as it does for a Texas Peace Officer.

Does a Texas Peace Officer violate the rights of a business owner if, while armed, he walks past a gunbuster sticker on a restaurant door to eat lunch?

But unless you're a cop that equivalence is only in your head. It has no application to real life. Texas Peace Officers have a different status when it comes to where/when/how they traverse public and private spheres in society.

Carrying a gun and *feeling* like a cop does not equal being a cop.