Repeal the 30.06 law

[mojo84]

I like jmra's idea of a fine.

I like that idea as well. I would certainly support such a campaign.

Interesting that here in Houston businesses open to the public are being forced to serve a class of people whose lifestyle the owner disagrees with. Civil rights are trumping property rights. I think there is a vast difference between the property rights I enjoy on my homestead as compared to the property rights of, say, McDonalds. My home is my castle. If I open a business to the general public, I must comply with a whole host of property-right infringing concepts. Not too hard to understand.

Just because a local government is doing something doesn't make it right. That's not too hard to understand. San Antonio's city government did the something similar. Because they did it it doesn't make it right. Understand?

Because Obama and his administration disregards the Constitution and circumvents the congress, does that make it right? Understand?

The smartalec snarkiness in your comment is not appreciated nor called for.

[BenGoodLuck]

I appreciate all of the comments and each person's point of view. What I'm having a hard time understanding is the opposition to doing away with the 30.06 law. The Texas concealed law was originally passed without the 30.06 regulation and that led to numerous issues. 30.06 was passed to eliminate the proliferation of 'no-guns' signs and to also require someone to comply with the language and requirements of 30.06 in order to post a sign banning concealed carry.

What I don't understand is WHY do we still need 30.06 now? 30.06 has been the equivalent of training wheels on a bike. We know how to peddle; time to get rid of the impediment to our rights.

Georgia is an example of a state with no signage law. Private property owners can put up Gun Buster signs and stickers, but they don't mean anything with regards to carrying weapons. For a private property owner to exclude you from their property, they have to do it through the trespass laws. The owner, or a representative of the owner (manager), has to notify a person verbally that they wish him to leave. The person either leaves or risks arrest when the cops show up.

Simple: property rights are preserved, and concealed carriers are not excluded, nor do they have to disarm.

p.s. a previous post mentioned that stores and restaurants are 'forced' to serve people whose life style they don't agree with. Exactly! Discriminating against people based on sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. is unconstitutional. Despite private property rights, the entities can't discriminate against them.

Discrimination against those who are lawfully carrying a concealed weapon should also be looked at the same way.

[mojo84]

Sexual preference is not a protected class yet. Do you really want sexual preference and chl tied together and treated the same?

[Charles L. Cotton]

What I don't understand is WHY do we still need 30.06 now? 30.06 has been the equivalent of training wheels on a bike. We know how to peddle; time to get rid of the impediment to our rights.

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.

[MeMelYup]

Personally I like 30.06, I wish it had gone a little farther. I would like it to make businesses that post the sign, responsible for the health and welfare of the individuals while in the business or parking lot. At this time if I were in a posted business, my car was broken into and gun stolen while parked in their lot, they claim no responsibility. If I am robbed at gun or knife point while in their business, they they can claim no responsibility. It would require me to prove negligence on their part in a court of law to get a favorable response from the business and the court costs would much more than the value of the loss. There would be another stolen firearm on the street.

[rtschl]

IANAL... but if I would be curious if lawsuit against a business where an incident happened in a 30.06 posted business could be successfully sued under something similar to the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine. Gun free zones are an enticement for criminal activity.

Ron

[ShootDontTalk]

The smartalec snarkiness in your comment is not appreciated nor called for.

I was agreeing with what you said about the idea while mentioning the incongruity of the issue with cities making their own rules. My final comment was hyperbole, not insult. I intended no offense toward you. Sorry you took it that way.

[MeMelYup]

IANAL... but if I would be curious if lawsuit against a business where an incident happened in a 30.06 posted business could be successfully sued under something similar to the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine. Gun free zones are an enticement for criminal activity.

Ron

Wouldn't it need to be under negligence?

[BenGoodLuck]

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?

[Keith B]

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.

[carlson1]

[mojo84]

[steveincowtown]

Man, I am sorry I missed the beginning of this thread.

To the folks that say we can't repeal 30.06 because "it is wrong to not allow private property owners to refuse entry." Even without 30.06 private property owners still have the ability to ask someone to leave, and if they refuse to leave they will be cited with trespassing.

For those that say this would create WWIII, please prove me wrong and post an article from one of the many, many states where signs have no force of law where a private property owners has been shot for asking a someone to leave because they were carrying a weapon.

There is a list of states where signs have no force of law in the thread below:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=70770&hilit=+force+of+law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

30.06 is divisive issue the gun community. Some CHLers don't want people open carry rifles, because there will be 30.06 signs everywhere. Some CHLers don't want open carry to pass, because there will be signs everywhere.

If we simply remove the force of law portion of 30.06 and change it too an enhanced penalty if someone doesn't leave after being notified EVERYONE WINS.

If 30.06 has no force of law until notified to leave, CHLers are happy because no one will every see there weapon.

If Open Carriers who are in it for protection and not for "look at me" carry, they won't be noticed and if they are they need to leave.

Private property owners would have the confidence that if someone ignored that sign, and then refused to leave, they would face harsh penalties.


As to the 30.05 issue, simply striking one line from the law would fix that.

[mojo84]

How would the property owner know someone is carrying a gun? Do you really want people having to confront people one by one?

I think it's ridiculous for people to want to prevent people from carrying on their property. However, if I've bought or leased the property, I should have the right to deny whomever I want without a confrontation, even if it is someone carrying as gun.

[mojo84]

Does someone have the right to smoke? What about smoking in someone's house or business? What if the property owner says they don't want people smoking by putting up as no smoking sign? Or should they have to confront them verbally?