Removing the penalty for carrying past a 30 06 sign?

[Dave09]

There should be some kind of penalty. Maybe not along the lines of a criminal penalty but more of just a fine. The sign should have some kind of power to prevent carrying if the property owner does not want it. Now there is also a choice to boycott these establishments because of the sign. There should also be some kind of penalty for government/businesses that post signs that are not enforceable. This would be a good balance between the two groups.

[mr1337]

There should be some kind of penalty. Maybe not along the lines of a criminal penalty but more of just a fine. The sign should have some kind of power to prevent carrying if the property owner does not want it. Now there is also a choice to boycott these establishments because of the sign. There should also be some kind of penalty for government/businesses that post signs that are not enforceable. This would be a good balance between the two groups.

It recently (Jan 1) changed to just a fine. A $200 one, but a fine nonetheless. It's a Class C Misdemeanor. Prior to Jan 1, it was a Class A misdemeanor, with many more repercussions, including loss of CHL for at least 5 years.

[Tracker]

In Oklahoma it's a $250 max fine if you refuse to leave. I'd be open to arguments with regards to cc on retail property. A manufacturing co would be different. It's an effective method to push back against MDA type groups who are pressuring retail to put up the 30.06 signs in the first place.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm absolutely opposed to this proposal and it has no chance of passage. I also do not believe the claim that has been spread throughout the Internet that, in 26 states, property cannot be effectively posted against trespassing.

I support not allowing commercial businesses open to the public to ban concealed carry by an LTC, but as I've noted before, there's no support for that.

Chas.

May I ask what you are opposed to about signs not having force of law?

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.

[baldeagle]

It occurs to me that some folks, who might not be from Texas originally, are unfamiliar with Texas folks' views on property. Down here property is sacrosanct. Removing trespassing laws from property law is an exceedingly tough sell. Perhaps, in another decade or two, when we're overrun by illegal aliens and other leftists, that will change. Lord knows it's changed nationally. Property rights are rapidly receding under a tide of leftist propaganda.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

Bolding mine

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.

And with you on requiring businesses that are open to the public to actually be open to all of the public.

[dru]

I see how these 'property rights vs 2A rights' conversations get very heated, and I've tried to stay away from them (not always successfully). Here is my attempt to wander into this water, but keep it as civil as possible.

I'm glad we've had 30.06 for the last ~18 years or so. I recognize the impact that it has had, and how it has protected our ability to concealed carry. But as a newcomer (only 5 years now) to the CHL world, I recognize that things can change for the better as well.

One of our newer members explained it well in this post: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81165. In his post, he was responding to a, "You're in Texas and we have 30.06/30.07. Live with it or move" comment. He didn't take the bait, and instead, he answered in a very constructive way. He gave several parallel example:

(In 1993) Sorry, we're in Texas. Texas doesn't allow concealed carry. Live with it or move.
(In 2007) Sorry, we're in Texas. Texas doesn't allow you to stand your ground. You must retreat before using deadly force. Live with it or move.
(In 2015) Sorry, we're in Texas. Texas doesn't allow you to openly carry a handgun or carry a handgun on college campuses. Live with it or move.

All of these rules (save the last one) were changed before I got my CHL. I don't have much knowledge of how much blood, sweat, or tears went into removing them. But I would love to see a new addition to this list:

(In 2017) Sorry, we're in Texas. Texas doesn't allow you to carry past a sign on a business location. Live with it or move.

I DO strongly believe in property rights (my family owns a small business). But comparing a 'No Trespassing" sign with another sign that selective bans some people (but not others) is not really an honest comparison.

In the perfect world that I imagine in my head:

• No Trespassing means nobody comes in at all, and should be considered legal notice.
  
  Using a sign to selectively ban some while not banning others should not hold the weight of law on it.
  
  However, any business owner / manager should have the right to ask anyone to leave for any reason, or no reason. No concealed handguns, no blue undergarments, no hidden tattoos, no Boy Scouts out of uniform...it's all the same to me. If you as me to leave, and I don't, then drop the force of the government upon me.

How would this work with concealed carry? I carry on wherever I can. If (as an example) Walmart trains their greeters to say, "Welcome to Walmart - no guns allowed", then so be it. I cannot carry.

How would this work with open carry? Any sign whatsoever (for example, "Please no open carry in this store" should be warning enough to me that if I do ignore it, I'll be asked to leave right away. (This is the same as it is with a "No shoes, no shirt, no service", or "No smoking", or virtually any other type of sign.)

I do recognize that there may currently be no support in Austin for my suggestion. But maybe the same was said of the other items above in the past. Hopefully this can change, for the better.

Go ahead...flame away. I'm just glad that we have this forum to present different points of view.

pretty much this...also pretty similar to OK

[Solaris]

I think the problem is that there is no "fairness" here.

Spot on. I just want to be left alone.

I have had my ranch property taken to widen a road, I was paid $1.

Another time they tore up a field to put in a private water line. I got nothing and had to pay out of pocket to re-seed.

At least Jerry Jones did not want to build a stadium on my ranch, would have lost the whole thing.

Currently fighting the Outer Loop right now.

Friends in Fannin County are going to lose thousands of acres of family owned farms to build a lake to pump water to DFW for non-Texans who have not moved here yet.

Let's not forget Red Zone Ranch, Collin County Gun Range, and many others, all taken against the will of the owners.

Property rights in Texas are long gone and they are not coming back. Hard for me to have sympathy for businesses right to post 30.06/07. But at least the cops can carry anywhere regardless of signs.

[baldeagle]

I DO strongly believe in property rights (my family owns a small business). But comparing a 'No Trespassing" sign with another sign that selective bans some people (but not others) is not really an honest comparison.

I don't think you understand the law. It doesn't ban selectively. It bans everyone. Unless you have a license, you are already banned from carrying. The signs add licensed carriers to the list of those that are banned. So everyone is banned. Only people who are lawbreakers will enter regardless of the signs, but lawbreakers will also enter when there is no sign. What we have to do is get businesses to understand that we are not a threat to them, the unlicensed lawbreakers are. Recently I saw Scarborogh state (on MSNBC no less!) that gun free zones are insane. So we're making headway. We just need to keep working to get people to understand who the real threat is.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

Bolding mine

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.

And with you on requiring businesses that are open to the public to actually be open to all of the public.

We'll have to agree to disagree. You and I aren't focusing on the "fairness" issue in the same context. You want to view trespass from a much broader perspective. I'm focusing on current trespass laws dealing with the possession of handguns, i.e. TPC §§30.06 and 30.07.

Currently, there are two ways to keep LTCs off private property when they carry self-defense handguns. For concealed-carry, a sign complying with TPC §30.06 can be posted or the property owner can give oral notice. The same is true for TPC §30.07 dealing with open-carry. Those wanting to render 30.06/30.07 signs ineffective are not seeking to render oral notice ineffective, so they acknowledge that a property owner should be able to exclude armed persons from their property. While they agree that property owners should be able to exclude armed people, they argue that they should only be able to do so by confronting the armed individual. That's the part I consider unfair.

Very few businesses post 30.06 signs. The few that do include businesses owned by out-of-state corporations as well as mom & pop shops. If someone is truly fearful of guns, as unfounded as that fear may be, how is it fair to force that property/business owner to either accept the presence of firearms in their store or confront the person of whom they are afraid? While my example is of someone who is afraid of guns, the concept is not limited to such people. Texas law allows two methods of excluding armed people from private property; one is non-confrontational (signs) the other requires a confrontation (oral notice). There's no justification for allowing only the latter. This is especially true for open-carry.

Chas.

[jed]

Really people?!?!? If a business puts up 06 and or 07 signs THEY DO NOT WANT YOU BUSINESS!!! Why on God's green earth do you still want to give them your hard earned money? I swear, I do not understand some of you.
This is yet another

[ScottDLS]

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.

Bolding mine

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.

And with you on requiring businesses that are open to the public to actually be open to all of the public.

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.

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.

[nightmare69]

My hope is LTC holders will be added to TPC 46.15 one day. A man can dream...

[Tracker]

Really people?!?!? If a business puts up 06 and or 07 signs THEY DO NOT WANT YOU BUSINESS!!! Why on God's green earth do you still want to give them your hard earned money? I swear, I do not understand some of you.
This is yet another

An .07 sign tells me they don't mind my cc but they prefer no oc. An .06 is a clear statement they don't want my business and if see one posted on retail/restaurant I'll tell them they lost my business. I won't patronize that business even if I wasn't carrying

[Abraham]

Tracker,

Your perspective is clear and one I agree with.

All the wailing and gnashing of teeth of those who wish this and want that and darn it, other states do it this way, why can't we?

You that think this need to consider moving to one of those other states that reflect the laws you like - otherwise, you're in Texas.

Don't like the the laws here?

MOVE!