prosecution over impromper 30.06 postings

[HankB]

Anyone who knows they have to post a "no guns" sign to keep CHL-ers out also knows (or ought to know!) to know what the requirements are for a valid sign.

So if someone goes to the trouble of posting something that says "Security Notice - Carrying of Concealed Weapons Is Prohibited" IMHO it's is VERY reasonable to conclude they're not really trying to ban CHLers, they're trying to placate the soccer-mommies who think victim disarmament zones are somehow "safer."

Debates on the wisdom of this type of PR move are probably endless, but when I see a sign that's not even close to being compliant, I ignore it - I'm on solid ground legally, and I'm quite sure that ignoring a blatantly non-compliant sign is NOT an indication of moral turpitude.

(Of course, if a sign has 0.95" letters instead of the 1-inch letters called out in the law, or if there's a punctuation mark missing . . . that I'll comply with.)

[rb4browns]

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.

Don't assume laws are not necessarily related to rights. The intent of the law is such that it respects the right of a property owner to decide who comes on his property and who doesn't with respect to whether that person has a gun.

[txinvestigator]

Anyone who knows they have to post a "no guns" sign to keep CHL-ers out also knows (or ought to know!) to know what the requirements are for a valid sign.

I have never seen a sign that was intended to keep CHLers out.

[rb4browns]

Anyone who knows they have to post a "no guns" sign to keep CHL-ers out also knows (or ought to know!) to know what the requirements are for a valid sign.

===> Perhaps. But I look at the open nature of a verbal notification, which has no guidlines, as speaking to the intent of the law. Namely, to provide shelter to CHLers from ambiguity whether or not they can enter when the owner is not speaking directly to them verbally. That's why the sign has to be very specific while verbally it can be anything along the lines of "no you can;t come in with that gun."

So if someone goes to the trouble of posting something that says "Security Notice - Carrying of Concealed Weapons Is Prohibited" IMHO it's is VERY reasonable to conclude they're not really trying to ban CHLers, they're trying to placate the soccer-mommies who think victim disarmament zones are somehow "safer."

===> I agree in large part. But that's not my point. I'm merely speaking to those who think based on a mistakenly worded sign that their "right" to CHL on private property supercedes a property owner's right to not have an armed CHLer there against there wishes.

Debates on the wisdom of this type of PR move are probably endless, but when I see a sign that's not even close to being compliant, I ignore it - I'm on solid ground legally, and I'm quite sure that ignoring a blatantly non-compliant sign is NOT an indication of moral turpitude.

===> Again I agree with you here.

(Of course, if a sign has 0.95" letters instead of the 1-inch letters called out in the law, or if there's a punctuation mark missing . . . that I'll comply with.)

===> And oncle more I agree.

[stevie_d_64]

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.

I wonder if it was ever required for a commissioned peace officer in this state to disarm before going in to eat at a business that restricts the carrying of a firearm in their "private" establishment...

I do not see "lunch" as "official duty"...

We are required to do so if "we" choose to continue patronizing a business or other facility that does restrict...

I seriously doubt this could ever come to pass...And as a matter of fact I would not support any legislative action like this...

But in the broader sense, I do not see any difference in the "reasons or manner" in which a person (civilian) chooses to carry a firearm for lawful purposes, and a commissioned law enforcement officer in this state in carrying one as well...

One does it because they choose to do so, and the other does it because...Hmmmm...Man, I just stumped myself...

But I do not wish to insult anyone, its just that this whole part of the argument has stuck in my craw for a very long time, and there doesn't seem to be a very clear resolution to the disparity of these conditions...

Oh, I do have an idea how to solve it, but one side of the equation will never go for it...Like the whole employer parking lot debate last session...

Look who fights it and barely wins, and look who wanted it and lost...

Sometimes there is this thing called a brick wall, and you can beat yer head against it, but all thats going to happen is you get a headache...

We might get lucky, but there will always be opposition to everything we promote and fight for...

[boomerang]

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

As far as I can tell, you're the only one here getting those confused.

I also notice that you didn't answer my implicit question regarding morality (which is different than legality.)

[rb4browns]

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

As far as I can tell, you're the only one here getting those confused.

I also notice that you didn't answer my implicit question regarding morality (which is different than legality.)

It's possible, I have a newborn and haven't slept for about 3 days now... .

[txinvestigator]

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."

I wonder if it was ever required for a commissioned peace officer in this state to disarm before going in to eat at a business that restricts the carrying of a firearm in their "private" establishment...

I do not see "lunch" as "official duty"...

Uhhm Steve, the law reads, "REGARDLESS of whether the peace officer or
special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an
official duty while carrying the weapon" That means off duty is included in the "does not apply". ;)

[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?

Legally does he? I think that has been addressed. Morally I say yes - if a cop is on his property only to eat lunch and has no other official reason to be there than I think the property owner should have the right to refuse service.

[txinvestigator]

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?

Legally does he? I think that has been addressed. Morally I say yes - if a cop is on his property only to eat lunch and has no other official reason to be there than I think the property owner should have the right to refuse service.

Well he can refuse service. But the peace officer can ignore ANY signs legally.

[stevie_d_64]

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."

I wonder if it was ever required for a commissioned peace officer in this state to disarm before going in to eat at a business that restricts the carrying of a firearm in their "private" establishment...

I do not see "lunch" as "official duty"...

Uhhm Steve, the law reads, "REGARDLESS of whether the peace officer or
special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an
official duty while carrying the weapon" That means off duty is included in the "does not apply". ;)

Umm yeah, I saw that...That word certainly does get in the way doesn't it...

But like some here have responded...

To me it sure would be a sad day if there was a business that decided to not serve even a police officer because of it...

That would be a business I would go out of my way to avoid, and make sure I knew everyone I ever talk to that wanted to go there, knows as well...

TXI, ever wonder why there never really seems to be a middle ground anywhere near this part of the issue??? Not that a middle ground would be good for anyone concerned...But the battle sure does rage, doesn't it???

[Charles L. Cotton]

Well he can refuse service. But the peace officer can ignore ANY signs legally.

Yes, this is relatively new. If I recall correctly, this change passed in 2005. I also think it's absurd!! There is no justification rendering private property owners incapable of excluding armed off duty LEO's from their non-commercial property. (I make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial property.) Yes, I know the argument that all LEO's are always "on duty," but that's a sham. If they are "on duty" 24 hrs. a day, then their agencies owe them a bunch of unpaid overtime, the city/county has potential liability for all of their actions, worker's comp. benefits are available "always," etc.

This provision is also a great response to those who would argue that TSRA's parking commercial lot bill somehow violates private property rights.

Chas.

[cbr600]

Is a generic no guns sign enforceable against someone with an out of state license? I will be covered generally under reciprocity while I'm (im)patiently awaiting my CHL, but my NC permit obviously wasn't issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Texas Government Code. I don't intend to push the boundaries to borrow trouble while I'm in the waiting room, but I'm wondering how carefully I need to read the fine print every time I enter a building.

This could also be a potential issue for Texans who carry with a Florida or Utah license.

What about retirees carrying under LEOSA? (See section 2b of that bill.)

[frankie_the_yankee]

Is a generic no guns sign enforceable against someone with an out of state license?

IMO no. IANAL, but my understanding is when you're carrying on an out of state license recognized under reciprocity, you must obey all of the laws and restrictions on carrying that the state that you are carrying in requires.

In TX, generic signs are not enforceable upon people with TX CHL's, so they shouldn't be enforceable against people with out of state CHL's recognized by Texas' reciprocity.

[srothstein]

I wonder if it was ever required for a commissioned peace officer in this state to disarm before going in to eat at a business that restricts the carrying of a firearm in their "private" establishment...

Yes, it was, and could be enforced under 30.05 until recently.

Landry's Restaurant in San Antonio used to refuse to serve officer's in uniform. They thought officers in uniform brought an image of danger tot he restaurant. They even tried to get us to to stay outside when we were handling calls, but that did not go over too well.


Also, remember when Six Flags banned people with guns when CHL was first passed? They included cops that were off duty. It took Houston PD revoking all of the work permits for their officers before Six Flags would talk about it. HPD Chief took the stance that the officers were off-duty, they had to obey Six Flags rules, so they could not carry there. Since they could not carry they could not work.