Repeal the 30.06 law

[budroux2w]

Vote with your wallet as they say. If you don't like that a private business is posted, let them know and give your money to someone else. More often than not the posted businesses are large corporations and I feel its always better to support small business when I can. Go to a farmers market instead of Sprouts.

[ScottDLS]

How then does a property owner reserve his right to keep you out? Your rights do not trump the property owners's rights.

The same way he reserves his right to keep a LEO who is carrying out. He doesn't...

I'd like to see the 30.06 dropped to a class C misdemeanor.

Yeah, well good luck with that. You are wrong for wanting to override a property owners right to refuse entry.

Why don't I have the right to refuse an off duty LEO entry to my property while he is carrying? Seems like the state overriding my property owner's rights.

And why is it a Class B misdemeanor for someone to walk past my "no pink underwear" sign (that's circle-slash-picture of said undies) sign in my retail establishment that is otherwise open to the (non-pink wearing) public?

And why do I get to invoke the criminal power of the state to enforce my (underwear) color prejudices? I think I would like to ban CHL holders from entering my premises, even when they're not carrying. Class B as long as I put up a 30.05 notice (circle-slash CHL replica)....and Republicans...and Redskins fans, and people who eat pork... If the 30.05 interpretations that were floated when CHL first passed (pre-30.06) are correct, all of my examples above are still Class B misdemeanors, or class A if you were CWR or CWWPU (carrying while Republican) or carrying while wearing pink underwear.

[BenGoodLuck]

When 30.06 first came out, entities could post signs at the entrance to their parking lots, effectively keeping permit holders from even storing the gun in their car. That law was changed and so can the 30.06 law. 30.06 allows entities to deny permit holders from exercising their rights. The reason we carry is because we've decided to be responsible for our own safety and defense. The 30.06 law means that we can't carry in certain places and we all know that criminals don't make reservations. Gun free zones don't work and 30.06 creates gun-free zones.

You are over thinking this whole situation. If you don't like the 30.06 signs, don't patronize those places. Take your business elsewhere. It's as simple as that.

That works for stores and businesses and that's why I belong to http://www.texas3006.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, so I can know in advance who is posting signs. But what about companies where people work and can't conceal carry? What about hospitals? Every time we're forced to disarm, we're losing the ability to defend ourselves.

[BenGoodLuck]

How then does a property owner reserve his right to keep you out? Your rights do not trump the property owners's rights.

A property owner always has the right to keep anyone off his property or out of his dwelling/premise. If a property owner doesn't want guns on his property, he can post a sign and I'll know what his stance is. I just don't want 30.06 signs telling me that. And his sign will have no force of law except that, if he somehow figures out I'm carrying, he can ask me to leave, and I have to comply, or face a trespassing charge.

[jmra]

Seems to me there is a rather lengthy thread on here debating private property rights vs. CC. IMHO, private property open to the general public is very different than private property closed to the general public. Obviously the two are regulated very differently giving property closed to the public much stronger rights as to who may or may not enter and the conditions which can be placed on the invitation to enter. In realty, private property open to the public has very limited rights in comparison.
The "we have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time" right of a private property owner doing business with the public simply does not exist any more (ask the bakery that didn't want to bake the cake for a same sex wedding or the photographer who didn't want to provide his services for the same). IMHO, the right of the individual to protect themselves in places accessible to the general public should supercede so called private property rights.
How to go about getting there is the problem. You are not going to get an out and out repeal. I would love to see it changed from a criminal penalty to a civil penalty. Carry past a 30.06 sign subject to a $200 fine.

[Pawpaw]

I think we should instead work on amending the required language in 30.06. At the top of the sign, in red 3" letters, it should say, "ROB US FIRST!!!".

[Wes]

I would love to see it changed from a criminal penalty to a civil penalty. Carry past a 30.06 sign subject to a $200 fine.

This is a great example of how we could have meaningful impact with a relatively small change to the current law.

[jbarn]

There are many states where 'no-gun' signs have no force of law and they also don't have a 30.06 type regulation. My idea is to repeal the signs and allow law-abiding, permit holding citizens to freely carry anywhere. Why should a private entity have any right to tell me I can't carry on their premises.

So your rights are more important than his?

You have no right to tell me I cannot carry in your house?

[BenGoodLuck]

I would love to see it changed from a criminal penalty to a civil penalty. Carry past a 30.06 sign subject to a $200 fine.

This is a great example of how we could have meaningful impact with a relatively small change to the current law.

+1, jmra and Wes!

Let's take a look at a state where "no gun" signs do not have the force of law, Oklahoma, and the penalty is a civil fine, but only for refusing to leave the premises when asked. Here's their law:

Section 1290.22.

C. A property owner, tenant, employer, place of worship or business entity may prohibit any person
from carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm on the property. If the building or property is open to the
public, the property owner, tenant, employer, place of worship or business entity shall post signs on or about
the property stating such prohibition.

D. The carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person who has been issued a handgun
license on property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall not be deemed a criminal act but
may subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property. If the
person refuses to leave the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may be issued a citation for
an amount not to exceed Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).

Oklahoma allows anyone to post a "no guns" sign. But the signs don't have any force of law. The property owner can deny entrance to their property or ask the carrier to leave the property. The carrier has to comply or face a fine of $250.

No criminal act, no being forced to disarm. That's what 30.06 does - it criminalizes our concealed carrying and forces us to disarm.

[Charles L. Cotton]

No bill repealing TPC §30.06 will ever pass. The NRA and TSRA will kill it easily and rightfully so. You may not know the history behind HB2909 in 1997, so I understand that you may not appreciate the fact that TPC §30.06 saved CHL in Texas.

Private property rights are treasured in Texas and this is good. The legislature will never pass a law that strips a private property owner's ability to bar armed CHLs from entering their property. That concept doesn't even have widespread support among gun owners or even CHLs. I floated the idea of prohibiting owners of commercial property open to the public from barring armed CHLs and that didn't get anywhere; there simply is no support for the concept even with business property.

I do think there is at least a chance to lower the penalty to a Class C misdemeanor.

Chas.

[BenGoodLuck]

To me, this is akin to some of the more aggressive OC folks like OCT. We want it all and we want it now and we are going to make it happen our way. That accomplishes nothing. If you dislike parts of the chl law, try to repeal it specifically. For example, carry in bars. Then, take on another piece, like maybe carry in schools. So on and so forth. This will lead to additional freedoms without disregarding all the work done before. Private property owners will always have a way to limit chl holders in Texas. Something I don't disagree with. Without 30.06 we could end up with gun busters barring our entry. No thank you. I am fine with 30.06, if they post it I know my business isnt welcome.

I am trying to repeal a part of the CHL law, specifically the 30.06 portion. That's pretty specific. I am not advocating guerrilla tactics like the OC folks, although all they're doing is exercising a right under the law. I posted my letter to hear what people have to say and it's been very educational. Actually, I'm surprised that CHL holders are so supportive of the 30.06 signs.

Let me be clear - I understand the fear that repealing 30.06 would lead to gun buster signs barring us. What I am proposing is to get rid of 30.06, allow property owners to post what ever sign they want, but the signs would have not force of law except for a civil penalty if the concealed carrier fails to heed the owner's directives to leave.

Have you heard of CANT - carry always, never tell? Property owners would not know you were carrying unless you told them. Do you walk into a store and tell them you're carrying? Do you go to the movies and tell the box office person you're carrying? So what would be wrong with having a million different signs saying 'no guns' as long as the signs were legally meaningless?

Suppose there was a law in Texas requiring a property owner to post a 30.06 type sign barring certain religions or races from their premises? We'd go ballistic! The 30.06 signs are the equivalent of that type of thinking.

[BenGoodLuck]

There are many states where 'no-gun' signs have no force of law and they also don't have a 30.06 type regulation. My idea is to repeal the signs and allow law-abiding, permit holding citizens to freely carry anywhere. Why should a private entity have any right to tell me I can't carry on their premises.

So your rights are more important than his?

You have no right to tell me I cannot carry in your house?

No, our rights are equal and you do have the right to tell me I can't carry in your house. Just not by a legislative empowered sign. Just tell me, and I'll leave. If I don't, call the police. But there is no other class of people who are barred from entering houses or businesses by a legislature enacted sign.

[BenGoodLuck]

No bill repealing TPC §30.06 will ever pass. The NRA and TSRA will kill it easily and rightfully so. You may not know the history behind HB2909 in 1997, so I understand that you may not appreciate the fact that TPC §30.06 saved CHL in Texas.

Private property rights are treasured in Texas and this is good. The legislature will never pass a law that strips a private property owner's ability to bar armed CHLs from entering their property. That concept doesn't even have widespread support among gun owners or even CHLs. I floated the idea of prohibiting owners of commercial property open to the public from barring armed CHLs and that didn't get anywhere; there simply is no support for the concept even with business property.

I do think there is at least a chance to lower the penalty to a Class C misdemeanor.

Chas.

Hi Chas., I read about the history of HB2009 in 1997 in an article you wrote on texasfirearmscoalition.com (https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/ ... exas-chl-s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). I'm sure people said in 1994 that no bill allowing people to conceal carry in Texas would ever pass!

Ok, let's work on lowering the penalty to a Class C misdemeanor. How can I help?

[tomtexan]

I am trying to repeal a part of the CHL law, specifically the 30.06 portion. That's pretty specific. I am not advocating guerrilla tactics like the OC folks, although all they're doing is exercising a right under the law. I posted my letter to hear what people have to say and it's been very educational. Actually, I'm surprised that CHL holders are so supportive of the 30.06 signs.

Let me be clear - I understand the fear that repealing 30.06 would lead to gun buster signs barring us. What I am proposing is to get rid of 30.06, allow property owners to post what ever sign they want, but the signs would have not force of law except for a civil penalty if the concealed carrier fails to heed the owner's directives to leave.

Have you heard of CANT - carry always, never tell? Property owners would not know you were carrying unless you told them. Do you walk into a store and tell them you're carrying? Do you go to the movies and tell the box office person you're carrying? So what would be wrong with having a million different signs saying 'no guns' as long as the signs were legally meaningless?

Suppose there was a law in Texas requiring a property owner to post a 30.06 type sign barring certain religions or races from their premises? We'd go ballistic! The 30.06 signs are the equivalent of that type of thinking.

If you are so confident that no one will know unless you tell them, then just ignore the 30.06 signs and walk right past them.

Disclaimer: I am not encouraging you to violate the law with the above statement. Just merely making a point.

[Wes]

Yes, specifying 30.06 is specific, but not when it is the key piece of our law. The above example of changing section B of 30.06 is a specific example as I was referencing it. I would fully be behind the change of the penalty. Repealing it altogether not so much. The risk/reward just isn't there for me.