Repeal the 30.06 law

[jmra]

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.

The problem is coming up with something that can actually be passed. If I'm understanding Mr. Cotton correctly, this approach would be DOA.

[hillfighter]

It seems fair for trespassing with a gun in 30.05 and 30.06 to have the same penalty.

[BenGoodLuck]

Oh yeah! Well, I feel like this:

I'm sure lots of people told Suzanna Gratia Hupp that she was beating a dead horse for trying to get concealed carry passed in the first place.

[BenGoodLuck]

It seems fair for trespassing with a gun in 30.05 and 30.06 to have the same penalty.

- it's the least we can do. We have to start somewhere.

[BenGoodLuck]

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]

Oh yeah! Well, I feel like this:

I'm sure lots of people told Suzanna Gratia Hupp that she was beating a dead horse for trying to get concealed carry passed in the first place.

[BenGoodLuck]

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.

Do you mean that without 30.06, people could rely on 30.05? Was 30.06 passed specifically because 30.05 allows for oral or written notice of any kind? If that's the case, I see your point. Can you explain what 30.05 Section f means?

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun.

It seems that 30.05 allowed for someone with a CHL to enter the property despite having received notice.

[BenGoodLuck]

Oh yeah! Well, I feel like this:

I'm sure lots of people told Suzanna Gratia Hupp that she was beating a dead horse for trying to get concealed carry passed in the first place.

[BenGoodLuck]

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

[MeMelYup]

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.

Do you mean that without 30.06, people could rely on 30.05? Was 30.06 passed specifically because 30.05 allows for oral or written notice of any kind? If that's the case, I see your point. Can you explain what 30.05 Section f means?

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun.

It seems that 30.05 allowed for someone with a CHL to enter the property despite having received notice.

I believe that 30.05 was added to for support of 30.06. Originally a gun buster or any other type sign was all it needed to deprive a CHL from carrying inside a business.

If that part of 30.05 was deleted, 30.06 would be useless and any no gun sign would be valid.

[mojo84]

This is my last post on this subject. Here is another instance of a government entity telling private property owners what they have to allow on their private property. Is this where you want to go? Do you think the owner of the property should have to remove the gender signs by the restrooms and tell each person which restroom they must use? Seems like a slippery slope to me.

https://connect.focusonthefamily.com/ap ... b206070dc0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[android]

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.

Businesses that are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC should have no such right to ban entry based on religion, race, sex or what you might have in your pockets or under your shirt and have such silliness be prosecutable as a crime.

[jbarn]

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.

Businesses that are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC should have no such right to ban entry based on religion, race, sex or what you might have in your pockets or under your shirt and have such silliness be prosecutable as a crime.

Where do you draw the line? Be specific. Or is it just anything goes?

[jbarn]

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.

Do you mean that without 30.06, people could rely on 30.05? Was 30.06 passed specifically because 30.05 allows for oral or written notice of any kind? If that's the case, I see your point. Can you explain what 30.05 Section f means?

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun.

It seems that 30.05 allowed for someone with a CHL to enter the property despite having received notice.

Section f was added to 30.05 when 30.06 was created.

[sugar land dave]

Forgive me, but I feel like this is starting to slip beyond reason. Mr Cotton has been working with the legislature on the behalf of concealed carry for many, many years. If he ventures an opinion on what laws can and cannot be expected to pass, I tend to believe him. There's a little thing about his experience level in these matters versus ours.