Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
sugar land dave wrote: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.
sugar land dave wrote: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.
Amen!Charles can correct me if I am in error, but 30.05 Section F nullifies the generic 'no guns' signs as being a valid notification for a CHL holder. Then, 30.06 becomes the trespass code for a CHL, which specifies the proper notification required for a CHL to be restricted from entering. So, if you take away 30.06, then any standard sign, including the little small red slashed circle signs with a gun (gun busters sign) become valid notification. If you are not a CHL holder, like open carrying a long gun, then 30.05 is still applies to you.BenGoodLuck wrote: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?Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.
(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.
We're already there. The penalty for regular trespassing is the same if you're armed.BenGoodLuck wrote:hillfighter wrote:It seems fair for trespassing with a gun in 30.05 and 30.06 to have the same penalty.
If TPC §30.06 is repealed and §30.05(f) is left in tact, then private property owners could not prohibit armed CHLs from entering their property. That will never happen. If §30.06 were to be repealed, then §30.05(f) will also be repealed, so any "no gun" sign would be effective to prevent an armed CHL from entering.Keith B wrote:Charles can correct me if I am in error, but 30.05 Section F nullifies the generic 'no guns' signs as being a valid notification for a CHL holder. Then, 30.06 becomes the trespass code for a CHL, which specifies the proper notification required for a CHL to be restricted from entering. So, if you take away 30.06, then any standard sign, including the little small red slashed circle signs with a gun (gun busters sign) become valid notification. If you are not a CHL holder, like open carrying a long gun, then 30.05 is still applies to you.BenGoodLuck wrote: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?Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.
(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.
Bottom line, 30.06 is a GOOD thing for CHL because of the really onerous requirements for a business to meet notification standards to keep us out. As stated, the best thing that could be done would be to reduce the penalty level of 30.06 to lesser charge.
remington79 wrote:The 30.06 law needs to be repealed and signs should NOT have the force of law. The argument goes both ways first about property rights and then you have the other side where you have an inherit right to self defense. I can see both sides of the issue.
Right now I live in Idaho and will be moving back to East Texas this summer. I have had my CHL before when I was living there so I'm aware of the laws and requirements. I also go to this forum often because of A: the maturity that is found here and B: to keep current on events. In Idaho you can carry everywhere including professional sporting events and in bars. Signs do NOT have the force of law. There is also no requirements about signs but since they don't carry the force of law is doesn't matter. There have been no problems here with violence or other issues. There was a shooting downtown a few years back and both parties were in the bar. However, all the fighting took place outside away from the bar and the person who did fire had to go to his vehicle to retrieve his pistol. In this case being allowed to carry in a bar was not an issue. He was found not guilty by jury and it was found to be a self defense case. Personally I think designated drivers should be allowed to carry.
As I said signs don't have the force of law here. Both times my wife gave birth I carried right past the sign at the hospital. The first few times I didn't' even see the sign since it was at waist height and and was on a clear background on a glass window. Now one can make the argument about property rights verse the right to protect one's life. Here if the owner of where the sign is posted asks you to leave then you leave. If you don't you can get charged with CIVIL trespass not criminal. This is important to note because in Texas it would be criminal and you would have your right to self defense stripped away. Here you can carry past the sign without legal trouble and you also don't have to worry about not seeing a sign. There is only an issue if you are seen carrying and you don't leave when asked. There has never been an issue here and it's a win win for both parties.
As I have gotten older I keep taking a stronger stance on things. In my 20's I didn't think twice about the signs. Now that I'm in my 30's I have a problem with them. If you are really concerned about property rights stop worrying about 30.06 signs and work on getting imminent domain reined in and repeal property taxes. Right now if you don't pay property taxes you get your land seized, you're paying rent to the government.
jbarn wrote:remington79 wrote:The 30.06 law needs to be repealed and signs should NOT have the force of law. The argument goes both ways first about property rights and then you have the other side where you have an inherit right to self defense. I can see both sides of the issue.
Right now I live in Idaho and will be moving back to East Texas this summer. I have had my CHL before when I was living there so I'm aware of the laws and requirements. I also go to this forum often because of A: the maturity that is found here and B: to keep current on events. In Idaho you can carry everywhere including professional sporting events and in bars. Signs do NOT have the force of law. There is also no requirements about signs but since they don't carry the force of law is doesn't matter. There have been no problems here with violence or other issues. There was a shooting downtown a few years back and both parties were in the bar. However, all the fighting took place outside away from the bar and the person who did fire had to go to his vehicle to retrieve his pistol. In this case being allowed to carry in a bar was not an issue. He was found not guilty by jury and it was found to be a self defense case. Personally I think designated drivers should be allowed to carry.
As I said signs don't have the force of law here. Both times my wife gave birth I carried right past the sign at the hospital. The first few times I didn't' even see the sign since it was at waist height and and was on a clear background on a glass window. Now one can make the argument about property rights verse the right to protect one's life. Here if the owner of where the sign is posted asks you to leave then you leave. If you don't you can get charged with CIVIL trespass not criminal. This is important to note because in Texas it would be criminal and you would have your right to self defense stripped away. Here you can carry past the sign without legal trouble and you also don't have to worry about not seeing a sign. There is only an issue if you are seen carrying and you don't leave when asked. There has never been an issue here and it's a win win for both parties.
As I have gotten older I keep taking a stronger stance on things. In my 20's I didn't think twice about the signs. Now that I'm in my 30's I have a problem with them. If you are really concerned about property rights stop worrying about 30.06 signs and work on getting imminent domain reined in and repeal property taxes. Right now if you don't pay property taxes you get your land seized, you're paying rent to the government.
One can only have a right to self defense if one can carry a gun?
You prefer a state income tax?
carlson1 wrote:Wes wrote:. . . 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. . .
I also agree that we must chip away at it one piece at a time to limit the size of the opposition. Pick your battles and win the war.
That's right! I'm a member there too. I plan to post the information and opinions I've read here (consolidated, of course) so that people there can be aware of the complexity of the issue.Maxwell wrote:This was also posted to a different forum:
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/sec ... 6-law.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Suzanna Gratia didn't pass concealed carry by any stretch of the imagination. No one told those of us who did pass concealed-carry that it would never happen. In fact, in 1985 I was told it would take 10 years to pass it and this very knowledgeable person was exactly right.BenGoodLuck wrote:Oh yeah! Well, I feel like this:mojo84 wrote:
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 wrote:That's right! I'm a member there too. I plan to post the information and opinions I've read here (consolidated, of course) so that people there can be aware of the complexity of the issue.Maxwell wrote:This was also posted to a different forum:
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/sec ... 6-law.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is going to be my last post on the subject here. To summarize:
1. I am against 30.06 signs having the force of law.
2. I am for property rights and do not want to infringe on anyone's property of rights.
3. I understand the history of 30.06 and why it was passed - prior to 30.06, anyone could post any type of sign and thereby exclude a CHL holder from entering their property.
4. The consensus here is to not repeal the entire 30.06 law, but rather work to lessen the criminal penalty or remove it.
5. Most people on this forum do not want 30.06 repealed and think that any attempt to repeal it would either fail or re-introduce the problems that 30.06 sought to solve.
Thank you all for your post and comments. This has been a very educational thread for me.
Ben
What reason would you kill any attempt to repeal it? Or are there certain things about 30.06 that those organisations would repeal?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Suzanna Gratia didn't pass concealed carry by any stretch of the imagination. No one told those of us who did pass concealed-carry that it would never happen. In fact, in 1985 I was told it would take 10 years to pass it and this very knowledgeable person was exactly right.BenGoodLuck wrote:Oh yeah! Well, I feel like this:mojo84 wrote:
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.
You seem to be missing a point. I'm not saying TSRA and NRA won't try to repeal 30.06 because it's impossible. I'm telling you we will be the ones killing any attempt to repeal it.
Chas.
