Rethinking 30.06

[Scott Farkus]

Here's some more food for thought. For those that believe the rights of the property owners to be sacrosanct, how do you justify the parking lot bill? Haven't we already started down this path anyway?

One of my concerns is that we are going to wake up one day and essentially everything will be posted 30.06. At that point, we won't have the choice of avoiding Whole Foods because HEB is posted, too. I am concerned that this is going to be done through pressure brought to bear by insurance companies, who I fear will at some point start to require postings as a condition of insurance. I have no specific evidence of this yet, but I can easily see the anti's, particularly the financially connected Bloomberg types, convincing insurance executives that they face horrible risks from concealed carriers. As much as I favor open carry, I think it might add fuel to that fire, but that's another discussion.

The point is that the parking lot bill was needed, in part, because if you can't at least keep your gun in your car, you are effectively barred from carrying five days a week if your employer won't allow it at your job. If in the future every place you need to go to transact your daily business is posted, you are similarly effectively barred from carrying. We could get ahead of this if we started lobbying for businesses not to be allowed to prohibit licensed CHL holders.

[Glockster]

Here's some more food for thought. For those that believe the rights of the property owners to be sacrosanct, how do you justify the parking lot bill? Haven't we already started down this path anyway?

One of my concerns is that we are going to wake up one day and essentially everything will be posted 30.06. At that point, we won't have the choice of avoiding Whole Foods because HEB is posted, too. I am concerned that this is going to be done through pressure brought to bear by insurance companies, who I fear will at some point start to require postings as a condition of insurance. I have no specific evidence of this yet, but I can easily see the anti's, particularly the financially connected Bloomberg types, convincing insurance executives that they face horrible risks from concealed carriers. As much as I favor open carry, I think it might add fuel to that fire, but that's another discussion.

The point is that the parking lot bill was needed, in part, because if you can't at least keep your gun in your car, you are effectively barred from carrying five days a week if your employer won't allow it at your job. If in the future every place you need to go to transaction your daily business is posted, you are similarly effectively barred from carrying. We could get ahead of this if we started lobbying for businesses not to be allowed to prohibit licensed CHL holders.

Exactly my point, for example, about banks (banks, not credit unions as many of those are quite friendly, but a CU is not a bank). It is getting to the point where you are very hard pressed to find a bank that isn't posted. Honestly, I can't say that I've been in more than about four "brands" of banks since I moved here but I have yet to find one that isn't posted.

[jmra]

Here's some more food for thought. For those that believe the rights of the property owners to be sacrosanct, how do you justify the parking lot bill? Haven't we already started down this path anyway?

One of my concerns is that we are going to wake up one day and essentially everything will be posted 30.06. At that point, we won't have the choice of avoiding Whole Foods because HEB is posted, too. I am concerned that this is going to be done through pressure brought to bear by insurance companies, who I fear will at some point start to require postings as a condition of insurance. I have no specific evidence of this yet, but I can easily see the anti's, particularly the financially connected Bloomberg types, convincing insurance executives that they face horrible risks from concealed carriers. As much as I favor open carry, I think it might add fuel to that fire, but that's another discussion.

The point is that the parking lot bill was needed, in part, because if you can't at least keep your gun in your car, you are effectively barred from carrying five days a week if your employer won't allow it at your job. If in the future every place you need to go to transact your daily business is posted, you are similarly effectively barred from carrying. We could get ahead of this if we started lobbying for businesses not to be allowed to prohibit licensed CHL holders.

Actually your concern is why we have 30.06. Before 30.06 gun buster signs were legal notice. Every store had a gun buster sign to the point the CHL program would have pretty much died. But we got 30.06 which saved CHL. I would love to see signs not have force of law, but I realize that is simply not on the table anytime soon in Texas.

[Winchster]

Just to make clear, we are talking about private property that has been opened to the public for some reason - typically for commerce. The rules are already different there. Nobody is suggesting anybody should be able to carry into another person's home or private non-commercial property against that person's wishes.

I'm aware of that. Doesn't change anything. We don't have a "right" to go to Walmart.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. When you open your doors to the public, there is, or at least seems like there should be (I'm not a lawyer), at least some minimum level of expectation that the public does, in fact, have a "right" to be there, since you've essentially invited them. I think that's what Glockster is trying to say.

Now maybe you should in theory be able to dictate the terms which your guests must follow while they are on your property, but that's kind of the crux of my question. The government already tells you, to a large degree and getting larger, what those terms have to be. You already don't get to set them yourself. Given what some of those terms are and the arguments the other groups used to get them, I don't find it a huge stretch that we gun owners ask that licensed concealed carry be one of those "terms".

The difference is simple. The civil rights act and ADA,which I assume is what you're referring to, center around things over which a person has no ability to modify to aquiesce to a business's conditions. The right to keep and bear can be, and your proverbial right to swing your first ends just shy of my nose. Make sense?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Just to make clear, we are talking about private property that has been opened to the public for some reason - typically for commerce. The rules are already different there. Nobody is suggesting anybody should be able to carry into another person's home or private non-commercial property against that person's wishes.

I'm aware of that. Doesn't change anything. We don't have a "right" to go to Walmart.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. When you open your doors to the public, there is, or at least seems like there should be (I'm not a lawyer), at least some minimum level of expectation that the public does, in fact, have a "right" to be there, since you've essentially invited them. I think that's what Glockster is trying to say.

Now maybe you should in theory be able to dictate the terms which your guests must follow while they are on your property, but that's kind of the crux of my question. The government already tells you, to a large degree and getting larger, what those terms have to be. You already don't get to set them yourself. Given what some of those terms are and the arguments the other groups used to get them, I don't find it a huge stretch that we gun owners ask that licensed concealed carry be one of those "terms".

The difference is simple. The civil rights act and ADA,which I assume is what you're referring to, center around things over which a person has no ability to modify to aquiesce to a business's conditions. The right to keep and bear can be, and your proverbial right to swing your first ends just shy of my nose. Make sense?

Actually, this isn't correct. The Civil Rights Act will not let a restaurant have a whites-only section or require blacks to enter by the back door. By entering the back door and not sitting in the whites-only section, a black person would acquiesce to the will of the business owner. The Civil Rights Act and the ADA help the people Congress wanted to help; there's nothing more to either law.

There will always be a divide between people who want property rights to trump everything, whether we're talking about private business property or one's home and other non-business property, and people who view private business property differently. Commercial property is already regulated more than non-business property and the regulations deal primarily with safety of the public entering the property. Requiring a business to allow armed CHL holders to enter does not cost the owner a dine, unlike fire codes, commercial sprinkler requirements, etc. A good argument can also be made that not allowing the forced disarming of customers is another safety issue for the customer, not only while in the store but to and from as well.

Chas.

[Scott Farkus]

The difference is simple. The civil rights act and ADA,which I assume is what you're referring to, center around things over which a person has no ability to modify to aquiesce to a business's conditions. The right to keep and bear can be, and your proverbial right to swing your first ends just shy of my nose. Make sense?

I'm not referring only to the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. Certainly that's part of it, but not all of it. For purposes of this discussion, those are examples of areas where the government can and does tell a private property owner who has a "right" to be on his property. There are countless other examples where the owner doesn't control other aspects of his property if he opens his doors to the public for commerce.

My only point was that the precedent has already been established and once so, we can't just continue to say "your property, your rules, end of discussion", because it's simply not true. You have to consider, among other things, the reasons for the infringements and whether they are fair or applicable to other circumstances.

Were you opposed to the parking lot bill? Because that's an example where "our" side tells a private property owner he can't exclude guns on his property if he wishes.

[Winchster]

I'm not referring only to the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. Certainly that's part of it, but not all of it. For purposes of this discussion, those are examples of areas where the government can and does tell a private property owner who has a "right" to be on his property. There are countless other examples where the owner doesn't control other aspects of his property if he opens his doors to the public for commerce.

My only point was that the precedent has already been established and once so, we can't just continue to say "your property, your rules, end of discussion", because it's simply not true. You have to consider, among other things, the reasons for the infringements and whether they are fair or applicable to other circumstances.

Were you opposed to the parking lot bill? Because that's an example where "our" side tells a private property owner he can't exclude guns on his property if he wishes.

No, because my car is my property. Lol
My problem is, we don't live in the world I would prefer. I think the government should stay completely out of telling private business what it can it can't do and let the market decide who stays in business. That being said, I don't feel infringed or discriminated against when I see a 30.06 on a private business. I simply go elsewhere. I do feel infringed when I encounter said sign at the county hospital though.

[Winchster]

Actually, this isn't correct. The Civil Rights Act will not let a restaurant have a whites-only section or require blacks to enter by the back door. By entering the back door and not sitting in the whites-only section, a black person would acquiesce to the will of the business owner. The Civil Rights Act and the ADA help the people Congress wanted to help; there's nothing more to either law.

There will always be a divide between people who want property rights to trump everything, whether we're talking about private business property or one's home and other non-business property, and people who view private business property differently. Commercial property is already regulated more than non-business property and the regulations deal primarily with safety of the public entering the property. Requiring a business to allow armed CHL holders to enter does not cost the owner a dine, unlike fire codes, commercial sprinkler requirements, etc. A good argument can also be made that not allowing the forced disarming of customers is another safety issue for the customer, not only while in the store but to and from as well.

Chas.

I realize this, I was merely over simplifying for purposes of this discussion.
I can see the other aspect you brought up being an issue as well. Since you seem to have made your position clear may I ask a question? Why do you fight so hard to protect something you appear, at least to me, to disagree with? I ask with utmost respect for your efforts on behalf of all of us.

[Glockster]

Just to make clear, we are talking about private property that has been opened to the public for some reason - typically for commerce. The rules are already different there. Nobody is suggesting anybody should be able to carry into another person's home or private non-commercial property against that person's wishes.

I'm aware of that. Doesn't change anything. We don't have a "right" to go to Walmart.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. When you open your doors to the public, there is, or at least seems like there should be (I'm not a lawyer), at least some minimum level of expectation that the public does, in fact, have a "right" to be there, since you've essentially invited them. I think that's what Glockster is trying to say.

Now maybe you should in theory be able to dictate the terms which your guests must follow while they are on your property, but that's kind of the crux of my question. The government already tells you, to a large degree and getting larger, what those terms have to be. You already don't get to set them yourself. Given what some of those terms are and the arguments the other groups used to get them, I don't find it a huge stretch that we gun owners ask that licensed concealed carry be one of those "terms".

The difference is simple. The civil rights act and ADA,which I assume is what you're referring to, center around things over which a person has no ability to modify to aquiesce to a business's conditions. The right to keep and bear can be, and your proverbial right to swing your first ends just shy of my nose. Make sense?

Actually, this isn't correct. The Civil Rights Act will not let a restaurant have a whites-only section or require blacks to enter by the back door. By entering the back door and not sitting in the whites-only section, a black person would acquiesce to the will of the business owner. The Civil Rights Act and the ADA help the people Congress wanted to help; there's nothing more to either law.

There will always be a divide between people who want property rights to trump everything, whether we're talking about private business property or one's home and other non-business property, and people who view private business property differently. Commercial property is already regulated more than non-business property and the regulations deal primarily with safety of the public entering the property. Requiring a business to allow armed CHL holders to enter does not cost the owner a dine, unlike fire codes, commercial sprinkler requirements, etc. A good argument can also be made that not allowing the forced disarming of customers is another safety issue for the customer, not only while in the store but to and from as well.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Actually, this isn't correct. The Civil Rights Act will not let a restaurant have a whites-only section or require blacks to enter by the back door. By entering the back door and not sitting in the whites-only section, a black person would acquiesce to the will of the business owner. The Civil Rights Act and the ADA help the people Congress wanted to help; there's nothing more to either law.

There will always be a divide between people who want property rights to trump everything, whether we're talking about private business property or one's home and other non-business property, and people who view private business property differently. Commercial property is already regulated more than non-business property and the regulations deal primarily with safety of the public entering the property. Requiring a business to allow armed CHL holders to enter does not cost the owner a dine, unlike fire codes, commercial sprinkler requirements, etc. A good argument can also be made that not allowing the forced disarming of customers is another safety issue for the customer, not only while in the store but to and from as well.

Chas.

I realize this, I was merely over simplifying for purposes of this discussion.
I can see the other aspect you brought up being an issue as well. Since you seem to have made your position clear may I ask a question? Why do you fight so hard to protect something you appear, at least to me, to disagree with? I ask with utmost respect for your efforts on behalf of all of us.

I think I understand your question. I fight to keep Tex. Penal Code §30.06 in tact because it's repeal would mean TPC §30.05 would apply to CHLs and any "no guns" sign, including small decals, would be enforceable. Those decals are too easy to miss and the penalty is too high for doing so.

TPC §30.06 is used in two private property settings, property used for commercial purposes and property not used for commercial purposes. Even if businesses were to be prohibited from using TPC §30.06 to ban CHLs from their commercial property, we still need §30.06 in tact for all other property that is not commercial.

Chas.

[Winchster]

Thank you for your answer, it makes sense. As an aside, maybe someday we can get the penalty reduced, once we win some other battles, to a Class C. Again, thank you.

[joe817]

Thank you for your answer, it makes sense. As an aside, maybe someday we can get the penalty reduced, once we win some other battles, to a Class C. Again, thank you.

[Pawpaw]

Thank you for your answer, it makes sense. As an aside, maybe someday we can get the penalty reduced, once we win some other battles, to a Class C. Again, thank you.

HB 308 appears to do exactly that, in addition to removing the statutorily off-limits locations.

[Winchster]

Thank you for your answer, it makes sense. As an aside, maybe someday we can get the penalty reduced, once we win some other battles, to a Class C. Again, thank you.

HB 308 appears to do exactly that, in addition to removing the statutorily off-limits locations.

it just doesn't remove enough off -limits locations lol.
Separate thread though.

[Scott Farkus]

I'm not referring only to the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. Certainly that's part of it, but not all of it. For purposes of this discussion, those are examples of areas where the government can and does tell a private property owner who has a "right" to be on his property. There are countless other examples where the owner doesn't control other aspects of his property if he opens his doors to the public for commerce.

My only point was that the precedent has already been established and once so, we can't just continue to say "your property, your rules, end of discussion", because it's simply not true. You have to consider, among other things, the reasons for the infringements and whether they are fair or applicable to other circumstances.

Were you opposed to the parking lot bill? Because that's an example where "our" side tells a private property owner he can't exclude guns on his property if he wishes.

No, because my car is my property. Lol
My problem is, we don't live in the world I would prefer. I think the government should stay completely out of telling private business what it can it can't do and let the market decide who stays in business. That being said, I don't feel infringed or discriminated against when I see a 30.06 on a private business. I simply go elsewhere. I do feel infringed when I encounter said sign at the county hospital though.

Not sure if you intended for this to be a joke or not, but it's a serious question. Is your person not your property? It's OK to violate another's private property rights to carry in your car, but not concealed on your person, especially when you are licensed to do so by the state? I have to say, I don't get the distinction, especially if one takes the position that property rights always win.

Maybe the Castle Doctrine only extends to your vehicle but not your person (just speculating here, I don't know)? But that still required a judgment in favor of gun owners (and not just CHL holders in this case) against private property rights, so again, private property rights are not always sacrosanct and therefore that can't be the final word in the discussion.