Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.
And also, as you said earlier in the thread, Austin as well as a large portion of gun owners aren't ready to go there. That's been clear to me from my discussions on other forums. I'm very pleased to have gotten some sympathetic ears here - that's pretty much not been the case elsewhere.
I appreciate you educating me on the history of 30.06. I knew it was necessary and beneficial to us initially, but I think I mischaracterized it a bit in my OP. Still, I am concerned that we are going to end up in a place soon that we don't want to be, and I hope threads like this plant a seed with folks that we need to rethink some of this stuff in light of what's going on in the larger culture.
In order to get any true change in 30.06, it'll take a three-pronged approach:
1. LEGISLATIVE: Work with the Lege to reduce the penalty on 30.06 from Class A to Class C or eliminate it entirely by folding it into current trespass law. Reduce the number of places that can post 30.06 signs. And put significant penalties on posting an improperly posted 30.06 sign.
2. JUDICIAL: We've talked a lot about businesses having liability for customer safety if they post 30.06 law. Now it's time to put some teeth behind it. Anyone who becomes a crime victim because they were in a 30.06 posted business (even if in the parking lot) should sue that business under the same safety liability laws that cover wet floors or exposed wiring. And all the pro-gun groups like OCT, TSRA, and others should help bankroll these suits. Money talks, and writing checks to lawyers will send a strong message to businesses.
3. SOCIAL: This is the age of Facebook, Twitter, and social shaming. Time to use all three in the 30.06 fight. If you see a business that posts a 30.06 sign, post it on your social media pages and explain why you won't do business with them. And then post it on that business' social media pages. And post it on any other social media outlets you know of. Nothing says "social shaming" like having your business announced that it does not allow customers and employees to effectively defend themselves from those wishing to do criminal acts (or provide any type of security at all)...esp. before closing time when the cash register is full.
I would submit that next session one of our Pro Gun allies in the Tx legislature should present bills to prevent carrying of a myriad of items past a sign. I mean why should stop at guns?
30.08- To prevent that carrying of pepper spray.
30.09- To prevent the carrying of knives.
30.10- To prevent chainsaws.
30.11- To prevent bolt cutters.
30.12- To prevent hooded sweatshirts.
30.13- To prevent wearing of boxers (briefs only past this sign)
The notion that eliminating the force of law behind 30.06 is a slap in the face to private property owners seems quite silly to me. You are not telling private property owners that they can't ask someone with a gun to leave; just that like any other person, a gun owner must be asked to leave (and not do so) to constituent trespass.
This is especially true if we are going for licensed open carry. Through 20 years of CHL history we have proven to be a law abiding bunch, yet some claim that if we were OCing and a business owner asked us to leave all hell would break loose. I would suspect the CHLers in TX will continue to be exemplary in their behavior, not matter how they happen to choose to carry their guns.
steveincowtown wrote:I would submit that next session one of our Pro Gun allies in the Tx legislature should present bills to prevent carrying of a myriad of items past a sign. I mean why should stop at guns?
30.08- To prevent that carrying of pepper spray.
30.09- To prevent the carrying of knives.
30.10- To prevent chainsaws.
30.11- To prevent bolt cutters.
30.12- To prevent hooded sweatshirts.
30.13- To prevent wearing of boxers (briefs only past this sign)
The notion that eliminating the force of law behind 30.06 is a slap in the face to private property owners seems quite silly to me. You are not telling private property owners that they can't ask someone with a gun to leave; just that like any other person, a gun owner must be asked to leave (and not do so) to constituent trespass.
This is especially true if we are going for licensed open carry. Through 20 years of CHL history we have proven to be a law abiding bunch, yet some claim that if we were OCing and a business owner asked us to leave all heck would break loose. I would suspect the CHLers in TX will continue to be exemplary in their behavior, not matter how they happen to choose to carry their guns.
^^^This.....but I do have to disagree with 30.13. That should only apply to Open Carry....and only if there are two points of retention....
I get both sides of the arguments--rights of individuals vs. the rights of private property owners. But I tend to agree with the OP's perspective here.
There are very few rights specifically outlined in the Constitution that unequivocally define a permissible act such as the right to bear arms. With all deference to protected classes, their rights arn't detailed in the Constitution directly--they are provided by a protection act passed by Congress and signed by the President. My point is that the 2nd amendment stating that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed trumps the property rights (for sake of discussion--property that is open to the public) of any business owner. True private property--not open to the public--is a different story.
As a result, unless I'm being disruptive and potentially violating additional laws outlining my behavior in public, a business owner should not be able to ask me to leave only because I'm exercising my 2nd Amendment right. When I walk through the doors at some place like Sprouts, I don't check my right to discuss things with my wife--just like I shouldn't have to check my right to carry a weapon. Now, if I started screaming and causing a problem--sure... If pull out my gun and start unloading / loading it--then sure, I should be asked to leave because I'm being disruptive...
For those making the argument that businesses can enforce dress codes and the like, I'd point out that the Constitution doesn't specifically outline your right to dress (or not dress) a certain way--at least not in the way it does regarding ones right to bear arms. Of course one could make the argument about self-expression, free speech, and the 1st Amendment, but that is a topic for a different kind of thread/forum. My point is the 2nd Amendment states my right shall not be infringed and it seems like that is all people seem to be doing--over and over and over.
SIG P226 (IDPA) + Glock 26 (EDC)
CHL Since 3/2013 (35 Days Mailbox-to-Mailbox)
Deltaboy wrote:Since I am going to Hospitals all hours of the day and night all over DFW and Waco, I would like to see the probation of CCW in Hospitals ended .
prohibition?
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
Deltaboy wrote:Since I am going to Hospitals all hours of the day and night all over DFW and Waco, I would like to see the probation of CCW in Hospitals ended .
prohibition?
Were you on your phone or something that has spellcheck?
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
I respect a persons right to allow or not allow me in their business concealed or other wise . I control what happens or doesn't happen on my own property . I'm pretty sure most here feel that way . Why would I want to force someone ? It's a rare occasion that there is not an alternative to doing business where your not welcome .
chuck j wrote:I respect a persons right to allow or not allow me in their business concealed or other wise . I control what happens or doesn't happen on my own property . I'm pretty sure most here feel that way . Why would I want to force someone ? It's a rare occasion that there is not an alternative to doing business where your not welcome .
When you own property that you open to the public for commerce, you already don't get to control what does or does not happen on that property. The rules are already different there. We force businesses to do things they don't want to do all the time, things far more troubling and intrusive than licensed and concealed carry which the business owner and customers won't even be aware of anyway.
chuck j wrote:I respect a persons right to allow or not allow me in their business concealed or other wise . I control what happens or doesn't happen on my own property . I'm pretty sure most here feel that way . Why would I want to force someone ? It's a rare occasion that there is not an alternative to doing business where your not welcome .
When you own property that you open to the public for commerce, you already don't get to control what does or does not happen on that property. The rules are already different there. We force businesses to do things they don't want to do all the time, things far more troubling and intrusive than licensed and concealed carry which the business owner and customers won't even be aware of anyway.
Do you oppose the parking lot bill?
And I'd suggest that my 2nd amendment right in support of my ability to defend myself is no less important.
NRA Life Member
My State Rep Hubert won't tell me his position on HB560. How about yours?
chuck j wrote:I respect a persons right to allow or not allow me in their business concealed or other wise . I control what happens or doesn't happen on my own property . I'm pretty sure most here feel that way . Why would I want to force someone ? It's a rare occasion that there is not an alternative to doing business where your not welcome .
When you own property that you open to the public for commerce, you already don't get to control what does or does not happen on that property. The rules are already different there. We force businesses to do things they don't want to do all the time, things far more troubling and intrusive than licensed and concealed carry which the business owner and customers won't even be aware of anyway.
Do you oppose the parking lot bill?
I can say I don't think it's unconstitutional or anything like that to mandate that a business must allow firearms. I do hold that regardless of the ability to require such it would be wrong based on my morals. Even as a gun enthusiast anyone who would try and squash private property rights to that extent would be crossing a line that one shouldn't. It is also absolutely tone deaf about what people will tolerate. Even the attempt to do what you advocate would be politically harmful to the community. Considering the limited nature of 30.06 useage why worry? Lowering the penalty and the statutory restrictions makes sense but trying to force people just because doesn't.
chuck j wrote:I respect a persons right to allow or not allow me in their business concealed or other wise . I control what happens or doesn't happen on my own property . I'm pretty sure most here feel that way . Why would I want to force someone ? It's a rare occasion that there is not an alternative to doing business where your not welcome .
When you own property that you open to the public for commerce, you already don't get to control what does or does not happen on that property. The rules are already different there. We force businesses to do things they don't want to do all the time, things far more troubling and intrusive than licensed and concealed carry which the business owner and customers won't even be aware of anyway.
Do you oppose the parking lot bill?
I'm not talking about legality or constitutional rights , I'm talking about having the common decency to respect another persons wishes while on their property . You would expect it and I would also . If a man does not want you on his property with a gun why would you have the compulsion to force him ? Does that seem right to you ? There is the matter of common respect .
How many times are people going to say the same things? There are two camps; those who feel private property rights trump everything else, and those who realize that commercial property open to the public can and is regulated far more heavily than non-commercial property.
Nothing anyone is going to say is going to move anyone from one camp to the other.
