TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:. . . At minimum, 30.06 signage should go away, since no one should know that a person is carrying concealed IF it is done properly, and therefore cannot cause an issue unless the firearm is removed from concealment, which would be a different ballgame.

If you were in Texas in the period from 1995 until 9/1/1997, you wouldn't say that, unless you want Licensees to be unable to carry in some/many locations. You seem to believe that the generic "no guns" sign or decal was unenforceable prior to 9/1/97, but you would be mistaken.

I understand your position on 30.06 signs v. verbal order to leave. I simply disagree with you, as does the Legislature and most private property owners.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I am quite confused on something. In some states, Oklahoma being one of them, no sign has the force of law; gunbusters are meaningless. Open carriers, once notified, must leave or they can be arrested for trespassing, which seems to be the de facto situation here in Texas, despite 30.07 signs. I understand keeping LTCers out of what I will call property without general public access, but I cannot understand keeping LTCers out of private property that is open to the public, such as retail establishments or restaurants. My analogy about the sagging pants/underwear thing was meant to highlight what I see as a disconnect in the law. Someone showing their underwear is certainly more intrusive than a licensed person carrying concealed, why can that not be stopped via a sign that has the force of law, if the issue is really about private property rights? I fully comply with all proper signage, so I don't want anyone reading this to think I disregard the law. I'm simply confused about the real issues behind things sometimes.

EDITED (BECAUSE I HIT THE SUBMIT INSTEAD OF PREVIEW):

Just to re-clarify, the sagging pants/showing underwear thing is merely an example to further my line of thinking. Based on statistics for how few LTC holders commit crimes, I almost guarantee that someone sagging their pants (or wearing sports team gear, whatever) is more likely to commit a crime (unless somehow they are also an LTC holder). Yet, the LTC holder may be barred from entering a business by an enforceable sign, but someone doing something such as showing their underwear cannot be barred without saying something to them. IF it's really only about property rights versus for some other reason, then other individuals should also be able to be barred due to specific transgressions against the rights of the property owner by enforceable signage, OR LTC holders should NOT be able to be barred by enforceable signage. At minimum, 30.06 signage should go away, since no one should know that a person is carrying concealed IF it is done properly, and therefore cannot cause an issue unless the firearm is removed from concealment, which would be a different ballgame.

LucasMcCain wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, let me get this correct here: property rights in Texas are important, and folks who own property should be able to ask others to leave if the conduct of the other individual bothers the property owner? So, if I own a store, and a guy comes in sagging his pants down past his underwear, it's okay for me to ask him to leave? And if he refuses, it's okay for me to call the police and they will aid me in getting the sag pants guy to leave?

To the very best of my understanding, yes. You can refuse service to anyone, and you can request that anyone leave your property for just about any reason you see fit. There are exceptions, but dress code is not one of them. If they refuse to leave when told to, they are trespassing. If I'm wrong or missing something, I'm sure someone will correct me here in a minute.

Alright, I can ASK them to leave for something like that. Can I post an enforceable sign stating something like "No Sagging of pants/no visible underwear"? By enforceable, I mean, can I immediately call police if someone in comes with their underwear showing, after passing the sign, and that person will get in trouble for it? I'm trying to make a point here, nothing personal intended toward anyone in the least.

So, let me get this correct here: property rights in Texas are important, and folks who own property should be able to ask others to leave if the conduct of the other individual bothers the property owner? So, if I own a store, and a guy comes in sagging his pants down past his underwear, it's okay for me to ask him to leave? And if he refuses, it's okay for me to call the police and they will aid me in getting the sag pants guy to leave? Or am I suddenly going to find myself "violating someone's civil rights" because I really don't want to see their underwear?

The reason I bring this example up is that it seems easier to exclude someone for something that cannot be seen and is bothering no one (a properly concealed handgun carried by a license holder) than it is to exclude something that can be seen and bothers others (some grown man's underwear).