Trust me when I say that you are not in the minority. Most people I know disagree with me about one thing or another.Charles L. Cotton wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. You and I aren't focusing on the "fairness" issue in the same context. You want to view trespass from a much broader perspective. I'm focusing on current trespass laws dealing with the possession of handguns, i.e. TPC §§30.06 and 30.07.
Currently, there are two ways to keep LTCs off private property when they carry self-defense handguns. For concealed-carry, a sign complying with TPC §30.06 can be posted or the property owner can give oral notice. The same is true for TPC §30.07 dealing with open-carry. Those wanting to render 30.06/30.07 signs ineffective are not seeking to render oral notice ineffective, so they acknowledge that a property owner should be able to exclude armed persons from their property. While they agree that property owners should be able to exclude armed people, they argue that they should only be able to do so by confronting the armed individual. That's the part I consider unfair.
Very few businesses post 30.06 signs. The few that do include businesses owned by out-of-state corporations as well as mom & pop shops. If someone is truly fearful of guns, as unfounded as that fear may be, how is it fair to force that property/business owner to either accept the presence of firearms in their store or confront the person of whom they are afraid? While my example is of someone who is afraid of guns, the concept is not limited to such people. Texas law allows two methods of excluding armed people from private property; one is non-confrontational (signs) the other requires a confrontation (oral notice). There's no justification for allowing only the latter. This is especially true for open-carry.
Chas.
The problem I am having is with the contention that it is unfair to ask a business owner to ask someone to leave before they call the police and have that person cited with a criminal offense. There is nothing inherently wrong or criminal about carrying a weapon. Just like there is nothing inherently wrong or criminal about being 6 feet tall, weighing 300 pounds, and sporting a collection of face tattoos, or wearing a hoodie as a teenager while you are hanging out with 4 or 5 of your friends.
In all 3 cases (including a person with an OC firearm), a business owner may have fear seeing these folks walk through their door. Let's put aside whether that fear is reasonable in any of these cases. My issue is that the business owner can call the police to cite the gun owner, but must first "confront the person of whom they are afraid" in the other two examples. If it is unfair to make a business owner confront someone they are (reasonably or unreasonably) afraid of, then why are we limiting this to gun owners and not all people who might inspire fear, even if that fear is irrational and unfounded?
with you on requiring businesses that are open to the public to actually be open to all of the public.