TexasCHLforum.com

LucasMcCain wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I agree with you on the ability to control who enters my property. But I think you are missing my point.

As it stands, I can restrict every single person from entering my property if I so desire. And I think that is a great thing. I can also invite someone onto my property and then tell them to leave if they do something I don't like, or I just change my mind. Again, I think that is a great thing.

But I cannot tell someone that they can enter my property only if they have the following 3 items, and only if they do not have these two other items, and then have them arrested for trespassing if it turns out that they really had something I told them not to bring. The ONLY exception is for guns. If we want to let property owners issue a conditional invitation and have people arrested for trespass if they don't adhere to those conditions, then fine, I get that. But why is this only the case for guns and not for anything else?

I'm not extremely well versed in property law and such, but I'm not entirely sure this is correct. No shirt, no shoes, no service comes to mind. As do restrictions at concert venues and stadiums and the like. Look at the FAQ for whatever they're calling Starplex in Fair Park now. There are tons of restricted items that will get you ejected if you're found with them inside. Now I realize that in those instances you will not be charged with criminal trespass. However, could you be if you refused to leave? Under what authority would you be removed from the property by law enforcement if not trespassing?

Please don't think I'm trying to argue. I'm certainly not. Just trying to add to the discussion, as I really don't know the answers to the questions I pose. I'm also still pretty unclear on just what types of qualifiers can be used to charge someone with trespassing.

Lynyrd wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Lynyrd wrote: Property rights issues are the real sticking point. I'm not willing to "give up" anything in exchange for my 2A rights. But, at the same time, it's going to be very, very difficult (if not impossible) to say that a property owner does not have the right to control what guns are allowed on their property. Private property, is just that, privately owned property and I for one would have great trouble with any government entity telling me what I can and cannot allow on my own property. It's already bad enough that Texas says it owns all the wild game on my property, and in some states they saw we don't own the water on our property. Thank goodness Texas is that communistic.

Regarding the part I bolded, the reality is that you, as a private property owner do not have the right to prevent anything from coming onto your property that you can't see. You have the right to tell anyone to leave (as long as they are not in a protected class), but you can't legally keep them from carrying anything onto your property that you can't see, no matter how distasteful that item might be to you personally, or how offensive you might find it to be. I can legally walk into a Synagogue with a Nazi swastika necklace under my shirt. If someone discovers that I have it, they can ask me to leave. But they can't have me arrested even if they posted a sign saying I wasn't allowed to bring it in the building.

Guns are the only legal item that is singled out for legal exclusion. I am all for private property rights, but why the fixation on this one thing?

Don't get me wrong. I am all for LTC's carrying guns on my property. If you come to my shop just about any weekend you may see several guys OC who stopped by to shoot the breeze while I am fixing some piece of equipment for one of them.

To try and answer your question, I will offer this. 30.06 and 30.07 are criminal trespass offenses. As a rural property owner I have my property posted with No Trespassing signs, and I DO have the right to prevent any person from coming on to my property, period. Obviously I cannot catch them or prosecute them if I don't SEE them, or find evidence that they were there (security footage). But, you better not get caught on my property without my permission.

This same principle goes to 30.06 and 30.07. Private property owners who are running a business on their property are allowing you to enter their property without committing the offense of trespassing. 30.06 and 30.07 says (in effect) that you are trespassing if you carry. Removing the right for a private property owner who invested his blood, sweat, tears, and money into his property to control who enters that property (for any reason) could be a slippery slope. Matters not whether the property is ranch land, or an auto repair shop.

I'm sure all will not agree with me. That's okay. But consider this, the same principle holds true for your personal residence. You have the right to control who enters that residence, and that includes LEO. They cannot enter with gaining a warrant from a Judge based on suspicion of a crime. You can prevent your undesirable neighbor from trespassing. Or in some unfortunate cases it may be necessary to prevent a family member or extended family member from trespassing. Losing any piece of that control over your own property is not something I could agree with.

Lynyrd wrote: Property rights issues are the real sticking point. I'm not willing to "give up" anything in exchange for my 2A rights. But, at the same time, it's going to be very, very difficult (if not impossible) to say that a property owner does not have the right to control what guns are allowed on their property. Private property, is just that, privately owned property and I for one would have great trouble with any government entity telling me what I can and cannot allow on my own property. It's already bad enough that Texas says it owns all the wild game on my property, and in some states they saw we don't own the water on our property. Thank goodness Texas is that communistic.