TexasCHLforum.com

Vol Texan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:19 am Well, there is a simple solution to make the entire suit moot:

Make it such that no variant of any “no guns” sign has the force of law. Call it the “Florida technique”, or the “Georgia provision”, or the “most-places-in-Montana-except-that-liberal-infested-pit-named-Missoula” accord.

Or we could simply have the law state that if a property owner wants to have the police arrest people who have the audacity to enter their premises without meeting specific criteria, the person must first refuse to leave after being told to leave by the property owner, or their representative. Violating something written on a sign, however prominent, would not equate to being guilty of trespass without the refusal to leave.

This is how things work in reality, right now. At least for the most part. A store that has a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign first tells the shirtless patron that they have to leave. The police aren't even called unless that person refuses to leave the store. Same thing for a movie theater / restaurant with a sign that says "no outside food or drink". The lady with a candy bar in her purse isn't charged with trespass unless she actually refuses to leave after being told to do so.

There are many untrue statements in this lawsuit. To cite just one example, it is not true that a business must post signage to avail themselves of Texas' Criminal Trespass statutes. They can call the police and have anyone removed, for almost any reason, AFTER telling that person to leave (and assuming that the person does not actually leave). That is the standard for pretty much every type of "offensive" person / behavior.

In general, in order for a business owner to call the police and have a hope of filing criminal trespass charges against a person, WITHOUT first telling that person to leave, the sign would have to specifically state that they are not allowed to enter the premises if they are not in compliance with specific requirements. A simple "no hoodies" sign would not be sufficient. The sign would have to say "if you are wearing a hoodie, then you are not allowed to enter these premises, and doing so will constitute trespass", or similar wording. Similarly, a "no pink underwear" or "no tattoos" sign would not mean that someone is guilty of trespassing if they enter your place with the offending item on their body. There is an exception made for some things, including the possession of guns, by allowing a business owner to use different signage.

I also don't see how there is any potential first amendment violation. The government is not prohibiting anyone from expressing their thoughts and ideas. The government is not saying that a business owner can't tell you that they don't sell specific types of guns on the premises (by posting a circle / slash gun decal), or that they don't issue permits for guns ("Guns are not permitted on these premises"), or anything else they want to say regarding firearms. They can express their ideas all they want on these or any other subjects.

If anything, this is a conflict between the second amendment rights of patrons and the rights of business owners to do what they want with their property. In that regard, it is similar to the right of a person of a specific race to enter a place of public accommodation versus the right of a racist business owner to exclude people of that race from their establishment. In both cases the conflict is between property owners rights versus the civil rights of people who wish to patronize their establishment.