TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:This goes back to a person's sovereignty over his own property. Simply stating your wish that no guns allowed should be enough. A better question is why a specified script for a sign. Why shouldn't a sign that says 'no guns allowed' carry the same weight as my telling you no guns allowed? That's the real question. The fact that I must use specific wording in a sign of enumerated specification infringes more on my sovereignty over my own property and my associated property rights than it infringes on your right to carry a gun on my property. The constitutional right to carry a gun never trumped my control of my own property or my ability to demand conditions upon which entry thereto is based.

tex

The Importance of Keeping Tex. Penal Code Sections 30.06 and 30.07 Separate

]TPC Episode #2 - In the Crosshairs segment

Soap wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Soap wrote:If I own a pizza shop and I ask you to leave you should leave.

I agree.

Soap wrote:If I say I don't want you with a gun you should do it.

Disagree. What else do you want to order me to do? Not vote Republican? Not think about Kate Upton? Sorry, but you don't get to control everything your customers do or think just because they are in your pizza shop. The world does not revolve around you, and other people have rights as well.

Soap wrote: IT's my business and in a true free market and free America, I should have the right to kick whoever I want out. If I don't like green people then so be it.

I agree. I also think you should have the right to kick out whoever you want. If they refuse to leave after being told, then you should be able to get the assistance of law enforcement to arrest them.

You don't just want property rights. You want the right to control every aspect of the people who visit your business. There is a difference.

It's my business, if you don't like it then don't give me yours or make your own. THIS IS AMERICA! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP YOU FROM MY OWNED BUSINESS. Do you go in people house wearing shoes if they tell you to take them off? There is no disagreement, it's a fact. It's already been won in court cases.

The court cases you speak of have made it clear that we do not have the ability to exclude anyone and everyone for any reason or no reason when we are talking about businesses open to the public. No, you do not have a "right" to exclude anyone you wish for any reason you wish. That's the way you want the law to be, but it simply is not.

Government has more authority to control commercial property open to the public, than it has over private property not open to the public. Like it or not, that's the law. I think property is over-regulated, but my feelings on the issue do not rise to the level of a "right." The free market argument is a red herring. Fire codes, electric codes, plumbing codes, elevator codes all came into being because greedy people cared about nothing but profits and didn't want to spend money to create a reasonably safe environment.

Chas.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it.

Why not? If a manager at a Whataburger can tell an ON-duty LEO in uniform that they don't allow guns in their store and that they refuse them service, why can't you tell an off-duty one to leave?

TPC §30.05 was amended to exclude LEO's, if the basis for barring their entry is that they are carrying a handgun. This applies whether the LEO was on duty or off. It's absurd, but it's the law. While a burger joint can refuse service, there's no legal basis to order the officer off of the property.

Chas.

TPC §30.05(i) wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

But that only protects the LEO if the reason for asking them to leave is their weapon, correct? Someone could still order them off the property and just not give a reason, couldn't they?

Yes, the Code section I posted is related to trying to exclude an armed LEO, whether they are on duty or off duty.

Chas.

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it.

Why not? If a manager at a Whataburger can tell an ON-duty LEO in uniform that they don't allow guns in their store and that they refuse them service, why can't you tell an off-duty one to leave?

TPC §30.05 was amended to exclude LEO's, if the basis for barring their entry is that they are carrying a handgun. This applies whether the LEO was on duty or off. It's absurd, but it's the law. While a burger joint can refuse service, there's no legal basis to order the officer off of the property.

Chas.

TPC §30.05(i) wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

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.