Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit

[Soccerdad1995]

Here are my thoughts on the "property rights vs RKBA" topic.

We have a conflict of some extremely fundamental rights here. The right to life (means for self defense) vs the right to the pursuit of happiness (which was originally stated as the right to private property ownership). It is clear that neither right cannot be summarily disregarded, given the underlying importance of each. Rather, a balance needs to be struck.

I propose that we grant private property owners the right to restrict access to their property to only invited guests, and further that if the property owner changes their mind after inviting someone and wants them to leave at any time, they should have the right to insist that the offending person does exactly that, and leaves in an expeditious manner.

But I don't think that a property owner should be able to restrict the fundamental freedoms of their guests while the guest is on their property. I disagree with the notion that a private property owner should be able to limit access only to those who have (or have not) voted in the last election, through signage or otherwise. If that fact is discovered by the property owner after the person is on their property, he/she can ask the guest to leave, but we should not be allowing business owners to have people arrested simply because they exercised their right to vote. I feel the same way about not being able to have a guest arrested because you discover that they tweeted something negative about your business, even if you warn them with a clearly worded sign, that this behavior means they are not welcome. Same thing with finding out that one of your guests likes to put Ketchup on their hot dogs. Ask them to leave if it bothers you, but you shouldn't be able to have them arrested, no matter how much this culinary abomination offends your very sensibilities. Find out that your friends dad wore a speedo on his summer vacation? Kick him the heck out of your house. But, again, you should not be able to have him arrested. Even if you have a sign by your front door that clearly says "anyone who has ever wore a speedo in public is forbidden from entering this building".

And of course, the same goes for someone who is exercising their right to keep and bear arms. If you discover that they have the gall to not want to be a defenseless victim, and it rightly bothers you, then ask your guest to leave. But no, you should not be able to have them arrested for this, anymore than any of the other things I listed above, which have equal impact to a property owner as someone who is carrying a concealed weapon. Apart from potentially offending one's sensibilities, there is essentially no real impact at all.

Now of course, if you insist that someone leave and they refuse to do so, then and only then should you be able to use our tax payer dollars to have LEO's take care of the situation.

[G40yes]

We have a conflict of some extremely fundamental rights here. The right to life (means for self defense) vs the right to the pursuit of happiness (which was originally stated as the right to private property ownership). It is clear that neither right cannot be summarily disregarded, given the underlying importance of each. Rather, a balance needs to be struck ...

Soccerdad, I like the thoughts that you laid out. Since IANAL there could be many complications that I don't see right now, but I still like what you described.

[dlh]

Do you guys really not know that Texas law is clear, anyone can sue you for anything, you have to pay to defend yourself, doesn’t matter if you win or lose, you still lose in the end. The time, cost, and emotional toll of being sued for stupid reasons, even when you win, is not good.

I think your statements could be misleading. If you mean you can file a petition that says I hired little green men from mars to chase you then that is correct. If you mean you have any chances whatsoever of prevailing then that is incorrect and misleading. That is obviously a frivolous suit and would be quickly dismissed. Texas has also adopted the "loser pays" doctrine which means when I get your frivolous lawsuit tossed that I may receive a judgment against you for court costs plus my attorney's fees.

You would be ill-advised to file a frivolous lawsuit in Texas.

[TreyHouston]

Do you guys really not know that Texas law is clear, anyone can sue you for anything, you have to pay to defend yourself, doesn’t matter if you win or lose, you still lose in the end. The time, cost, and emotional toll of being sued for stupid reasons, even when you win, is not good.

I think your statements could be misleading. If you mean you can file a petition that says I hired little green men from mars to chase you then that is correct. If you mean you have any chances whatsoever of prevailing then that is incorrect and misleading. That is obviously a frivolous suit and would be quickly dismissed. Texas has also adopted the "loser pays" doctrine which means when I get your frivolous lawsuit tossed that I may receive a judgment against you for court costs plus my attorney's fees.

You would be ill-advised to file a frivolous lawsuit in Texas.

That was quoted to look like I said that, and I did not. I am 100% sure it was an accident.

[dlh]

Do you guys really not know that Texas law is clear, anyone can sue you for anything, you have to pay to defend yourself, doesn’t matter if you win or lose, you still lose in the end. The time, cost, and emotional toll of being sued for stupid reasons, even when you win, is not good.

I think your statements could be misleading. If you mean you can file a petition that says I hired little green men from mars to chase you then that is correct. If you mean you have any chances whatsoever of prevailing then that is incorrect and misleading. That is obviously a frivolous suit and would be quickly dismissed. Texas has also adopted the "loser pays" doctrine which means when I get your frivolous lawsuit tossed that I may receive a judgment against you for court costs plus my attorney's fees.

You would be ill-advised to file a frivolous lawsuit in Texas.

That was quoted to look like I said that, and I did not. I am 100% sure it was an accident.

Corrected!

[Soccerdad1995]

We have a conflict of some extremely fundamental rights here. The right to life (means for self defense) vs the right to the pursuit of happiness (which was originally stated as the right to private property ownership). It is clear that neither right cannot be summarily disregarded, given the underlying importance of each. Rather, a balance needs to be struck ...

Soccerdad, I like the thoughts that you laid out. Since IANAL there could be many complications that I don't see right now, but I still like what you described.

The more I think about it, I really struggle to understand how the property owners rights are infringed at all by one of their guests having a concealed handgun. The property owner has the right to the enjoyment and profit from ownership of their home, store, factory, etc. I really struggle to understand how these rights are diminished in any way by the presence of a handgun that they cannot see. To me, this is on the same level as having a guest in your home who didn't vote in the last election, likes to wear inappropriate swimming attire, or the other examples I noted. Since there is no infringement of rights to the property owner, as long as the handgun is concealed, I just have a hard time justifying an infringement on the rights of their guests to keep and bear arms.

Now if the gun is openly displayed, then the math potentially changes significantly. In that case, there is a possibility that a store owner would not be able to profit as much from their property ownership as some customers could be scared away, or a homeowner could have a panic attack and not feel secure in their home. Yes, the underlying "harm" would be dependent on irrational phobias being present in others, but at least there would be some potential for harm / infringement of private property rights. Of course, even then a simple request for the person to leave could still eliminate any potential harm, unless the armed person refused to leave.

This lack of any real harm to the property owner makes it really hard for me to justify infringement of basic human rights in response.

[BBYC]

I understand 30.06 was thought necessary back in the 90s. I understand the recent change to a class C fine makes it small taters in practical terms.

I don't understand why a business can prohibit a concealed handgun worn by someone with a LTC but can't prohibit a concealed Koran carried by someone with no license. I don't understand why a business can prohibit a handgun even if a person is licensed but can't prohibit dogs if somebody claims it's an assistance animal, with no license. If the government cares so much about the rights of property owners, somebody who is afraid of dogs or allergic should be able to prohibit dogs in their business the same as people who fear guns can ban guns.

[Pariah3j]

I understand 30.06 was thought necessary back in the 90s. I understand the recent change to a class C fine makes it small taters in practical terms.

I don't understand why a business can prohibit a concealed handgun worn by someone with a LTC but can't prohibit a concealed Koran carried by someone with no license. I don't understand why a business can prohibit a handgun even if a person is licensed but can't prohibit dogs if somebody claims it's an assistance animal, with no license. If the government cares so much about the rights of property owners, somebody who is afraid of dogs or allergic should be able to prohibit dogs in their business the same as people who fear guns can ban guns.

I'm not a business owner, nor a lawyer - but I believe they have to be a certified assistance animal to be exempt from being banned. Now, how do you prove the dog isn't an assistance animal, I'm unsure. My guess is maybe by default businesses have to assume someone is telling you the truth about it being an assistant animal so long as they aren't causing a problem.

[CZp10]

Just got off the phone with a practicing Texas attorney. They made it very clear that HB435 does NOT give volunteer emergency personnel the right to enter a 30.06/07 location unless there is an emergency currently happening. The confusion stems from the word “during” in the definition of a VESP. You have the right to a defense to prosecution under HB435 if you are a volunteer emergency person entering the posted location “during” an emergency. You do not have the defense of HB435 if there is no emergency where you would be providing help to the public.

In other words, HB435 did basically nothing whatsoever for concealed carry and 30.06/07 signs except if you are a VESP and you enter the location during an emergency.

If you disagree with this please post or PM me the contact information for the attorney who told you otherwise, I would like to speak with them. Thanks.

[TreyHouston]

Where is the word "during"???

[Aunt Eva]

Just got off the phone with a practicing Texas attorney. They made it very clear that HB435 does NOT give volunteer emergency personnel the right to enter a 30.06/07 location unless there is an emergency currently happening. The confusion stems from the word “during” in the definition of a VESP. You have the right to a defense to prosecution under HB435 if you are a volunteer emergency person entering the posted location “during” an emergency. You do not have the defense of HB435 if there is no emergency where you would be providing help to the public.

In other words, HB435 did basically nothing whatsoever for concealed carry and 30.06/07 signs except if you are a VESP and you enter the location during an emergency.

If you disagree with this please post or PM me the contact information for the attorney who told you otherwise, I would like to speak with them. Thanks.

Please post the contact information for the attorney who found the word "during" in the change to the 30.06 law.

[CZp10]

To be perfectly clear, I would like to disagree with the attorney’s interpretation but they seemed quite adamant, and said the court would see that the clear intent of HB435 was to provide protection for people providing services during an emergency. Most everyone would agree that we wouldn’t want to prosecute an LTC holder who entered a 30.06/07 location to provide emergency medical care, or help someone in an emergency. What many would not agree with is that HB435 gives unlimited blanket protection to 30.06/07 violations to anyone who self-proclaims to be a VESP, when there is no emergency or they are not providing any aid.

The problem lies in the definition section of HB435 here, I have added the bold and underline for the word "during":
“ SECTION 4. Section 46.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivision (18) to read as follows:
(18) "Volunteer emergency services personnel"
includes a volunteer firefighter, an emergency medical services
volunteer as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code,
and any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the
benefit of the general public during emergency situations. The
term does not include a peace officer or reserve law enforcement
officer, as those terms are defined by Section 1701.001,
Occupations Code, who is performing law enforcement duties.”

The confusion arises from the use of “during” in this definition. I would very much like to hear informed opinions on why the attorney I spoke with might be mistaken, because I have always read this part of HB435 to just mean someone who, in general, will provided services if and when there is an emergency. If the 30.06/.07 defense to prosecution was meant to only apply while the VESP is engaged in providing services, why is that not mentioned?