New Article: Open-Carry Bills Must Preserve 30.06

[Charles L. Cotton]

I published a new article Open-Carry Bills Must Preserve 30.06 on http://www.TexasFirearmsCoalition.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I drafted it before someone sent me a copy of C.J. Grisham's post attacking HB910 in part because it creates a new §30.07 and keeps §30.06 applicable only to concealed-carry. His rationale would be laughable were this not such a serious issue.

Chas.

[Rrash]

I completely agree that 30.06 needs to apply only to concealed carry, having nothing to do with open carry. My concern is that having two different signs will actually produce more 30.06 signs. If I am an anti-gun business owner, and I go through the trouble of putting up a 30.07 sign, why wouldn't I go ahead and put up a 30.06 as well? And if we made a sign that worked for both 30.06 and 30.07 (call it 30.08 for the sake of argument), why wouldn't I post that sign to save space? Even if you are given a verbal warning, I would assume it applies to all forms of legal carrying. I guess that is the inevitable consequence? Am I missing something?

I'm certainly in favor of open carry, but I think it is going to have at least a temporary backlash on concealed carry. I think it already has.

[TexasCajun]

As far as I know, there is no proposed 30.08. Among the filled bills the are: 1. apply 30.06 to both concealed and open carry, 2. leave 30.06 applicable to only concerned carry and create 30.07 for open carry. Option 1 would eliminate the choice of business owners to limit one form of carry or the other. Option 2 preserves that choice. Creating 30.08 would be redundant with option 1. Since the number of 30.06 signs is relatively small right now, I don't see how requiring 2 signs would increase the number of 30.06 signs. However, it's not unreasonable to think that option 1 could lead to more 30.06.

[Right2Carry]

Business owner posts 30.07 forbidding open carry. Customer walks up open carrying sees sign untucks his shirt to cover his weapon and walks in. Business owner observes this and thinks what the heck. He confronts customer who is carrying and said customer explains sign doesn't apply to concealed carry. Business owner asks customer to leave, makes calls and finds out he needs a 30.06 sign as well which he posts. Now all carry is banned from his store.

[Pawpaw]

Business owner posts 30.07 forbidding open carry. Customer walks up open carrying sees sign untucks his shirt to cover his weapon and walks in. Business owner observes this and thinks what the heck. He confronts customer who is carrying and said customer explains sign doesn't apply to concealed carry. Business owner asks customer to leave, makes calls and finds out he needs a 30.06 sign as well which he posts. Now all carry is banned from his store.

Correct! And if he wants to decorate the front of his business with TWO big ugly signs, we'll all know to spend our money elsewhere. See... It's a win/win.

[MeMelYup]

I think if open carry is passed with 30.07 we will see 30.07 signs replacing 30.06.

[RPBrown]

Unfortunately, I think this will be a moot point. OCT and OCTC has done so much damage to the open carry movement, I don't think it will pass this year or in the near future.

However, if it does, I agree with Charles that we need to preserve 30.06.

Now for another question on this, if the off limit areas are removed and we can carry wherever a peace officer can, will 30.06 still be enforceable?

[Rrash]

Now for another question on this, if the off limit areas are removed and we can carry wherever a peace officer can, will 30.06 still be enforceable?

If it is a privately owned business, I would think they should still have that right.

[TexasCajun]

Now for another question on this, if the off limit areas are removed and we can carry wherever a peace officer can, will 30.06 still be enforceable?

If it is a privately owned business, I would think they should still have that right.

If we eliminate or reduce the number of off limits places, 30.06 would still be in place & property owners would (rightly) still have that right.

[EEllis]

I think the idea that forcing business owners to have to verbally ask people to leave if armed akin to trying to make property owners verbally tell people to leave instead of being able to post property for trespass. People seem to ignore the rights of others for the own convenience and that is human nature. When it's done by people who are saying their own rights are being trampled it seems a bit farcical though. If it's my business or property then I get to make the calls and people should respect that even when it's not what they wish. We have a great way for making sure it's absolutely clear and a way to protect those who are armed from the adverse application of trespass laws by malicious prosecutors. We should screw that up why? So we can show people that we think gun rights are superior to private property rights? The idea that diminishing one somehow helps anyone seems a bit absurd. You could get what you want in theory but the reality would be you would show that it' has nothing to due with right and is just about want and if the political breeze goes a different direction, well, you are building a house of straw there aren't you?