Why do we need 30.06/7?

[Acronym Esq]

I was recently reading Colorado carry laws. It appears to me that carry permits allow carry everywhere with simple exceptions:

• When prohibited by federal law.
• Inside a grade school.
• When metal detectors operated by security personnel screen every person for weapons at every entrance and provide custody services for firearms.

Effectively the Colorado 30.06/7 sign is actual, enforced, weapon screening. This seems almost stupidly obvious as the correct answer because we all agree that signs don't stop bad guys.

In contrast, Texas has street sized signs restricting guns on businesses and residential property everywhere. Prohibiting the licensed carrying of a firearm has morphed from a true safety concern into a political debate conducted in doorways with criminal liability consequences.

For a long time, I thought there was a natural tension between property rights (I can control who does what on my property) and self defense rights (I can carry tools for my own protection). I like my state, but I'm afraid Texas has twisted this up and gotten in wrong. I'm calling us out for being stupid.

Acronym 11/14/2017 12:28 PM

[BBYC]

The argument for 30.06 signs was concern that something less obvious would be enforceable under 30.05 including the "upgrade" for trespassing while having a deadly weapon.

Something like this.

[Boxerrider]

While I'm occasionally frustrated by a 30.06/30.07 sign, I feel businesses should be less regulated by the government, not more.

[skeathley]

When I was a kid, merchants were allowed to refuse to do business with anyone they chose. There was probably a racial element to that, so after the Civil Rights law passed about 1965, that was no longer allowed.

I often wonder why it is not legal to ban someone from your business because they are asian, or black, or whatever, but it is legal to ban them because they are legally carrying a weapon.

As I understand it, if a business is open to the public, they have to accommodate ALL the public. So why are businesses allowed to discriminate against a group of people who have almost no history of being a danger to the public?

[OlBill]

When I was a kid, merchants were allowed to refuse to do business with anyone they chose. There was probably a racial element to that, so after the Civil Rights law passed about 1965, that was no longer allowed.

I often wonder why it is not legal to ban someone from your business because they are asian, or black, or whatever, but it is legal to ban them because they are legally carrying a weapon.

As I understand it, if a business is open to the public, they have to accommodate ALL the public. So why are businesses allowed to discriminate against a group of people who have almost no history of being a danger to the public?

Because the right to keep and bear arms is a diminished right. Justice Thomas.

[Acronym Esq]

While I'm occasionally frustrated by a 30.06/30.07 sign, I feel businesses should be less regulated by the government, not more.

I used to agree with you until last week. I barely questioned a property owner's right to do what they want. I now feel that my safety outweighs a business's need to make a political statement. That's all 30.06/7 signs are.

After walking around Colorado where there are no signs... where I didn't once have to uncomfortably disarm in the car... where I just put it on in the morning and took it off at night... Colorado does it right. Any business can still prohibit onsite carry, they just need to enforce it with more than a sign.

Are there other states that do it like Colorado?

Our law is broken. I can't believe that this last legislative session they actually debated reducing the 30.06/7 signage. We should to be talking about scrapping it all together. Remember at all the garbage we have to deal with so property owners can make a "no gun" politcal statement:

• City's improperly posting b/c they have a contractor selling sandwiches that put it up
• Zoo's claiming to be educational institutions
• Political witch-hunts for the court in the basement closet
• Podunk towns brazenly illegally posting at temporary fairs
• Dangerous wiggle dance in the front seat of my car outside my bank to leave an unattended firearm in the glove compartment

Signs are a fail. Requiring real security screening will stop all this non-sense.

acronym 11/15/2017 9:58 PM

[SHogun62]

As I understand it, if a business is open to the public, they have to accommodate ALL the public. So why are businesses allowed to discriminate against a group of people who have almost no history of being a danger to the public?

I brought this exact point up a while back, and was told by someone that they "quaked" at how I thought that was a good idea. Here's how I see it:

I freelance in digital media right now, and work out of my home. Now, as it stands, if anyone comes to my house unannounced, I only have to tell them 1 time to leave if I choose before all bets are off, since it's my private property.

If I all of sudden one day decide to let clients come to my home office, then I've effectively become a public place of business, and as such, should no longer be allowed to play the "Private Property" card, since allowing the public to have access defies the definition of "Private" as I see it. If you are "Open to the Public", then you are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, including those of the public who opt to carry.

Maybe I'm to black and white, and that's fine by me. Most folks I've talked to regarding this however, seem to lean more towards this thinking. As it stands, if a business is posted, someone else gets my money. Luckily, Amazon and B&H don't care either way.

[Pariah3j]

My thought has always been that as long as we say businesses that are open to the public must abide by certain laws/regulations(ie have handicap parking and handicap access ramp, etc) why is it any different to say you must allow carry or else give verbal notice. Its no more of an infringement of property rights as saying no smoking allowed in public businesses but no one gets up in arms about that one.

Its long been accepted businesses must abide by certain laws if open to the general public - what would be so different about removing the force of law from signs?

Running a private business out of your home is different then being open to the general public so as I see it, that is a straw man argument. Just because you allow clients into your home, you don't suddenly have to follow the same laws as a department store for example. Private property rights for tour example are still in effect.

[srothstein]

As I understand it, if a business is open to the public, they have to accommodate ALL the public. So why are businesses allowed to discriminate against a group of people who have almost no history of being a danger to the public?

Because this is not an accurate statement. Under federal and Texas law, you can ban anyone you want from your business as long as you are not banning them for reasons that are prohibited under the various discrimination laws (the seven protected classes).

So you cannot ban people because of their race or religion, but you can ban them for being too young (discriminaton against age only applies to those over 40). This is how we are allowed to have adult only apartment complexes with no one under 35 allowed to rent.

You can ban people because of the clothes they wear (no biker clothing, no gang symbols) or don't wear (no shoes no shirt). You can get ridiculous and ban all left-handed people or all red heads.

Of course, this does not apply to a business that is not open to all of the public. If your business is a private club, you can even ban all females or some of the protected classes. Look at when the Augusta golf club finally officially integrated. So, as an example, a gun range that requires membership does not have to abide by all of the anti-discrimination laws.

I could be wrong on the private club part, but I know some of them still exclude various protected classes.

[Boxerrider]

I believe strongly in personal rights. The idea that people have the right to do as they please without interference from the government, except that they should be forced to follow the regulations of the political majority, is what got us where we are now. I believe SHogun62 should be able to do business as he chooses and with whom he chooses on his private property, whether that property is his residence or not.
When it comes to any business receiving any funds from a governmental entity, then I believe they have stepped across the line from private business into a partnership with the government, and the government can not restrict the right to carry. Any public funding, and I would include tax breaks and grants in that; city, county, state, federal. . . now you have decided to be a partner with the government and must allow me and my firearm to enter. City zoo, vendors in the park, coffee shop in the city building, community festivals, public schools - all accessible to citizens with their firearms.

[RoyGBiv]

While I'm occasionally frustrated by a 30.06/30.07 sign, I feel businesses should be less regulated by the government, not more.

I'd prefer we start someplace other than with rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. How about allowing businesses to opt out of ADA regulations, or building codes, or letting liquor store owners decide whether to be open on Sundays?

Let's start there instead.

[OlBill]

As I understand it, if a business is open to the public, they have to accommodate ALL the public. So why are businesses allowed to discriminate against a group of people who have almost no history of being a danger to the public?

Because this is not an accurate statement. Under federal and Texas law, you can ban anyone you want from your business as long as you are not banning them for reasons that are prohibited under the various discrimination laws (the seven protected classes).

So you cannot ban people because of their race or religion, but you can ban them for being too young (discriminaton against age only applies to those over 40). This is how we are allowed to have adult only apartment complexes with no one under 35 allowed to rent.

You can ban people because of the clothes they wear (no biker clothing, no gang symbols) or don't wear (no shoes no shirt). You can get ridiculous and ban all left-handed people or all red heads.

Of course, this does not apply to a business that is not open to all of the public. If your business is a private club, you can even ban all females or some of the protected classes. Look at when the Augusta golf club finally officially integrated. So, as an example, a gun range that requires membership does not have to abide by all of the anti-discrimination laws.

I could be wrong on the private club part, but I know some of them still exclude various protected classes.

Are we not a protected class by virtue of the 2nd Amendment?

[OlBill]

While I'm occasionally frustrated by a 30.06/30.07 sign, I feel businesses should be less regulated by the government, not more.

I'd prefer we start someplace other than with rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. How about allowing businesses to opt out of ADA regulations, or building codes, or letting liquor store owners decide whether to be open on Sundays?

Let's start there instead.

Absolutely.

[CleverNickname]

I often wonder why it is not legal to ban someone from your business because they are asian, or black, or whatever, but it is legal to ban them because they are legally carrying a weapon.

As I understand it, if a business is open to the public, they have to accommodate ALL the public. So why are businesses allowed to discriminate against a group of people who have almost no history of being a danger to the public?

Because (the opinion of Rachel Dolezal and transexuals notwithstanding) race and sex are immutable personal characteristics, but firearm ownership and possession isn't.

[Soccerdad1995]

While I'm occasionally frustrated by a 30.06/30.07 sign, I feel businesses should be less regulated by the government, not more.

I'd prefer we start someplace other than with rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. How about allowing businesses to opt out of ADA regulations, or building codes, or letting liquor store owners decide whether to be open on Sundays?

Let's start there instead.

To me, the "property rights" aspect of this is misguided. I own my home. But my "property rights" should not give me the ability to regulate what my guests do and say, under penalty of criminal punishment. I should not be able to put up a sign saying "No Democrats may enter" and then have someone arrested when they talk about how they voted for Hillary in the last election. I should be able to ask them to leave, but should not be able to have them arrested unless they first refuse to leave. Just because I have property rights, and just because you are on my property does not mean that you are my slave to control however I wish.