An argument against 30.06

[Embalmo]

I was done afetr the wife/rape post.

Are you suggesting that a woman potentially using a handgun to protect herself from a sexual assault in an isolated dark area is ridiculous, implausible, or in some way not worthy of serious consideration? If that's true perhaps women just shouldn't carry handguns anywhere at all and just leave the gun totin' to the men-folk.

One of the many problems with 30.06 is that is does INDEED often leave women in dangerously vulnerable positions (hospitals and government buildings notoriously use parking garages) and me and my CHL wife both have a problem with that. I thought I was done with this debate, but it sounds like you are marginalizing the threat of sexual assault, and that is the reason my wife got a CHL.

Embalmo

[G26ster]

If you post a sign that says "no tatoos in my restaurant" because you want to keep out bikers and other riff-raff, would a guy with a tatoo on his back completely concealed by his shirt be breaking any law (including trespassing 30.05) if he were to enter this restaurant? Now, obviously, if he removed his shirt and showed his tatoo and the owner told him to leave and he refused, OK he's now trespassing. But as long as he minds his own business, doesn't cause trouble, and keeps his tatoo concealed - he's not breaking any law (that I know of - IANAL).

What about a "no weapons" generic sign and a guy walks in carrying a 3-inch bladed Swiss Army knife concealed in his pocket?
What about a "no cell phones" sign and a guy walks in carrying a cell phone in his pocket with the ringer turned off?

So why is it different for those who legally carry concealed weapons? As long as we remain concealed why not just leave it as "what they don't know can't hurt them". Why make it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE to merely enter a building while carrying a weapon?

To me, this is the question that is not being addressed in this thread, and the one I'd love to have input on. Why is ignoring other non-gun related signs placed by property owners NOT a criminal offense, but ignoring the 30.06 sign IS a criminal offense? Seems like it has nothing to do with private property rights.

[Charles L. Cotton]

To me, this is the question that is not being addressed in this thread, and the one I'd love to have input on. Why is ignoring other non-gun related signs placed by property owners NOT a criminal offense, but ignoring the 30.06 sign IS a criminal offense? Seems like it has nothing to do with private property rights.

Ignoring a no trespassing sign is a criminal offense, whether it's under TPC §30.05 or 30.06. There is no difference. However, enforcement by LEO's often/usually involve the officer telling the property owner to order the trespasser to leave and arresting them if they do not.

Chas.

[G26ster]

To me, this is the question that is not being addressed in this thread, and the one I'd love to have input on. Why is ignoring other non-gun related signs placed by property owners NOT a criminal offense, but ignoring the 30.06 sign IS a criminal offense? Seems like it has nothing to do with private property rights.

Ignoring a no trespassing sign is a criminal offense, whether it's under TPC §30.05 or 30.06. There is no difference. However, enforcement by LEO's often/usually involve the officer telling the property owner to order the trespasser to leave and arresting them if they do not.

Chas.

Thanks Charles, and I agree if it is a "No Trespassing" sign. I was addressing more of what austinrealtor said. If I enter an office with a "No Cell Phones" sign, and I am discovered, are the penalties/actions by the LEO the same as entering a business with a 30.06 sign and being discovered? Will the officer just have the owner tell me to leave with my weapon? I've always thought I'd be arrested on the spot.

[mr.72]

Charles, et al, I think the point that is not being made clearly or concisely enough to prevent misinterpretation is this:

There is only one piece of legal, personal property which can be possessed by an individual, which has its own special trespassing law in Texas that specifies that you are criminally trespassing if you enter a property posted with a particular sign. That one piece of property is a concealed handgun.

All of these other arguments about property owners being able to restrict this and that are completely irrelevant and moot in this discussion because there is not one single other object that is subject to this type of criminalizing based on carrying it past a no-trespassing sign. Other things, all of them, are subject to the general ruling on trespassing, which is the owner of the property must take an affirmative action to remove you from the property, and you must refuse to do so in the presence of a police officer in order to become a criminal.

Truly, the 30.06 is absolutely a special, unique case.

So the OP's point is completely valid and totally reasonable. There is absolutely no logical justification that can be made in support of 30.06 as distinct from 30.05. Period, and end of story.

The whole purpose of 30.06 is political.

As soon as we begin to have 30.0X sub-sections to cover every other piece of personal property whose possession on posted property becomes banned by force of Texas Law simply because of the nature of that property, then we can begin to compare 30.06 to other property rights laws. But at the present time, it is a law in a class by itself.

[frazzled]

To me, this is the question that is not being addressed in this thread, and the one I'd love to have input on. Why is ignoring other non-gun related signs placed by property owners NOT a criminal offense, but ignoring the 30.06 sign IS a criminal offense? Seems like it has nothing to do with private property rights.

Ignoring a no trespassing sign is a criminal offense, whether it's under TPC §30.05 or 30.06. There is no difference. However, enforcement by LEO's often/usually involve the officer telling the property owner to order the trespasser to leave and arresting them if they do not.

Chas.

Thanks Charles, and I agree if it is a "No Trespassing" sign. I was addressing more of what austinrealtor said. If I enter an office with a "No Cell Phones" sign, and I am discovered, are the penalties/actions by the LEO the same as entering a business with a 30.06 sign and being discovered? Will the officer just have the owner tell me to leave with my weapon? I've always thought I'd be arrested on the spot.

Everyone pay attention. This is a post you may never see again on the intranets.

This discussion has been enlightening. The above has changed my mind and I am in agreement. If property owners can still mandate no firearms akin to no shirt shoes no service-ie if come on you must leave or can be asked to leave- then I am onside with removing the 30.06 in this context. The sign still serves as notice but you can only be asked to leave and arrested if you do not, in fact, leave (akain to any other "you are now trespassing, please leave").

[A-R]

This discussion has been enlightening. The above has changed my mind and I am in agreement. If property owners can still mandate no firearms akin to no shirt shoes no service-ie if come on you must leave or can be asked to leave- then I am onside with removing the 30.06 in this context. The sign still serves as notice but you can only be asked to leave and arrested if you do not, in fact, leave (akain to any other "you are now trespassing, please leave").

Alright! Welcome aboard!

Nice job guys, good "team effort" to convince him



note, please don't take this as gloating. I'm just clowning around

[Charles L. Cotton]

To me, this is the question that is not being addressed in this thread, and the one I'd love to have input on. Why is ignoring other non-gun related signs placed by property owners NOT a criminal offense, but ignoring the 30.06 sign IS a criminal offense? Seems like it has nothing to do with private property rights.

Ignoring a no trespassing sign is a criminal offense, whether it's under TPC §30.05 or 30.06. There is no difference. However, enforcement by LEO's often/usually involve the officer telling the property owner to order the trespasser to leave and arresting them if they do not.

Chas.

Thanks Charles, and I agree if it is a "No Trespassing" sign. I was addressing more of what austinrealtor said. If I enter an office with a "No Cell Phones" sign, and I am discovered, are the penalties/actions by the LEO the same as entering a business with a 30.06 sign and being discovered? Will the officer just have the owner tell me to leave with my weapon? I've always thought I'd be arrested on the spot.

Technically, yes you have committed criminal trespass if you cross a "no cell phone" sign and enter the property. Again, the LEO is going to have the property owner tell you to leave in his presence, but technically you have violated TPC §30.05.

Remember, entering without effective consent is one of two ways you can violate TPC §30.05. Staying after being told to leave is another. If you see a sign that says "no cell phones" and you enter, you have been given notice that the owner doesn't want you on the property with a cell phone. If you enter, you have technically violated the statute.

Chas.

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or

(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.

(2) "Notice" means:

(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles, et al, I think the point that is not being made clearly or concisely enough to prevent misinterpretation is this:

There is only one piece of legal, personal property which can be possessed by an individual, which has its own special trespassing law in Texas that specifies that you are criminally trespassing if you enter a property posted with a particular sign. That one piece of property is a concealed handgun.

Yes, handguns have a special code provision; one that aids the CHL making it much more difficult to exclude an armed CHL. This is good, not bad. It benefits a CHL, it is not a detriment.

All of these other arguments about property owners being able to restrict this and that are completely irrelevant and moot in this discussion because there is not one single other object that is subject to this type of criminalizing based on carrying it past a no-trespassing sign. Other things, all of them, are subject to the general ruling on trespassing, which is the owner of the property must take an affirmative action to remove you from the property, and you must refuse to do so in the presence of a police officer in order to become a criminal.

You are dead wrong. I can post a sign saying "No [anything]" on my property and if you come onto my property with that object, you have entered without effective consent and in so doing have crossed a sign that put you on notice. At the point you enter my property in defiance of the warning sign, you have committed a criminal trespass.

TPC §30.05 does not require a LEO to have the property owner order you off the property in the LEO's presence. That is what is done in practice, but that is simply the LEO's attempt to avoid having to make an arrest.

So the OP's point is completely valid and totally reasonable. There is absolutely no logical justification that can be made in support of 30.06 as distinct from 30.05. Period, and end of story.

You may be through listening, but you got the story wrong. Your argument utterly ignores both TPC §§30.05 and 30.06. It also ignores the factual and political history during the 1995 to Sept. 1, 1997 time period.

The whole purpose of 30.06 is political.

Yes it was; it is the product of politics protecting CHL's making it harder to exclude them from property.

As soon as we begin to have 30.0X sub-sections to cover every other piece of personal property whose possession on posted property becomes banned by force of Texas Law simply because of the nature of that property, then we can begin to compare 30.06 to other property rights laws. But at the present time, it is a law in a class by itself.

It's not needed; TPC §30.05 can be used to cover any personal property the land owner desires. And he can put up a small sign without any special language and it doesn't have to be a "big, ugly sign." It can be the pre-30.06 2"X2" clear decal stuck on the lower right hand side of a glass door.

Your complaint is utterly without merit.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This discussion has been enlightening. The above has changed my mind and I am in agreement. If property owners can still mandate no firearms akin to no shirt shoes no service-ie if come on you must leave or can be asked to leave- then I am onside with removing the 30.06 in this context. The sign still serves as notice but you can only be asked to leave and arrested if you do not, in fact, leave (akain to any other "you are now trespassing, please leave").

Sorry, you're wrong. See above.

Chas.

[G26ster]

I agree with what you've said Charles, but unless I am misunderstanding PC 30.05, a CHL is at greater risk if he/she violates the trespass law. According to PC 30.05 penalties are elevated from Class C and B misdemeanors to a Class A, IF I am carrying under my CHL (a deadly weapon) at the time. Please tell me I'm wrong. I'll feel a lot better.

[Ol Zeke]

I agree with what you've said Charles, but unless I am misunderstanding PC 30.05, a CHL is at greater risk if he/she violates the trespass law. According to PC 30.05 penalties are elevated from Class C and B misdemeanors to a Class A, IF I am carrying under my CHL (a deadly weapon) at the time. Please tell me I'm wrong. I'll feel a lot better.

Ooops...

[srothstein]

Steve, I understand your point. I really do. But how to do you explain all the other "rules" for property owners who willingly open their property to the general public?

Well, I was trying to avoid saying it because it can be a very unpopular opinion, but you, Embalmo, RPB, and Xtremeduty45 all deserve an answer.

The problem here, as I see it, is that you are using the principle of stare decisis. That is the Latin phrase for I was wrong before so I will continue to be wrong. or, in simpler words, the laws mandating that I allow the protected classes into my business are wrong. If it is my property, I get to make the rules. I get to decide who I associate with, in my private life and in my business life. If I don't want Catholics, Gun owners, bikers, women, tattooed people, midgets, redheads, or any other type of person in my business, I have the right to say no. Of course, the current law may not recognize that right in every case, but it doesn't make the law right. This is what is known as freedom and respect of EVERYONE's rights by the government.

Along these lines, if you disagree with my choices, you have the right to not do business with me and to encourage everyone who agrees with you not to do business with me. If my business fails because of my choice, I lose my money and go out of business. If more people agree with me than you, then I stay in business and you get to stay unhappy. we see this concept in effect all the time, with many of us not going into or doing business with anyplace that posts a no guns sign (whether legally banning or just expressing a wish). We even see it being used against Arizona right now, with people supporting illegal immigration trying to convince Arizona to change their laws.

I keep coming back to the concept of freedom and individual rights. The government MUST treat every person equally, without regard to whether they are rich or poor, black or white, Republican, Democrat, or independent, male or female, or any other category we can think of. This is critical and the government must treat everyone equally. But your rights to want to carry a gun do not override my rights to associate with whomever I choose. My property, my rules. This is when we will have real freedom. It is also when we will get a civil society with some degree of equality. This is what I keep striving for.

[A-R]

Steve, I understand your point. I really do. But how to do you explain all the other "rules" for property owners who willingly open their property to the general public?

Well, I was trying to avoid saying it because it can be a very unpopular opinion, but you, Embalmo, RPB, and Xtremeduty45 all deserve an answer.

The problem here, as I see it, is that you are using the principle of stare decisis. That is the Latin phrase for I was wrong before so I will continue to be wrong. or, in simpler words, the laws mandating that I allow the protected classes into my business are wrong. If it is my property, I get to make the rules. I get to decide who I associate with, in my private life and in my business life. If I don't want Catholics, Gun owners, bikers, women, tattooed people, midgets, redheads, or any other type of person in my business, I have the right to say no. Of course, the current law may not recognize that right in every case, but it doesn't make the law right. This is what is known as freedom and respect of EVERYONE's rights by the government.

Interesting take, Steve. And thank you for the response. I strongly disagree that stare decisis in this instance is wrong. "Colored only" drinking fountains and lunch counters were wrong, as is any discrimination based on someone's unalterable personal traits. I'm not saying CHL fits into this category at all. I was just pointing out that property ownership does not give absolute rights.

But I can't go down this path with you that property ownership gives you the right to discriminate as you see fit, which is basically what you're saying. "My property my rules". Some classes are protected for legitimate reasons; some are not. But - and I must now state again we're only talking about Open To The Public property - excluding one class of people from a property that is open to the general public is just plain wrong, as is discrimination in housing, employment, etc.

But I don't think we're going to agree, so I'll agree to disagree at this point.

Again, thanks for the response - appreciate the discussion

[A-R]

Charles, I concede the point to your superior wisdom on this subject. Thank you for correcting the flaws in our reasoning on this subject. I honestly did not think there was anything "criminal" about merely ignoring a "no smoking" sign or a "no cell phones" sign.

Thanks for clarifying