Open Carry

[The Annoyed Man]

In other words, say you are the owner of a large retail store in a tough part of town. If you are so inclined, you can post 30.06 signage at the entrance to the store and prohibit anyone from carrying inside the store. The force of law would apply to assist you in enforcing the no guns policy. The force of law would not be on your side in attempting to keep patrons from having firearms in their vehicles. You could post the parking lot, but state laws will not back you up on it.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but that red part is both a legal and logical fallacy. § 30.06 applies only to CHL. It has nothing whatsoever to do with armed people who are not carrying concealed under the authority of a CHL — whether they are LEOs or criminals. Thus: A) it does not prevent unwanted guns, it only prevents unwanted CHL guns; and B) it has no supplemental effect in enforcing an employment policy against someone who is not a CHLer.

[BLG]

My employer has a policy against employee's having firearms on company property. They have every right to that policy and to enforce it.
When I started 20 years ago no one had thought to write such a policy. Now replacing the medical insurance that has kept my wife alive the last 10 years would not be easy if even possible.

It is inconvenient to drive 15 miles home to get my weapon, then 15 miles back when I have errands near the shop to run after work.Maybe their right to a no gun policy conflicts with my right to defend myself to and from work, I don't know.However, they have no right to search or inspect my vehicle to enforce their policy, even if they have reason to think there is a weapon.

The home office in Boston has not only provided me with a gun- free work environment, but also a tobacco-free campus. I can be fired if they find a pack of cigarettes in my locker, and since it is company property, they have a right to inspect my locker even without "probable cause". If they should ever do so, it won't matter whether there is any thing they disapprove of or not. My employment there ends as soon as they touch the door handle to make their inspection. If that means Mommachatter has to resort to medicare, then God help us,because that is what will happen.

[jester]

Your statement about property rights is not valid in this case. 30.06 allows a business to bar firearms from their business but 30.06 does not extend to the parking lot of said business.

It depends where they post the signs.

If you read the 30.06 law, you'll see that it says "property" and not "premises" so there's no reason to believe parking lots or green areas can't be posted under 30.05 or 30.06 to prohibit trespassing.

[G.A. Heath]

The thing with business parking lots is that they are private property that is publicly accessible so they can be posted. If the parking lot was public property (Owned or leased by some political subdivision of Texas) then the signs would be invalid.

[canvasbck]

In other words, say you are the owner of a large retail store in a tough part of town. If you are so inclined, you can post 30.06 signage at the entrance to the store and prohibit anyone from carrying inside the store. The force of law would apply to assist you in enforcing the no guns policy. The force of law would not be on your side in attempting to keep patrons from having firearms in their vehicles. You could post the parking lot, but state laws will not back you up on it.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but that red part is both a legal and logical fallacy. § 30.06 applies only to CHL. It has nothing whatsoever to do with armed people who are not carrying concealed under the authority of a CHL — whether they are LEOs or criminals. Thus: A) it does not prevent unwanted guns, it only prevents unwanted CHL guns; and B) it has no supplemental effect in enforcing an employment policy against someone who is not a CHLer.

What you are saying is correct. I was assuming that everyone understood that non-CHL holders were illegal regardless of signage, and the rule of law backs up the business owner for non-chl as well as chl when he posts.

[03Lightningrocks]

My employer has a policy against employee's having firearms on company property. They have every right to that policy and to enforce it.
When I started 20 years ago no one had thought to write such a policy. Now replacing the medical insurance that has kept my wife alive the last 10 years would not be easy if even possible.

I realize that this is off topic but wanted to let you know it may be easier now than it was a few months ago. Lord knows i hate Obama, but part of the Obamacare package forbids refusal of insurance for pre-existing conditions. His package also had a law in it that saved my daughters tail end. My insurance was refusing a medication she needed and three days later some law took affect that forced them to allow this medication. I have no clue what got changed but I would be lying if I said I wasn't feeling grateful/lucky that i finally benefited from a government action. Most of the time I am the guy paying for any new Government action.

Anyway.... do some checking around, but you should find your problem with refusal has been corrected....or at least I know it is scheduled to be corrected.

[srothstein]

I was assuming that everyone understood that non-CHL holders were illegal regardless of signage, and the rule of law backs up the business owner for non-chl as well as chl when he posts.

This is the problem with your logic. Not every person carrying a pistol without a CHL is illegal. Security guards, military, LEO's, and travelers all can be legally carrying weapons without a 30.06 applying to them. If the store happens to sell ammunition (say Wal-Mart), a person on the way to the range could be legally carrying without a CHL. Some of these may be unusual and may require some test case to prove, but are within the current written wording of the law.

One of my disagreements with the people who argue about a two sign requirement if open carry is allowed is that we have that now. To ban all of these people would require a 30.05 sign as well as the 30.06 sign. There is no specific wording required for the second sign, so even a gun buster sign would work, but the second sign is required (and even it does not prohibit LEOs from carrying when off duty).

[sjfcontrol]

I think the point is that 30.06 only applies to CHL holders. Carrying in a car is legal for EVERYBODY (with certain restrictions) thanks to the Motorist Protection Act. Therefore leaving a firearm in your car would NOT be illegal even in a 30.06-posted lot.

There is no sign that says, in effect: "The Possession of a firearm in your automobile under PC46.02 (Motorist Protection Act) is forbidden."

[canvasbck]

I think the point is that 30.06 only applies to CHL holders. Carrying in a car is legal for EVERYBODY (with certain restrictions) thanks to the Motorist Protection Act. Therefore leaving a firearm in your car would NOT be illegal even in a 30.06-posted lot.

There is no sign that says, in effect: "The Possession of a firearm in your automobile under PC46.02 (Motorist Protection Act) is forbidden. unless you work here, then we will fire you for excercizing your constitutional right."

Fixed your post. I may start a seperate parking lot thread so we can quit hijacking this one.

[tacticool]

I think the point is that 30.06 only applies to CHL holders. Carrying in a car is legal for EVERYBODY (with certain restrictions) thanks to the Motorist Protection Act. Therefore leaving a firearm in your car would NOT be illegal even in a 30.06-posted lot.

There is no sign that says, in effect: "The Possession of a firearm in your automobile under PC46.02 (Motorist Protection Act) is forbidden."

Can I get your opinion on something as a new instructor with the DPS class fresh in your mind?

1. To make handguns illegal in the parking lot, would they have to post two signs?

2. If they only post a 30.06 sign, does that apply only to someone with a CHL or to nobody?

P.S. Congrats on your first class!

[Charles L. Cotton]

I think the point is that 30.06 only applies to CHL holders. Carrying in a car is legal for EVERYBODY (with certain restrictions) thanks to the Motorist Protection Act. Therefore leaving a firearm in your car would NOT be illegal even in a 30.06-posted lot.

That would certainly be my argument if I were defending a criminal trespass charge under those circumstances, however, it's not that clear. Remember, TPC §30.05 is the code section that applies to trespass for everyone for every reason, other than a CHL carrying a handgun. Remember too that TPC §30.05 does not require any specific language like that required by TPC §30.06. It would be hard to argue that a 30.06 sign didn't get the message across (for purposes of TPC §30.05) that the property owner didn't want guns on the property.

Chas.

[sjfcontrol]

I think the point is that 30.06 only applies to CHL holders. Carrying in a car is legal for EVERYBODY (with certain restrictions) thanks to the Motorist Protection Act. Therefore leaving a firearm in your car would NOT be illegal even in a 30.06-posted lot.

That would certainly be my argument if I were defending a criminal trespass charge under those circumstances, however, it's not that clear. Remember, TPC §30.05 is the code section that applies to trespass for everyone for every reason, other than a CHL carrying a handgun. Remember too that TPC §30.05 does not require any specific language like that required by TPC §30.06. It would be hard to argue that a 30.06 sign didn't get the message across (for purposes of TPC §30.05) that the property owner didn't want guns on the property.

Chas.

OK -- I defer to your knowledge and experience, Charles.

Guess we'll have to wait for case law to make it clear. (And I'm NOT volunteering!)

[sjfcontrol]

I think the point is that 30.06 only applies to CHL holders. Carrying in a car is legal for EVERYBODY (with certain restrictions) thanks to the Motorist Protection Act. Therefore leaving a firearm in your car would NOT be illegal even in a 30.06-posted lot.

There is no sign that says, in effect: "The Possession of a firearm in your automobile under PC46.02 (Motorist Protection Act) is forbidden."

Can I get your opinion on something as a new instructor with the DPS class fresh in your mind?

1. To make handguns illegal in the parking lot, would they have to post two signs?

2. If they only post a 30.06 sign, does that apply only to someone with a CHL or to nobody?

P.S. Congrats on your first class!

Thanks, tacticool!

[tacticool]

I think the point is that 30.06 only applies to CHL holders. Carrying in a car is legal for EVERYBODY (with certain restrictions) thanks to the Motorist Protection Act. Therefore leaving a firearm in your car would NOT be illegal even in a 30.06-posted lot.

That would certainly be my argument if I were defending a criminal trespass charge under those circumstances, however, it's not that clear. Remember, TPC §30.05 is the code section that applies to trespass for everyone for every reason, other than a CHL carrying a handgun. Remember too that TPC §30.05 does not require any specific language like that required by TPC §30.06. It would be hard to argue that a 30.06 sign didn't get the message across (for purposes of TPC §30.05) that the property owner didn't want guns on the property.

Chas.

How is this different than the argument about needing two signs if open carry is decriminalized? If a 30.06 sign is sufficient for MPA, why wouldn't it be sufficient for OC handguns? And vice versa.

Then there's long guns. I always have at least one in my vehicle and like I said in the PCC thread, I've carried a concealed Kel-Tec carbine where it's legal but CHL handguns are prohibited.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I think the point is that 30.06 only applies to CHL holders. Carrying in a car is legal for EVERYBODY (with certain restrictions) thanks to the Motorist Protection Act. Therefore leaving a firearm in your car would NOT be illegal even in a 30.06-posted lot.

That would certainly be my argument if I were defending a criminal trespass charge under those circumstances, however, it's not that clear. Remember, TPC §30.05 is the code section that applies to trespass for everyone for every reason, other than a CHL carrying a handgun. Remember too that TPC §30.05 does not require any specific language like that required by TPC §30.06. It would be hard to argue that a 30.06 sign didn't get the message across (for purposes of TPC §30.05) that the property owner didn't want guns on the property.

Chas.

How is this different than the argument about needing two signs if open carry is decriminalized? If a 30.06 sign is sufficient for MPA, why wouldn't it be sufficient for OC handguns? And vice versa.

Then there's long guns. I always have at least one in my vehicle and like I said in the PCC thread, I've carried a concealed Kel-Tec carbine where it's legal but CHL handguns are prohibited.

You are trying to compare two totally different issues; 1) carrying a handgun on your person; and 2) having a handgun in your car in a parking lot.

Note that I said "it's not that clear" that a 30.06 sign will or will not suffice as notice under TPC §30.05. If open-carry were to pass, the legislature will not leave property owners in a quandary as to what they need to do to prohibit open and concealed carry. TPC §30.06 will be amended to cover any licensed carrying of handguns. (This presumes any OC bill will be licensed OC.) Suggestions by OC supporters that the legislature require a 30.06 sign for concealed-carry and something else that applies only to open-carry will never pass; it's too burdensome on business owners.

It is generally illegal to carry a handgun without a CHL, so you won't be walking into Home Depot with an openly-carried handgun without going to jail. TPC §30.05 isn't needed to cover OC since it's already illegal.

The parking lot is a different issue. The only thing the MPA protects is having a handgun on or about your person while you are in your car. Businesses don't seem to care about keeping guns out of parking lots, except for employees. I've only seen one parking lot with a 30.06 sign and it was ineffective because it was a school. When you first argued that we currently have a two-sign requirement, it was in the context of prohibiting open-carry in buildings, not having guns in a locked, parked car.

Here is an interesting side note. If the courts were to hold that, under current law, a 30.06 sign is sufficient notice under TPC §30.05, then that's precisely what business owners would post to prohibit open-carry and people wanting to carry concealed would be prejudiced.

Chas.