Why does verbal warning trump compliant signage?

[TexasCajun]

Okay, let's look at it this way...and I'm completely on board with property owners rights, btw. If verbal notice holds weight of law, then shouldn't ANY sign that communicates "no guns allowed" , even the gun buster sign, be allowed? After all, they effectively communicate they don't want guns on their property just like a verbal notice does. Splitting hairs, I know.

Again, you need to look at the legislative history of licensed handgun carry in Texas. Episode 3 of the Texas Firearms Coalition Podcast should be particularly enlightening with regard to this discussion. But I'd suggest you take the time to listen to all of the episodes.

[ScottDLS]

Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it. I also want the right to tell my employees to take their guns in cars off my property (parking lot), but I don't have either.

[rotor]

Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it. I also want the right to tell my employees to take their guns in cars off my property (parking lot), but I don't have either.

I am not as legally gifted as you are but don't you have the legal right to tell a trespasser to get off your property? Even a off duty LEO not on official business that enters my ranch is trespassing and can be asked to get off my property. It is not the carry issue as much as it is the trespass issue.

[KLB]

We have already taken away the right of a property owner to say whether smoking is allowed on property they own and pay taxes.

Can you cite an example of this?

The City of San Antonio.

[ScottDLS]

Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it. I also want the right to tell my employees to take their guns in cars off my property (parking lot), but I don't have either.

I am not as legally gifted as you are but don't you have the legal right to tell a trespasser to get off your property? Even a off duty LEO not on official business that enters my ranch is trespassing and can be asked to get off my property. It is not the carry issue as much as it is the trespass issue.

He's exempt from trespass if "the reason you ask him to leave" is that he is carrying...so just put up a circle slash "cops" sign and that should have the force of law...

[KLB]

After all these years as a CHL holder I don't know why this never occurred to me. I see numerous posts about old and/or non compliant signs and how we are advised to "carry away". However, in the absence of signage of any kind, if someone gives verbal notice "Hey, sir, you can't carry here" that is is good as gold. Just for discussion sake, and being devil's advocate, shouldn't the verbal notice at least be a certain phrase or collection of specific words so as to be "compliant?" Seems like a double standard in semantics to me.

The smoking dispute aside, the statute's philosophy is that property owners get to say whether they want others to carry guns on their property. I'm a strong property rights guy and think that is as it should be. The owner gets to choose whether to ban weapons, and the customer gets to choose whether to patronize the owners. Vive le difference.

A compliant sign is one way an owner can tell prospective customers not to bring weapons. The rules for compliant signs are strict so that those who carry have reasonable assurance of seeing the signs and knowing they are effective before subjecting themselves to a potential trespassing charge. But those strict rules have no relevance to a verbal warning. If we get a verbal warning, the owner has adequately expressed his preferences, and we must comply. That is as it should be.

[KLB]

Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it. I also want the right to tell my employees to take their guns in cars off my property (parking lot), but I don't have either.

Life is full of trade offs. The legislature struck a balance. It may not be the balance we would have chosen, but it's not inherently unreasonable.

[ScottDLS]

Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it. I also want the right to tell my employees to take their guns in cars off my property (parking lot), but I don't have either.

Life is full of trade offs. The legislature struck a balance. It may not be the balance we would have chosen, but it's not inherently unreasonable.

But I thought property owners in Texas were the maximum leaders of their domain? Just not when their lowly employees want to bring deadly weapons of war into my private parking lot despite my strong desire that they don't. And when off duty precinct constables want to open carry machine guns in my retail store, my 30.06 sign doesn't count...

[android]

It is a very slippery slope when we legislate away the ability of the owner of property to determine what they will tolerate on that property. No shoes, no shirt, no service. We have already taken away the right of a property owner to say whether smoking is allowed on property they own and pay taxes. (No, I have never smoked in my 68 years). Where will that end in the name of public welfare.

We also make them keep their kitchens clean, provide restrooms to patrons and build their business in such a way that it won't fall down on the patron's heads.

BUT... The vast majority of these restrictions are placed on BUSINESSES that are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. As such, the PUBLIC has a right to say how that interaction will take place. Business owners don't get to unilaterally decide that.

All governments city, state and federal have and have always reserved the right to regulate commerce.

I see no conflict here.

[Soccerdad1995]

I may want to have the absolute right as a property owner to say what can and cannot happen on my property. But unfortunately, that is far from reality. The reality is that we all have rights. And that includes people you have invited to visit your property. You do not surrender your fundamental rights and freedoms just because you want to buy something in a store, and I think that is a good thing.

We need to balance the rights of property owners to control what happens on their property against the rights of any visitors who might come onto that property. Personally, I think that giving property owners the right to ask anyone they choose to leave is a good balance. If I am bothering you or other people, and you own the property, then by all means tell me to leave. If I refuse, then have me arrested. This gives you as the property owner all the rights that you could reasonably want or expect. If you don't want any visitors, fine. Post a sign making that wish clear. If you only want specific people to visit, then give them explicit permission to ignore your "no trespassing" sign. But if you want to put out a general invitation for the public at large to visit your store, then you need to respect the rights of those people. You're not the only one who matters.

Allowing property owners to use the arrest power of the state in denying a fundamental right to those who were invited onto their property is going too far, IMHO. And that is exactly what the current law allows.

[aero10]

But I thought property owners in Texas were the maximum leaders of their domain?

Try not paying your property tax and you'll find out who the maximum leader of your property is.

[ScottDLS]

I may want to have the absolute right as a property owner to say what can and cannot happen on my property. But unfortunately, that is far from reality. The reality is that we all have rights. And that includes people you have invited to visit your property. You do not surrender your fundamental rights and freedoms just because you want to buy something in a store, and I think that is a good thing.

We need to balance the rights of property owners to control what happens on their property against the rights of any visitors who might come onto that property. Personally, I think that giving property owners the right to ask anyone they choose to leave is a good balance. If I am bothering you or other people, and you own the property, then by all means tell me to leave. If I refuse, then have me arrested. This gives you as the property owner all the rights that you could reasonably want or expect. If you don't want any visitors, fine. Post a sign making that wish clear. If you only want specific people to visit, then give them explicit permission to ignore your "no trespassing" sign. But if you want to put out a general invitation for the public at large to visit your store, then you need to respect the rights of those people. You're not the only one who matters.

Allowing property owners to use the arrest power of the state in denying a fundamental right to those who were invited onto their property is going too far, IMHO. And that is exactly what the current law allows.

[aero10]

I recently went on a trip to Alabama and read up on their carry laws. They recently overhauled their laws and as they are written, there is NO sign that prohibits concealed carry within a business. Signs (which can be anything implying no guns) only apply to open carry. The only way a business can restrict your ability to concealed carry is to verbally tell you you're not allowed to carry and ask you to leave.

[rotor]

I may want to have the absolute right as a property owner to say what can and cannot happen on my property. But unfortunately, that is far from reality. The reality is that we all have rights. And that includes people you have invited to visit your property. You do not surrender your fundamental rights and freedoms just because you want to buy something in a store, and I think that is a good thing.

We need to balance the rights of property owners to control what happens on their property against the rights of any visitors who might come onto that property. Personally, I think that giving property owners the right to ask anyone they choose to leave is a good balance. If I am bothering you or other people, and you own the property, then by all means tell me to leave. If I refuse, then have me arrested. This gives you as the property owner all the rights that you could reasonably want or expect. If you don't want any visitors, fine. Post a sign making that wish clear. If you only want specific people to visit, then give them explicit permission to ignore your "no trespassing" sign. But if you want to put out a general invitation for the public at large to visit your store, then you need to respect the rights of those people. You're not the only one who matters.

Allowing property owners to use the arrest power of the state in denying a fundamental right to those who were invited onto their property is going too far, IMHO. And that is exactly what the current law allows.

I guess I am playing devil's advocate here as I wish that a business open to the public could not post 30.06 or 30.07. On the other hand I own property that is posted properly with no trespassing signs and if you do trespass I have the right to tell you to leave and if you don't leave I have the right to call law enforcement to have them make you leave or arrest you. I believe we recently had a gunbuster (no weapons) sign argument and the carry of rifles past that sign as being a trespass violation.

[ScottDLS]

I don't think Soccerdad was suggesting that NO TRESPASS posted private property shouldn't carry the force of criminal law. Only somewhere where you invited someone onto the property for commercial purposes and then tried to use the force of law to restrict their rights via a sign.

No CC, no Straights, no Republicans, no Christians, etc...