Repeal the 30.06 law

[BenGoodLuck]

I wrote the following to Representative Taylor today. I'm interested in feedback and also in lobbying to get the 30.06 law repealed.

Dear Representative Taylor,

I urge you to introduce legislation repealing the 30.06 regulation prohibiting concealed carry permit holders from entering premises with the signs posted.

A restaurant in Durham, NC posted 'no guns allowed' signs and was robbed by three armed men. (http://abc11.com/news/durham-police-inv ... ant/66643/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). The patrons and employees of the restaurant were left defenseless because they obeyed the signs. Criminals, however, will never obey 'no guns' signs, and, in fact, become emboldened knowing that law-abiding citizens will comply with the signs.

This satirical video says it all about 'gun-free' zones: Gun Free Zone video: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is an easy solution that will appeal to people who want the comfort of a sign and also to the law-abiding concealed carriers of Texas. Repeal the 30.06 law and do not give any 'no-guns' sign the force of law. At the same time, allow businesses and stores to post a Weapons Warning Sign: "It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law." This would give notice to criminals and also allow permit holders to carry on the premises. In addition, the business or establishment could post the standard 'no-guns allowed' sign (a picture of a handgun, surrounded by a red circle with a diagonal red bar in the circle). Permit holders could still carry on the premises but would know how the establishment feels about guns and could decide whether to enter or not..

The vast, vast majority of concealed handgun permit holders are responsible, law-abiding citizens, who have met rigorous requirements, been fingerprinted, and undergone an FBI background check. But 30.06 signs put everyone at risk - the establishments that post them and the people who patronize those establishments. At the time of the tragic Luby's Cafeteria massacre, Suzanna Hupp disarmed prior to entering the restaurant to be in compliance with Texas law that didn't allow concealed carry. In response to the massacre, the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. The 30.06 signs gut that law and give the locations that post them the personal discretion to deny permit holders from entering those locations.

Let's punish the criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding citizens who have complied with all the requirements to obtain their permit.

Sincerely,

Ben...
address...

[anygunanywhere]

This ought to be a good thread.

You do know, of course, that the 30.06 law was written and passed by many pro-gun, pro-CHL supporters for a very specific reason. I was not living in Texas at the time. Others will correct me if I am wrong. If I recall from discussions on this forum there was an immense proliferation of gun buster signs when the CHL law was passed. The 30.06 law made the banning of lawful CHL carry difficult unless the exact 30.06 sign is used.

Your asking for repeal of 30.06 is not a good idea.

There are bigger fish to fry.

Anygunanywhere

[G.A. Heath]

This ought to be a good thread.

You do know, of course, that the 30.06 law was written and passed by many pro-gun, pro-CHL supporters for a very specific reason. I was not living in Texas at the time. Others will correct me if I am wrong. If I recall from discussions on this forum there was an immense proliferation of gun buster signs when the CHL law was passed. The 30.06 law made the banning of lawful CHL carry difficult unless the exact 30.06 sign is used.

Your asking for repeal of 30.06 is not a good idea.

There are bigger fish to fry.

Anygunanywhere

[BenGoodLuck]

There are many states where 'no-gun' signs have no force of law and they also don't have a 30.06 type regulation. My idea is to repeal the signs and allow law-abiding, permit holding citizens to freely carry anywhere. Why should a private entity have any right to tell me I can't carry on their premises. If they want me to leave, they have the right to ask me, and I have to comply or face a trespassing charge. But if I'm concealed carrying, how would they ever know?

The 30.06 law may have been passed to bring the proliferation of 'no-gun' signs under control, but it has outlived it's usefulness. The vast majority of entities do not post 30.06 signs because they recognize that there's no need to keep permit holders off the premises. If a store, hospital, business, wants to put up a sign, let them. Just take away the force of law that 30.06 imposes on us.

[Texsquatch]

This ought to be a good thread.

You do know, of course, that the 30.06 law was written and passed by many pro-gun, pro-CHL supporters for a very specific reason. I was not living in Texas at the time. Others will correct me if I am wrong. If I recall from discussions on this forum there was an immense proliferation of gun buster signs when the CHL law was passed. The 30.06 law made the banning of lawful CHL carry difficult unless the exact 30.06 sign is used.

Your asking for repeal of 30.06 is not a good idea.

There are bigger fish to fry.

I also agree. I believe I learned in this very forum that Louisiana has no provision similar to 30.06, so gun buster signs are enough to keep chl holders out. With 30.06, there are strict rules that must be followed by the posters.

Anygunanywhere

[Wodathunkit]

Since 30-06 is so well established, why not make it harder for business/city to be able to comply with the requirements to legitimately post the sign? It's not like the "no guns" signs have much force of law currently, I know I ignore them.

[BenGoodLuck]

When 30.06 first came out, entities could post signs at the entrance to their parking lots, effectively keeping permit holders from even storing the gun in their car. That law was changed and so can the 30.06 law. 30.06 allows entities to deny permit holders from exercising their rights. The reason we carry is because we've decided to be responsible for our own safety and defense. The 30.06 law means that we can't carry in certain places and we all know that criminals don't make reservations. Gun free zones don't work and 30.06 creates gun-free zones.

[carlson1]

How then does a property owner reserve his right to keep you out? Your rights do not trump the property owners's rights.

[tomtexan]

When 30.06 first came out, entities could post signs at the entrance to their parking lots, effectively keeping permit holders from even storing the gun in their car. That law was changed and so can the 30.06 law. 30.06 allows entities to deny permit holders from exercising their rights. The reason we carry is because we've decided to be responsible for our own safety and defense. The 30.06 law means that we can't carry in certain places and we all know that criminals don't make reservations. Gun free zones don't work and 30.06 creates gun-free zones.

You are over thinking this whole situation. If you don't like the 30.06 signs, don't patronize those places. Take your business elsewhere. It's as simple as that.

[ScottDLS]

How then does a property owner reserve his right to keep you out? Your rights do not trump the property owners's rights.

The same way he reserves his right to keep a LEO who is carrying out. He doesn't...

I'd like to see the 30.06 dropped to a class C misdemeanor.

[mojo84]

Why should gun rights trump private property rights?

[Wes]

To me, this is akin to some of the more aggressive OC folks like OCT. We want it all and we want it now and we are going to make it happen our way. That accomplishes nothing. If you dislike parts of the chl law, try to repeal it specifically. For example, carry in bars. Then, take on another piece, like maybe carry in schools. So on and so forth. This will lead to additional freedoms without disregarding all the work done before. Private property owners will always have a way to limit chl holders in Texas. Something I don't disagree with. Without 30.06 we could end up with gun busters barring our entry. No thank you. I am fine with 30.06, if they post it I know my business isnt welcome.

[carlson1]

How then does a property owner reserve his right to keep you out? Your rights do not trump the property owners's rights.

The same way he reserves his right to keep a LEO who is carrying out. He doesn't...

I'd like to see the 30.06 dropped to a class C misdemeanor.

Yeah, well good luck with that. It is wrong to attempt to override a property owners right to refuse entry.

[Dragonfighter]

There are many states where 'no-gun' signs have no force of law and they also don't have a 30.06 type regulation. My idea is to repeal the signs and allow law-abiding, permit holding citizens to freely carry anywhere. Why should a private entity have any right to tell me I can't carry on their premises. If they want me to leave, they have the right to ask me, and I have to comply or face a trespassing charge. But if I'm concealed carrying, how would they ever know?

The argument is, "their house, their rules". I conducted a poll on this forum recently and a fair majority sees no difference between a privately owned business that is open to the general public and privately owned property such as a home, ranch, etc. The argument goes on to say that one just needs to move on to a place that is not posted.

I see two problems with that view. One is when a business is posted but has NO entrance control procedures, the only ones fairly certain NOT to be armed are the CHL holders. The second is if the posted location has something you need and there is no alternative practical, your alternatives are to go without or disarm and proceed into the target rich environment. FWIW I go a long way to avoid posted locations, Sprouts is one such location and I will travel to Southlake, Arlington and points beyond to collect the items I need.

To your last point, concealed is concealed but if you chose to ignore a 30.06 posted business you are magically transformed into a criminal once you cross into the sheep pen. If discovered the cops don't have to arrive and ask you to leave, they can arrest you on the spot and chaos ensues including the loss of your CHL.

No legislator is going to sponsor a repeal of 30.06 especially in light of our OCT friends' antics. The best you can hope for is a reduction in assigned class like going from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor or something similar. There have been rumblings to the effect that a bill to expand places a CHL can carry by statute but beyond rumors on the wind I don't know much more. Again, our OCT people may have scuttled that possibility as well.

[carlson1]

. . . If you dislike parts of the chl law, try to repeal it specifically. For example, carry in bars. Then, take on another piece, like maybe carry in schools. So on and so forth. This will lead to additional freedoms without disregarding all the work done before. . .

I would like to see "off limit" places reduced. It will only happen a little at a time.