Removing the penalty for carrying past a 30 06 sign?

[RossA]

Don't like the ways the laws are here: MOVE!

If people had said that in the 1990's we would never have gotten CHL to begin with.

[TXBO]

In hindsight, maybe the close similarities of the 30.07 sign to the 30.06 sign was not the best approach. As we are already finding out, there is little need for a compliant sign with open carry when a proprietor can simply ask someone with a visible gun to leave. Let businesses have that approach on open carry with any small sign they choose and do away with the big ugly 30.07.

[Abraham]

RossA,

I agree.

I'm having a gut reaction created by all the bellyaching and childish foot stamping demands of those who insist that things should be how they want them to be regardless of reality.

I wonder what percentage of such is emanating from out of staters who've come to Texas and proclaim that other states have superior laws that we in Texas should copy?

Were I to read the disaffected are going to lobby for a change in legislation, I wouldn't be at all disgusted, but their overall immaturity is driving me up a wall!

[TXBO]

Don't like the ways the laws are here: MOVE!

If people had said that in the 1990's we would never have gotten CHL to begin with.

True. Nothing wrong with stealing good ideas.

I'm not an innovator. I built my business through best practices of others.

[steveincowtown]

Not to make this thread drift to far, but think about how absolutely asinine it is that the Tex Leg has provided a means for business owners to exclude proven law abiding citizens from their business but not true criminals.

Why the heck do we not have a sign that makes it a automatic Class A misdemeanor for:

- Convicted shop lifter to enter a private business.
- Convicted violent felon to enter a bar.
- Convicted SO to enter a Chuck E Cheese
- Convicted habitual drunk driver to enter a liquor store.
etc. etc.

Just unreal...

[TXBO]

RossA,


I wonder what percentage of such is emanating from out of staters who've come to Texas and proclaim that other states have superior laws that we in Texas should copy?

It's not a matter of proclaiming superiority. It's a matter of analytics. Studying the effects of laws from others states is a valuable tool. It provides historical facts.

[Tracker]

RossA,


I wonder what percentage of such is emanating from out of staters who've come to Texas and proclaim that other states have superior laws that we in Texas should copy?

It's not a matter of proclaiming superiority. It's a matter of analytics. Studying the effects of laws from others states is a valuable tool. It provides historical facts.

I'm in texoma country having consistant law between OK and Tex is an advantage.

[rogersinsel]

I like the idea. I think the title of the thread might be causing some angst for some. The pro side could offer a concession on signage size in return for moving the effective threshold to "failure to depart" then ....citation is issued. This is an issue with momentum.

[fickman]

Why the heck do we not have a sign that makes it a automatic Class A misdemeanor for:

I think this is a good observation. As unlikely as it might be to accomplish anytime soon, I do not think this is beating a dead horse. Refining the contentions in the debate to clearly articulate the goal is worthwhile, and sometimes a change in public opinion is a long, erosive process.

Philosophically speaking, it is worth noting that, to my knowledge, out of an almost infinite number of inanimate objects in the universe, handguns are the only objects for which Texas allows conditional trespass signs to hold the weight of law. Not knives, chains, pepper spray, fanny packs, Macbook Pros, paperback copies of "The Communist Manifesto", or other potentially objectionable items. . .

Charles has expressed his personal support for removing 30.06 penalties for businesses open to the public. I think the "open to the public" statement is an important distinction. If there is no legislative support for it now, maybe there can be in ten years. Maybe. We have to have a prioritized list of next goals. This is on mine. For concealed carry, I find the privacy argument to be a compelling retort to the private property argument.

[LSUTiger]

Please forgive my beating a dead horse, some of my coworkers and I are in disagreement about the penalty for intentionally walking past a 30.06 sign is....

I think notice vs effective consent and written vs verbally are confusing the issue.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.


(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.



http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/faqs/index.htm

43. What are the penalties against a license holder for violating §30.06 or §30.07, Texas Penal Code?


Until January 1, 2016, it is a Class A misdemeanor for a license holder to carry a concealed handgun onto private property after receiving effective notice under §30.06, Texas Penal Code.

Effective January 1, 2016, it is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200 for a license holder to carry a concealed handgun onto private property after receiving effective notice under §30.06, Texas Penal Code, or to openly carry a handgun onto private property after receiving effective notice under §30.07, Texas Penal Code. Note, after January 1, 2016, the offense will be enhanced to a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown at trial that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) (of §30.06 or §30.07)and subsequently failed to depart.



So I interpret this as if I received prior notice verbally or written, and then later made entry anyway then it's a Class C misdemeanor. Upon/after entry if I am then given a 2nd verbal notice and also failed to depart then it its a Class A misdemeanor.

My reasoning is that whether verbal or written, notice is notice and the penalty for violating notice is a Class C. The penalty for being asked to leave and remaining is a Class A.

Am I correct?

[dru]

Don't like the the laws here? MOVE!

Or we could discuss and work toward changes that some of us would like to see in the law - which was the point of this whole thread

[Ruark]

Or we could discuss and work toward changes that some of us would like to see in the law - which was the point of this whole thread

I agree. I'm ready for a focused discussion on the next legislative session. What should be proposed, etc.

[Soccerdad1995]

We'll have to agree to disagree. You and I aren't focusing on the "fairness" issue in the same context. You want to view trespass from a much broader perspective. I'm focusing on current trespass laws dealing with the possession of handguns, i.e. TPC §§30.06 and 30.07.

Currently, there are two ways to keep LTCs off private property when they carry self-defense handguns. For concealed-carry, a sign complying with TPC §30.06 can be posted or the property owner can give oral notice. The same is true for TPC §30.07 dealing with open-carry. Those wanting to render 30.06/30.07 signs ineffective are not seeking to render oral notice ineffective, so they acknowledge that a property owner should be able to exclude armed persons from their property. While they agree that property owners should be able to exclude armed people, they argue that they should only be able to do so by confronting the armed individual. That's the part I consider unfair.

Very few businesses post 30.06 signs. The few that do include businesses owned by out-of-state corporations as well as mom & pop shops. If someone is truly fearful of guns, as unfounded as that fear may be, how is it fair to force that property/business owner to either accept the presence of firearms in their store or confront the person of whom they are afraid? While my example is of someone who is afraid of guns, the concept is not limited to such people. Texas law allows two methods of excluding armed people from private property; one is non-confrontational (signs) the other requires a confrontation (oral notice). There's no justification for allowing only the latter. This is especially true for open-carry.

Chas.

Trust me when I say that you are not in the minority. Most people I know disagree with me about one thing or another.

The problem I am having is with the contention that it is unfair to ask a business owner to ask someone to leave before they call the police and have that person cited with a criminal offense. There is nothing inherently wrong or criminal about carrying a weapon. Just like there is nothing inherently wrong or criminal about being 6 feet tall, weighing 300 pounds, and sporting a collection of face tattoos, or wearing a hoodie as a teenager while you are hanging out with 4 or 5 of your friends.

In all 3 cases (including a person with an OC firearm), a business owner may have fear seeing these folks walk through their door. Let's put aside whether that fear is reasonable in any of these cases. My issue is that the business owner can call the police to cite the gun owner, but must first "confront the person of whom they are afraid" in the other two examples. If it is unfair to make a business owner confront someone they are (reasonably or unreasonably) afraid of, then why are we limiting this to gun owners and not all people who might inspire fear, even if that fear is irrational and unfounded?

[K.Mooneyham]

RossA,

I agree.

I'm having a gut reaction created by all the bellyaching and childish foot stamping demands of those who insist that things should be how they want them to be regardless of reality.

I wonder what percentage of such is emanating from out of staters who've come to Texas and proclaim that other states have superior laws that we in Texas should copy?

Were I to read the disaffected are going to lobby for a change in legislation, I wouldn't be at all disgusted, but their overall immaturity is driving me up a wall!

You know, I was wondering something similar. But, I was wondering what percentage of the posting of the signs was being done by businesses whose ownership/headquarters was out of state, and don't really like Texas, though they like the money from our citizens and state economy.

[Ruark]

Currently, there are two ways to keep LTCs off private property when they carry self-defense handguns. For concealed-carry, a sign complying with TPC §30.06 can be posted or the property owner can give oral notice. The same is true for TPC §30.07 dealing with open-carry. Those wanting to render 30.06/30.07 signs ineffective are not seeking to render oral notice ineffective, so they acknowledge that a property owner should be able to exclude armed persons from their property. While they agree that property owners should be able to exclude armed people, they argue that they should only be able to do so by confronting the armed individual. That's the part I consider unfair.

Very few businesses post 30.06 signs. The few that do include businesses owned by out-of-state corporations as well as mom & pop shops. If someone is truly fearful of guns, as unfounded as that fear may be, how is it fair to force that property/business owner to either accept the presence of firearms in their store or confront the person of whom they are afraid?
Chas.

Chas, you're succinct and clear as always, but you have repeated several times how the absence of an 06 sign "forces" a business owner to confront a concealed carrier. This concept seems faulty. If the gun is concealed, there's no trigger for a confrontation; the business owner doesn't see it and can't identify the carrier or distinguish the carrier from any other customer.

The concealed gun has no effect on anyone, any more than any other item worn under one's clothing. I'm sure most business owners would wish to exclude, say, KKK members, or people with contagious diseases. What are they supposed to do, administer a polygraph to everybody who comes through the door? The business owner can't identify and confront everybody who's a concealed carrier any more than he can everybody who has been to Kansas. Seems like the fact that the gun is concealed renders this whole idea moot.