Unrestricted Carry For LTC - What Would You Be Willing To Give Up?

[Scott B.]

1. Constitutional Carry w/ 30.06 30.07 restrictions

2. Some sort of 'Enhanced Carry' license and you can carry anywhere a LEO can. LTC type class but with more range time required.

[RogueUSMC]

1. Constitutional Carry w/ 30.06 30.07 restrictions

2. Some sort of 'Enhanced Carry' license and you can carry anywhere a LEO can. LTC type class but with more range time required.

I see you are an instructor...lol

[Lynyrd]

Property rights issues are the real sticking point. I'm not willing to "give up" anything in exchange for my 2A rights. But, at the same time, it's going to be very, very difficult (if not impossible) to say that a property owner does not have the right to control what guns are allowed on their property. Private property, is just that, privately owned property and I for one would have great trouble with any government entity telling me what I can and cannot allow on my own property. It's already bad enough that Texas says it owns all the wild game on my property, and in some states they saw we don't own the water on our property. Thank goodness Texas is that communistic.

Regarding the part I bolded, the reality is that you, as a private property owner do not have the right to prevent anything from coming onto your property that you can't see. You have the right to tell anyone to leave (as long as they are not in a protected class), but you can't legally keep them from carrying anything onto your property that you can't see, no matter how distasteful that item might be to you personally, or how offensive you might find it to be. I can legally walk into a Synagogue with a Nazi swastika necklace under my shirt. If someone discovers that I have it, they can ask me to leave. But they can't have me arrested even if they posted a sign saying I wasn't allowed to bring it in the building.

Guns are the only legal item that is singled out for legal exclusion. I am all for private property rights, but why the fixation on this one thing?

Don't get me wrong. I am all for LTC's carrying guns on my property. If you come to my shop just about any weekend you may see several guys OC who stopped by to shoot the breeze while I am fixing some piece of equipment for one of them.

To try and answer your question, I will offer this. 30.06 and 30.07 are criminal trespass offenses. As a rural property owner I have my property posted with No Trespassing signs, and I DO have the right to prevent any person from coming on to my property, period. Obviously I cannot catch them or prosecute them if I don't SEE them, or find evidence that they were there (security footage). But, you better not get caught on my property without my permission.

This same principle goes to 30.06 and 30.07. Private property owners who are running a business on their property are allowing you to enter their property without committing the offense of trespassing. 30.06 and 30.07 says (in effect) that you are trespassing if you carry. Removing the right for a private property owner who invested his blood, sweat, tears, and money into his property to control who enters that property (for any reason) could be a slippery slope. Matters not whether the property is ranch land, or an auto repair shop.

I'm sure all will not agree with me. That's okay. But consider this, the same principle holds true for your personal residence. You have the right to control who enters that residence, and that includes LEO. They cannot enter with gaining a warrant from a Judge based on suspicion of a crime. You can prevent your undesirable neighbor from trespassing. Or in some unfortunate cases it may be necessary to prevent a family member or extended family member from trespassing. Losing any piece of that control over your own property is not something I could agree with.

[Soccerdad1995]

Property rights issues are the real sticking point. I'm not willing to "give up" anything in exchange for my 2A rights. But, at the same time, it's going to be very, very difficult (if not impossible) to say that a property owner does not have the right to control what guns are allowed on their property. Private property, is just that, privately owned property and I for one would have great trouble with any government entity telling me what I can and cannot allow on my own property. It's already bad enough that Texas says it owns all the wild game on my property, and in some states they saw we don't own the water on our property. Thank goodness Texas is that communistic.

Regarding the part I bolded, the reality is that you, as a private property owner do not have the right to prevent anything from coming onto your property that you can't see. You have the right to tell anyone to leave (as long as they are not in a protected class), but you can't legally keep them from carrying anything onto your property that you can't see, no matter how distasteful that item might be to you personally, or how offensive you might find it to be. I can legally walk into a Synagogue with a Nazi swastika necklace under my shirt. If someone discovers that I have it, they can ask me to leave. But they can't have me arrested even if they posted a sign saying I wasn't allowed to bring it in the building.

Guns are the only legal item that is singled out for legal exclusion. I am all for private property rights, but why the fixation on this one thing?

Don't get me wrong. I am all for LTC's carrying guns on my property. If you come to my shop just about any weekend you may see several guys OC who stopped by to shoot the breeze while I am fixing some piece of equipment for one of them.

To try and answer your question, I will offer this. 30.06 and 30.07 are criminal trespass offenses. As a rural property owner I have my property posted with No Trespassing signs, and I DO have the right to prevent any person from coming on to my property, period. Obviously I cannot catch them or prosecute them if I don't SEE them, or find evidence that they were there (security footage). But, you better not get caught on my property without my permission.

This same principle goes to 30.06 and 30.07. Private property owners who are running a business on their property are allowing you to enter their property without committing the offense of trespassing. 30.06 and 30.07 says (in effect) that you are trespassing if you carry. Removing the right for a private property owner who invested his blood, sweat, tears, and money into his property to control who enters that property (for any reason) could be a slippery slope. Matters not whether the property is ranch land, or an auto repair shop.

I'm sure all will not agree with me. That's okay. But consider this, the same principle holds true for your personal residence. You have the right to control who enters that residence, and that includes LEO. They cannot enter with gaining a warrant from a Judge based on suspicion of a crime. You can prevent your undesirable neighbor from trespassing. Or in some unfortunate cases it may be necessary to prevent a family member or extended family member from trespassing. Losing any piece of that control over your own property is not something I could agree with.

I agree with you on the ability to control who enters my property. But I think you are missing my point.

As it stands, I can restrict every single person from entering my property if I so desire. And I think that is a great thing. I can also invite someone onto my property and then tell them to leave if they do something I don't like, or I just change my mind. Again, I think that is a great thing.

But I cannot tell someone that they can enter my property only if they have the following 3 items, and only if they do not have these two other items, and then have them arrested for trespassing if it turns out that they really had something I told them not to bring. The ONLY exception is for guns. If we want to let property owners issue a conditional invitation and have people arrested for trespass if they don't adhere to those conditions, then fine, I get that. But why is this only the case for guns and not for anything else?

[Lynyrd]

I agree with you on the ability to control who enters my property. But I think you are missing my point.

As it stands, I can restrict every single person from entering my property if I so desire. And I think that is a great thing. I can also invite someone onto my property and then tell them to leave if they do something I don't like, or I just change my mind. Again, I think that is a great thing.

But I cannot tell someone that they can enter my property only if they have the following 3 items, and only if they do not have these two other items, and then have them arrested for trespassing if it turns out that they really had something I told them not to bring. The ONLY exception is for guns. If we want to let property owners issue a conditional invitation and have people arrested for trespass if they don't adhere to those conditions, then fine, I get that. But why is this only the case for guns and not for anything else?

Perhaps you should ask the legislature why they made 30.06 and 30.07 criminal trespass? IANAL

[ScottDLS]

This is what I have been trying to say all along whenever this "property rights" issue comes up. Soccerdad just summarized it as succinctly as I've seen. There will be some people arguing that conditional entry with any sign as a notice is already the law (30.05), but it's never been held as such for anything other than handgun carry. Even that was in a 1995 AG opinion that was since mooted by the 30.06 law two years later.

I already get it that the business lobby is never going to let 30.06 go away, so we might as well not waste any time on it. Cops are already exempt from 30.05/6/7 though I bet most business people and legislators don't know it.

Let's get rid of 46.035 completely and make LTC an exemption for 46.03. That's what I'd like to see.

[jb2012]

The answer is easy to envision, in my simple mind:

1. We get unrestricted carry,
2. Signs have no force of law,
3. Any property owner or business owner can ask you to leave for any reason at any time (color of your shirt, cut of your hair, presence of a gun),
4. #3 above is not valid in publicly owned places (e.g. parks, government owned or rented property, LCRA lands),
5. Certain publicly owned places can still ban guns (e.g. courtroom), but provide attended lockers such as we'd find for LEOs that have to disarm before entering a jail,
6. We retain licenses for the purpose of reciprocity, GFSZ, and simplified purchasing of guns from dealers.

[AJSully421]

The answer is easy to envision, in my simple mind:

1. We get unrestricted carry,
2. Signs have no force of law,
3. Any property owner or business owner can ask you to leave for any reason at any time (color of your shirt, cut of your hair, presence of a gun),
4. #3 above is not valid in publicly owned places (e.g. parks, government owned or rented property, LCRA lands),
5. Certain publicly owned places can still ban guns (e.g. courtroom), but provide attended lockers such as we'd find for LEOs that have to disarm before entering a jail,
6. We retain licenses for the purpose of reciprocity, GFSZ, and simplified purchasing of guns from dealers.

Deal.

And what I am willing to give up to make this happen is: liberals and their irrational feelings.

[rotor]

I'm personally not a huge fan or locking my gun in my car when I enter a 30.06 or other gun free zone. I cannot for the life of me understand why some people believe that a gun is safer in an unattended vehicle rather than on the person of a responsible citizen. I've had two friends have their cars stolen within the last two years. Luckily they did not have a weapon in their car, but cars with guns in them are stolen every day in the US. I don't hear about a lot of guns being stolen right off of a LTC holder while he's carrying.

Obviously the best solution would be eliminating 30.06 and allow unrestricted carry for all LTC holders, with maybe exceptions for court rooms, restricted airport area, etc. However, even in a state as red as Texas, we don't always get what we want. So, would you be in favor of unrestricted carry for LTC holders if it meant LTC holders must take continuing education courses on an annual basis? How about a longer initial training class to cover more topics outside of what is currently covered?

In general, what would you be willing to trade for unrestricted carry, if anything?

Nothing. What specifically do you think continuing education would do? Do you feel that you are super sharp right after you get your LTC and 1 year later you are too stupid to carry without an education booster shot? I resent the 30.06/30.07 and 51% signs. Get rid of all of them and if someone asks you to leave their private property that's all we need.

[twomillenium]

I am in favor of anyone who can legally own a firearm can do so and I would not want to force anyone who doesn't want to own one to have to own one. I am also in favor of Licensed holders to be able to carry anywhere that is not posted, but I do not want to force someone to allow carry who doesn't want carry on their property or in their business. My rights should not supersede another's rights on their property or in their business. IMNSHO Those who think this way are giving up all their rights further down the road.

[LucasMcCain]

I agree with you on the ability to control who enters my property. But I think you are missing my point.

As it stands, I can restrict every single person from entering my property if I so desire. And I think that is a great thing. I can also invite someone onto my property and then tell them to leave if they do something I don't like, or I just change my mind. Again, I think that is a great thing.

But I cannot tell someone that they can enter my property only if they have the following 3 items, and only if they do not have these two other items, and then have them arrested for trespassing if it turns out that they really had something I told them not to bring. The ONLY exception is for guns. If we want to let property owners issue a conditional invitation and have people arrested for trespass if they don't adhere to those conditions, then fine, I get that. But why is this only the case for guns and not for anything else?

I'm not extremely well versed in property law and such, but I'm not entirely sure this is correct. No shirt, no shoes, no service comes to mind. As do restrictions at concert venues and stadiums and the like. Look at the FAQ for whatever they're calling Starplex in Fair Park now. There are tons of restricted items that will get you ejected if you're found with them inside. Now I realize that in those instances you will not be charged with criminal trespass. However, could you be if you refused to leave? Under what authority would you be removed from the property by law enforcement if not trespassing?

Please don't think I'm trying to argue. I'm certainly not. Just trying to add to the discussion, as I really don't know the answers to the questions I pose. I'm also still pretty unclear on just what types of qualifiers can be used to charge someone with trespassing.

[Skiprr]

At the risk of sounding like some left coast liberal dimocrat, I'm pretty cool with the laws as they are. I do not OC and nowhere that we ordinarily frequent are off limits to our CC's. Nether our medical nor financial facilities are posted and we don't do school or court house functions. Any place that we may possibly visit that is 30.06 posted gives a choice of whether to disarm or go elsewhere.

In summation, I don't see no need to give up nothin'. YMMV?

Just a note that, should any medical issues of you or yours escalate to the point that you need to visit the largest medical center in the world--the one right in your backyard--your experience with 30.06/30.07 postings will change dramatically. There's not a hospital, clinic, professional building, or even skywalk in the Texas Medical Center in Houston that isn't legitimately posted. You can spend a full day walking over a mile and waiting hours in multiple offices, all under legitimate signage...and you will have no choice to go elsewhere.

That is, unless you choose the world's second largest medical center in Singapore, or the third-largest in Thailand, or number four in Paris...

[Oldgringo]

At the risk of sounding like some left coast liberal dimocrat, I'm pretty cool with the laws as they are. I do not OC and nowhere that we ordinarily frequent are off limits to our CC's. Nether our medical nor financial facilities are posted and we don't do school or court house functions. Any place that we may possibly visit that is 30.06 posted gives a choice of whether to disarm or go elsewhere.

In summation, I don't see no need to give up nothin'. YMMV?

Just a note that, should any medical issues of you or yours escalate to the point that you need to visit the largest medical center in the world--the one right in your backyard--your experience with 30.06/30.07 postings will change dramatically. There's not a hospital, clinic, professional building, or even skywalk in the Texas Medical Center in Houston that isn't legitimately posted. You can spend a full day walking over a mile and waiting hours in multiple offices, all under legitimate signage...and you will have no choice to go elsewhere.

That is, unless you choose the world's second largest medical center in Singapore, or the third-largest in Thailand, or number four in Paris...

We'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it. Like I said, we'll either disarm or go elsewhere. I suspect that our CC gun/s will not be the first thing on our minds should we need to go there?

[Soccerdad1995]

I agree with you on the ability to control who enters my property. But I think you are missing my point.

As it stands, I can restrict every single person from entering my property if I so desire. And I think that is a great thing. I can also invite someone onto my property and then tell them to leave if they do something I don't like, or I just change my mind. Again, I think that is a great thing.

But I cannot tell someone that they can enter my property only if they have the following 3 items, and only if they do not have these two other items, and then have them arrested for trespassing if it turns out that they really had something I told them not to bring. The ONLY exception is for guns. If we want to let property owners issue a conditional invitation and have people arrested for trespass if they don't adhere to those conditions, then fine, I get that. But why is this only the case for guns and not for anything else?

I'm not extremely well versed in property law and such, but I'm not entirely sure this is correct. No shirt, no shoes, no service comes to mind. As do restrictions at concert venues and stadiums and the like. Look at the FAQ for whatever they're calling Starplex in Fair Park now. There are tons of restricted items that will get you ejected if you're found with them inside. Now I realize that in those instances you will not be charged with criminal trespass. However, could you be if you refused to leave? Under what authority would you be removed from the property by law enforcement if not trespassing?

Please don't think I'm trying to argue. I'm certainly not. Just trying to add to the discussion, as I really don't know the answers to the questions I pose. I'm also still pretty unclear on just what types of qualifiers can be used to charge someone with trespassing.

The big difference here in my mind is whether you can be charged with criminal trespass BEFORE you are told to leave. In the examples you cite, the property owner / operator figures out that you have something you are not allowed to have and asks you to leave. If you refuse to leave you would be guilty of trespass. But only if you refuse to leave. I would be 100% fine with this being the standard for guns as well.

[JagsfanNtexas]

At the risk of sounding like some left coast liberal dimocrat, I'm pretty cool with the laws as they are. I do not OC and nowhere that we ordinarily frequent are off limits to our CC's. Nether our medical nor financial facilities are posted and we don't do school or court house functions. Any place that we may possibly visit that is 30.06 posted gives a choice of whether to disarm or go elsewhere.

In summation, I don't see no need to give up nothin'. YMMV?

Just a note that, should any medical issues of you or yours escalate to the point that you need to visit the largest medical center in the world--the one right in your backyard--your experience with 30.06/30.07 postings will change dramatically. There's not a hospital, clinic, professional building, or even skywalk in the Texas Medical Center in Houston that isn't legitimately posted. You can spend a full day walking over a mile and waiting hours in multiple offices, all under legitimate signage...and you will have no choice to go elsewhere.

That is, unless you choose the world's second largest medical center in Singapore, or the third-largest in Thailand, or number four in Paris...

This is exactly the scenario that got me thinking about this this morning. If I absolutely have to go to a gun free zone for whatever reason, I will lock up my pistol at home, go to where I needed to go, and come back. But if it's a family emergency that requires me to run to the hospital at the drop of a dime and possibly stay there for several hours, even up to a day or a few days, do I want to be forced to leave my pistol in my car for that amount of time? Just does not make sense.