Everytown Files Lawsuit Over Texas 30.06/30.07 signs for being "burdensome"

[Rafe]

They want the police to be able to arrest any person for violating any sign with any language.

But, but... They're on the same side of the political spectrum that wants to defund the police. So if I walk into an establishment that has postcard size signage hidden back by the bathrooms, and somebody happens to mistake the emergency epipen set on my belt as a gun, the said establishment would then call a distributed call center, hold 10 minutes for an agent working from home over a VoIP connection, and an appointment would be made later in the week for a social worker to drive over and see if I was still there so they could see about counseling, therapy, or a Class B misdemeanor?

I'm so confused...

[03Lightningrocks]

I just can't imagine this thing going anywhere. Unless we allow democrats to take over Texas.

[Vol Texan]

The very premise of this suit is flawed.

Specifically, Texas property owners who espouse this viewpoint must post multiple large, text-heavy signs containing language specified by the State in order to exercise the longest established and most fundamental of their property rights: the right to exclude. If these property owners use other means of indicating that firearms are not welcome on the premises—even if entirely reasonable and understandable—they cannot avail themselves of Texas’s criminal trespass laws.

There is a misconception that 30.06 is a sign. It is not. 30.06 is the law that allows private property owners to bar concealed carry. The sign is only one of multiple ways to provide notice, and indeed it is the least ‘powerful’ method under Texas law. Simply saying “Dude, no guns” has more of a legal impact, and that is only one of many varieties of phraseology that can be employed.

Given that the number of permutations and combinations of words available to the business owners is nearly infinite (e.g. “you can’t carry here”, “no guns allowed”, “get that thing out of here”, etc., etc, and other etc.), the “free speech” aspect of the most impactful method of notification is about as free as free can get.

Nobody MUST post a sign as stated by the complainant. Signs are altogether optional, because the absence of a sign still affords the private property owner with the full effectiveness of 30.06.

[Soccerdad1995]

There are many untrue statements in this lawsuit. To cite just one example, it is not true that a business must post signage to avail themselves of Texas' Criminal Trespass statutes. They can call the police and have anyone removed, for almost any reason, AFTER telling that person to leave (and assuming that the person does not actually leave). That is the standard for pretty much every type of "offensive" person / behavior.

In general, in order for a business owner to call the police and have a hope of filing criminal trespass charges against a person, WITHOUT first telling that person to leave, the sign would have to specifically state that they are not allowed to enter the premises if they are not in compliance with specific requirements. A simple "no hoodies" sign would not be sufficient. The sign would have to say "if you are wearing a hoodie, then you are not allowed to enter these premises, and doing so will constitute trespass", or similar wording. Similarly, a "no pink underwear" or "no tattoos" sign would not mean that someone is guilty of trespassing if they enter your place with the offending item on their body. There is an exception made for some things, including the possession of guns, by allowing a business owner to use different signage.

I also don't see how there is any potential first amendment violation. The government is not prohibiting anyone from expressing their thoughts and ideas. The government is not saying that a business owner can't tell you that they don't sell specific types of guns on the premises (by posting a circle / slash gun decal), or that they don't issue permits for guns ("Guns are not permitted on these premises"), or anything else they want to say regarding firearms. They can express their ideas all they want on these or any other subjects.

If anything, this is a conflict between the second amendment rights of patrons and the rights of business owners to do what they want with their property. In that regard, it is similar to the right of a person of a specific race to enter a place of public accommodation versus the right of a racist business owner to exclude people of that race from their establishment. In both cases the conflict is between property owners rights versus the civil rights of people who wish to patronize their establishment.

[thatguyoverthere]

In this short thread, there have already been a number of simple, clear, logical rebuttals to the "reasoning" behind this lawsuit.

Unfortunately, simplicity, clarity, and well reasoned logic seem to have very little to do with anything quite often these days, whether between individuals, or when handed down in government laws, decrees, or judgments.

As they say, "common sense ain't so common."

[Vol Texan]

Well, there is a simple solution to make the entire suit moot:

Make it such that no variant of any “no guns” sign has the force of law. Call it the “Florida technique”, or the “Georgia provision”, or the “most-places-in-Montana-except-that-liberal-infested-pit-named-Missoula” accord.

[jason812]

I like the class action lawsuit idea against this group. Not as a way to get any money from them but to turn the table so to speak and force them to bleed money thru legal fees. Much the same way that has been done to pro-gun organizations. Does there lawsuit slander all of us with a texas3006.com login and who have added entries? If so, my feelings are hurt and I'm going to go hide in a safe spot. Now I'm on record claiming my emotional distress.

Well, there is a simple solution to make the entire suit moot:

Make it such that no variant of any “no guns” sign has the force of law. Call it the “Florida technique”, or the “Georgia provision”, or the “most-places-in-Montana-except-that-liberal-infested-pit-named-Missoula” accord.

Its called Constitutional Carry.

[Soccerdad1995]

Well, there is a simple solution to make the entire suit moot:

Make it such that no variant of any “no guns” sign has the force of law. Call it the “Florida technique”, or the “Georgia provision”, or the “most-places-in-Montana-except-that-liberal-infested-pit-named-Missoula” accord.

Or we could simply have the law state that if a property owner wants to have the police arrest people who have the audacity to enter their premises without meeting specific criteria, the person must first refuse to leave after being told to leave by the property owner, or their representative. Violating something written on a sign, however prominent, would not equate to being guilty of trespass without the refusal to leave.

This is how things work in reality, right now. At least for the most part. A store that has a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign first tells the shirtless patron that they have to leave. The police aren't even called unless that person refuses to leave the store. Same thing for a movie theater / restaurant with a sign that says "no outside food or drink". The lady with a candy bar in her purse isn't charged with trespass unless she actually refuses to leave after being told to do so.

[Vol Texan]

I like the class action lawsuit idea against this group. Not as a way to get any money from them but to turn the table so to speak and force them to bleed money thru legal fees. Much the same way that has been done to pro-gun organizations. Does there lawsuit slander all of us with a texas3006.com login and who have added entries? If so, my feelings are hurt and I'm going to go hide in a safe spot. Now I'm on record claiming my emotional distress.

Well, there is a simple solution to make the entire suit moot:

Make it such that no variant of any “no guns” sign has the force of law. Call it the “Florida technique”, or the “Georgia provision”, or the “most-places-in-Montana-except-that-liberal-infested-pit-named-Missoula” accord.

Its called Constitutional Carry.

I may be wrong here, but I think there is a difference. Vermont has Constitutional (no permit required) Carry but “no guns”signs still have force of law.

[jason812]

Its called Constitutional Carry.

I may be wrong here, but I think there is a difference. Vermont has Constitutional (no permit required) Carry but “no guns”signs still have force of law.

I wouldn't call that Constitutional Carry but I get your point and could see having to put language in a bill to make all signs unenforceable.

[Vol Texan]

Its called Constitutional Carry.

I may be wrong here, but I think there is a difference. Vermont has Constitutional (no permit required) Carry but “no guns”signs still have force of law.

I wouldn't call that Constitutional Carry but I get your point and could see having to put language in a bill to make all signs unenforceable.

[Grayling813]

With the amount of money Everytoon is spending on attorneys with this, the organization could supply every business in Texas with free, compliant signage.
Except we know the signs aren’t the true target, the firearms are what they want to do away with.

[Scott B.]

sounds like bovine waste product to me.....
- 30.0x signs only apply to 1 out of every 26 Texans. 30.0x signs don't "speak" to the other 25. Or to (most) non-Texans. Or to non-citizens.
- I have the impression that most business owners who post 30.0x don't actually read or understand the 30.0x statutes
- signs in 30.0x are only one of three forms of notification (1] signs, 2] verbal, 3] card or handbill w/30.0x text), so 30.05 IS available to a business owner who has been defrauded by their chosen sign vendor (why aren't they suing HIM?) via the other two notification methods
- LTC holders aren't going to 'game' their signs because we don't WANT to patronize their business, and we don't want to be detained or spend time in court.

Just another frivolous lawsuit designed to waste the state's time and legal resources......

What the old guy said.

I’ve always taken 30.07 signs to mean, "we prefer you to conceal your weapon", and so I do so and don’t worry about it.

I’ve always taken 30.06 signs to mean, "we don’t want your business", so I oblige them.

TAM that's how I teach it to my students, 07 is like a dress code, 06 is telling us to spend our money elsewhere.

[BSHII]

"Gaming the system." If a premises owner wants to legally exclude firearms, the instructions for doing so are right in the statute and unambiguous. Compliant signs are readily available.

If the premises owner posts a non-compliant sign, then I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the owner did so intentionally in an effort to mollify the hoplophobes while still allowing their carrying customers to enter.