Repeal 30.06

[Abraham]

Some third world countries are quite lax when it comes public safety. They may have laws on the books, but they're haphazardly enforced.

Seasoned third world travelers are heavily at risk when it comes to food, building, and the risk goes on.

My point being - do we in the U.S. want to live with poor public safety?

I know I don't.

[Keith B]

Some third world countries are quite lax when it comes public safety. They may have laws on the books, but they're haphazardly enforced.

Seasoned third world travelers are heavily at risk when it comes to food, building, and the risk goes on.

My point being - do we in the U.S. want to live with poor public safety?

I know I don't.

Lack of proper building code enforcement. Owner tries to flee country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 ... 74732.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

American company involved and still no restitution for those families
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 71974.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JJVP]

Reduce the penalty or make it class C, no-arrest, first fine is $100, max fine is $500, if repeated after the max fine, makes penalty suspension of the CHL for up to 1-yr.

I would rather they eliminated the penalty altogether. If discovered, they can ask you to leave, and if you refuse, then you could be charged with trespassing. Other states have similar laws. if they post a No Gun sign, it is only an issue if they ask you to leave and you refuse.

Sort of what they did for failure to inform. The requirement to inform still exist, but no penalty if you fail to inform. My $0.02.

[mewalke]

I view the S30.06 to be a way to apply the idea of trespass on something that a business owner couldn't easily detect or determine but in a very structured manner. If you do not want people to carry concealed firearms in your establishment, fine, but you have to give very specific notification in order for it to be enforceable.

What is the penalty/punishment for trespassing in TX? Is a Class A misdemeanor in line with trespass laws?

[mewalke]

Reduce the penalty or make it class C, no-arrest, first fine is $100, max fine is $500, if repeated after the max fine, makes penalty suspension of the CHL for up to 1-yr.

I would rather they eliminated the penalty altogether. If discovered, they can ask you to leave, and if you refuse, then you could be charged with trespassing. Other states have similar laws. if they post a No Gun sign, it is only an issue if they ask you to leave and you refuse.

Sort of what they did for failure to inform. The requirement to inform still exist, but no penalty if you fail to inform. My $0.02.

I generally like the idea of removing the penalty all-together, but then what is the point of requiring posted notification at all? In the absence of 30.06, a business owner could still ask someone carrying concealed who is "detected" to leave. If they refused they could be charged under trespass laws anyway, right?

[Purplehood]

I find it odd that some people are so into their own rights, that they want to trample on other peoples rights...in order to expand on their own rights. Private business owners have every right to deny weapons in their place of business if they want to. They own it and can manage it however they want. With your logic, if someone was a guest in my home, I would not have the right to ask them to leave their weapon in their car or off my property if I wanted to. I'm sorry to say, but my property rights trump their rights in that case...and it is no different in a business.

Now, just like any right, comes the question on whether it is wise to exercise it and when. Businesses have the right to communicate their stance that they do not want concealed handguns in their buildings (via posting 30.06), but I also have the right to choose to not do business with them and go somewhere else. My stance is that it is unwise to post 30.06 signs and deny concealed carry (for a multitude of reasons), but free people are free to be stupid and make unwise decisions.

I personally really like 30.06. It is well defined with no (ok, maybe very little) wiggle room. I think Texas has one of the best defined mechanisms (30.06 signs, 51% signs, etc.) for helping citizens comply with others communicating their exercise of their property rights. 30.06 is necessary to protect the rights of both sides and does a very good job doing it!

Actually the OP did not state that a private-property owner couldn't "manage" their property. What is being proposed is that the 30.06 statutes be eliminated. Private-property owners could still give verbal notice to someone...the catch is that they have to know that someone is carrying concealed in the first place. Or they can simply say, "I don't want you bringing weapons into my house", effectively giving notice.

[Superman]

I find it odd that some people are so into their own rights, that they want to trample on other peoples rights...in order to expand on their own rights. Private business owners have every right to deny weapons in their place of business if they want to. They own it and can manage it however they want. With your logic, if someone was a guest in my home, I would not have the right to ask them to leave their weapon in their car or off my property if I wanted to. I'm sorry to say, but my property rights trump their rights in that case...and it is no different in a business.

Now, just like any right, comes the question on whether it is wise to exercise it and when. Businesses have the right to communicate their stance that they do not want concealed handguns in their buildings (via posting 30.06), but I also have the right to choose to not do business with them and go somewhere else. My stance is that it is unwise to post 30.06 signs and deny concealed carry (for a multitude of reasons), but free people are free to be stupid and make unwise decisions.

I personally really like 30.06. It is well defined with no (ok, maybe very little) wiggle room. I think Texas has one of the best defined mechanisms (30.06 signs, 51% signs, etc.) for helping citizens comply with others communicating their exercise of their property rights. 30.06 is necessary to protect the rights of both sides and does a very good job doing it!

Actually the OP did not state that a private-property owner couldn't "manage" their property. What is being proposed is that the 30.06 statutes be eliminated. Private-property owners could still give verbal notice to someone...the catch is that they have to know that someone is carrying concealed in the first place. Or they can simply say, "I don't want you bringing weapons into my house", effectively giving notice.

The OP didn't have to say anything about managing property because his proposal to eliminate 30.06 implies that business owners would have to give up some of their rights (property rights). If I cannot communicate and enforce my desire to keep concealed handguns out of my business, then my ability to run and manage my business in the way I see fit is hindered. That is why we are having a discussion about property rights vs 2A rights. If I'm a business owner and I have a right to prohibit concealed firearms (you supposedly agree with this since you proposed a verbal notice solution), then how am I supposed to do that in a practical manner? You already touched on one issue...how do I know that someone is carrying in the first place? Using your verbal notice suggestion, do I have to hire someone to guard the front door to greet everyone that comes in with "Welcome to our store, please see the sales on isle 5...and we don't want you bringing weapons in here."? Do I have to install some automatic audio device to play that for ever person that walks through the door? The most effective manner to do this is with 30.06 and I think it does a very good job and defining the responsibilities of both parties. It is very easy for everyone to understand.

I will state again:

I personally really like 30.06. It is well defined with no (ok, maybe very little) wiggle room. I think Texas has one of the best defined mechanisms (30.06 signs, 51% signs, etc.) for helping citizens comply with others communicating their exercise of their property rights. 30.06 is necessary to protect the rights of both sides and does a very good job doing it!

[Charles L. Cotton]

I find it odd that some people are so into their own rights, that they want to trample on other peoples rights...in order to expand on their own rights. Private business owners have every right to deny weapons in their place of business if they want to. They own it and can manage it however they want. With your logic, if someone was a guest in my home, I would not have the right to ask them to leave their weapon in their car or off my property if I wanted to. I'm sorry to say, but my property rights trump their rights in that case...and it is no different in a business.

Now, just like any right, comes the question on whether it is wise to exercise it and when. Businesses have the right to communicate their stance that they do not want concealed handguns in their buildings (via posting 30.06), but I also have the right to choose to not do business with them and go somewhere else. My stance is that it is unwise to post 30.06 signs and deny concealed carry (for a multitude of reasons), but free people are free to be stupid and make unwise decisions.

I personally really like 30.06. It is well defined with no (ok, maybe very little) wiggle room. I think Texas has one of the best defined mechanisms (30.06 signs, 51% signs, etc.) for helping citizens comply with others communicating their exercise of their property rights. 30.06 is necessary to protect the rights of both sides and does a very good job doing it!

Actually the OP did not state that a private-property owner couldn't "manage" their property. What is being proposed is that the 30.06 statutes be eliminated. Private-property owners could still give verbal notice to someone...the catch is that they have to know that someone is carrying concealed in the first place. Or they can simply say, "I don't want you bringing weapons into my house", effectively giving notice.

If 30.06 were to be repealed, then TPC §30.05 would apply. Under 30.05, any "no guns" sign would be enforceable and the CHL would not have to be told to leave before being arrested. This was the case and it was discussed during a 1996 Interim Study on Implementation of SB60. Then Harris County DA "Chuck" Rosenthal who had been a strong opponent of SB60 stated that he was wrong, that CHL was working great, and that off-limit areas need to be reduced, and that the lack of a 51% sign should be made a defense to prosecution. He also said that generic "no gun" signs were sufficient to put someone on notice and that anyone entering property so posted could be arrested and convicted. His statement was very helpful in passing HB2909 in 1997 that set up TPC §30.06, among other things.

Chas.

[cw3van]

TPC §30.06 saved the Texas CHL program. Without §30.06, TPC §30.05 would apply to armed CHL's and the very stringent notice requirement (primarily sign posting) found is 30.06 is not in 30.05. TPC §30.06 must not be repealed under any circumstances.

However, I think it would be reasonable to change the law such that armed CHLs cannot be prohibited from carrying on commercial/business property. Yes, it is private property, but we regulate commercial property extensively now with building codes, fire codes, the Americans With Disabilities Act, local zoning laws, deed restrictions and HOA rules, etc. I think denying a business owner the ability to exclude an armed CHL is no different than denying entry based upon race, religion or any other of the protected classes. Noncommercial property like your home is a different matter.

Chas.

100%

Also, it strikes me as ironic when a business allows unfettered access to masses of people but can restrict me (insert extra qualifications rant here) from entering. It is different if the business is not "normally" open to the public or has exclusive/secured access.

With Mr Cotton we should be able to CC on commercial/business property that would be so nice.

[MechAg94]

If this was done, commercial/business property would need to be strictly defined. I would not want private property to be redefined as commercial based on technicality. I would also think business should still have control over property not open to the public.

[jmra]

If this was done, commercial/business property would need to be strictly defined. I would not want private property to be redefined as commercial based on technicality. I would also think business should still have control over property not open to the public.

If it isn't open to the public how would you get in? Not an issue as far as I can tell.

[MechAg94]

If this was done, commercial/business property would need to be strictly defined. I would not want private property to be redefined as commercial based on technicality. I would also think business should still have control over property not open to the public.

If it isn't open to the public how would you get in? Not an issue as far as I can tell.

A guy sets up a shop next to his house to do some stuff on the side. He occasionally has a customer stop by to pick something up. Does his property become commercial in this new law? I am sure there are other potential grey areas.

I am sure it can be defined adequately, but I think it is wise never to overlook possible ways politicians can screw things up.

[RottenApple]

A guy sets up a shop next to his house to do some stuff on the side. He occasionally has a customer stop by to pick something up. Does his property become commercial in this new law? I am sure there are other potential grey areas.

That's a very good and valid point. Especially with so many people starting home businesses these days. But (you knew there had to be a but, right? ) is such a business "open to the public"? In your example I'd say no. Having the occasional customer/client invited to come by is a far cry from hanging out a shingle and inviting walk-ins.

I think it is wise never to overlook possible ways politicians can screw things up.

Ain't that the truth!

[C-dub]

Is the shop next to his house "zoned" as commercial. I think the zoning will come into play.

[jmra]

Seems like a non-issue to me. If you fall into a "gray area" and don't want your property to be "open to the public" then lock the door.