MDA doesn't like 30.06

[anygunanywhere]

The tactics that the oc crowd uses are detrimental to all of us.

There are those of us that disagree. Yes, some of their tactics are wrong, but not all. Painting with a broad brush just contributes to dissention in our ranks and provides the antis with material too. In the end you are entitled to your opinion, but do not include me in your assertion that what the OC crowd does is detrimental to us all.

Anygunanywhere

[carlson1]

Hard to not agree to a point. A business owner shouldn't have to play the guessing game if he wants to ban guns from his business. The way the current system is set up, even people in this forum post about signs and whether they are valid. If we are going to have these types of signs, knowing if they are valid or not should be simple.

Hogwash! 30.06 spells out exactly what is required. There is no guessing game.

Just to open a business, the owner has to do lots of research to make sure he meets all legal requirements for a host of things such as fire codes, handicap access, etc. Why on earth should his desire to prevent law abiding citizens access to his business be any different?

The only guessing game comes about when the owner tries to cheat the system. Either he does not do his "due diligence" or he tries to cheat the clearly worded 30.06 statute because he doesn't want that "bug ugly sign" on the front of his business, so he does something like printing it out on a laser printer. That leaves, typically new, forum members looking for assurance the sign is or is not valid. Remember, CHL holders are a pretty law-abiding bunch.

110%

Mr. Cotton and others fought to hard for the 30.06 for this very reason.

Our church was fined in the City of Irving because we did not have a sign on the inside of the front door that said, "This Door Must Be Unlocked While Occupied." - Really

[sjfcontrol]

Anybody remember if the guy who dropped the gun in the restaurant had a CHL? I remember the incident, but not the details.

[steveincowtown]

The tactics that the oc crowd uses are detrimental to all of us.

There are those of us that disagree. Yes, some of their tactics are wrong, but not all. Painting with a broad brush just contributes to dissention in our ranks and provides the antis with material too. In the end you are entitled to your opinion, but do not include me in your assertion that what the OC crowd does is detrimental to us all.

Anygunanywhere

Correlation does not equal causation.

[ELB]

Hard to not agree to a point. A business owner shouldn't have to play the guessing game if he wants to ban guns from his business. The way the current system is set up, even people in this forum post about signs and whether they are valid. If we are going to have these types of signs, knowing if they are valid or not should be simple.

Hogwash! 30.06 spells out exactly what is required. There is no guessing game.

++1

The only "guessing game" is whether a LEO will know that a sign that does not meet Sect 30.06 requirements is not enforceable.

[Keith B]

Anybody remember if the guy who dropped the gun in the restaurant had a CHL? I remember the incident, but not the details.

He did. It was some type of derringer and went off when it fell out of his coat pocket and hit the floor. I am thinking it was probably a NAA .22 and was not indexed properly between cylinders. They are prone to discharging if the cylinder is not set right and you hit the hammer.

[mojo84]

If we are going to have these types of signs, knowing if they are valid or not should be simple.

I think this can be said about all the laws, statutes and ordinances on the books. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I know cops who disagree with each other on some of the laws they go through "Take the test; pass the background (job history/credit/criminal/references,ect); pass the psych; pass the physical; pass the string of interviews; polygraph in some places; make it through an academy; pass the state test to get a license; make it through training; ..." in order to enforce.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The tactics that the oc crowd uses are detrimental to all of us.

There are those of us that disagree. Yes, some of their tactics are wrong, but not all. Painting with a broad brush just contributes to dissention in our ranks and provides the antis with material too. In the end you are entitled to your opinion, but do not include me in your assertion that what the OC crowd does is detrimental to us all.

Anygunanywhere

Correlation does not equal causation.

TPC §30.06 has nothing to do with open-carry, but the vast majority of voting Texans don't know that. Although we are approaching 800,000 CHLs in Texas, that's still a small percentage of the general population that know the full scope of §30.06.

The Chronicle and MDA have (I believe intentionally) used that widespread ignorance of §30.06 to tie the destructive, counter-productive antics of those carrying long guns into stores to hurt not only open-carry, but to attack TPC §30.06. Carrying a rifle or shotgun into a store doesn't further the cause of open-carry and yes, it does hurt all gun owners whether one agrees or not. The simple fact is this article could well prompt stores that post generic "no gun" signs to post 30.06 signs.

It's also quite possible that the "I'll carry my rifle in your store" attitude coupled with the Chronicle/MDA article could hurt the open-carry movement directly. Although it was not put on the legislative website because HB700 never received a vote in Chairman Pickett's committee, a committee substitute was laid out and debated. (Had HB700 been referred favorably from committee, the committee substitute would have been the bill that advanced through the process.) That substitute removed the problematic language amending TPC §30.06 and created a virtually identical TPC §30.07 dealing with open-carry. I have said all along that the chances of the Legislature requiring a business to post two "big ugly signs" to prohibit both concealed- carry and open-carry would be very slim, but as a result of this article it may now be impossible. So the open-carry camp may well be forced to accept the fact that in order to pass open-carry, all generic "no gun" signs will be effective to prevent open-carry. If anyone tries to amend TPC §30.06 to include open-carry, then the bill will be DOA.

As already mentioned, there's absolutely nothing vague about the requirements a business must meet to bar entry by an armed CHL. The Code is abundantly clear; it's only those who want to ignore the express language and argue that "close counts" that make such claims.

Chas.

[cb1000rider]

There are those of us that disagree. Yes, some of their tactics are wrong, but not all. Painting with a broad brush just contributes to dissention in our ranks and provides the antis with material too. In the end you are entitled to your opinion, but do not include me in your assertion that what the OC crowd does is detrimental to us all.

Chas, I agree with above. I'm not suggesting that anyone carrying an AR into a mall is doing anything other than hurting 2nd amendment rights, but unexercised rights disappear. You can legislate on it - and your work is appreciated, but it takes some form of demonstration and consistent walks to the boundary to solidify that those rights exist. We can agree that there are some people that are walking their rights to the boundary in a destructive manner, but I'm a firm believer that we can't just sit by and expect those rights to be there if we ever need them. I use an example of walking an unloaded 30.06 to my neighbors house as an example - it's legal, but in the current climate/culture, it's likely to result in some trouble.

[jimlongley]

I'm going to plagiarize this with your permission?

Concealed Handgun licensees in Texas have:

No Felony Convictions - Lifetime!
No Class A or B Misdemeanor Convictions in the last Five Years!
No Delinquent Conduct in the last Ten Years!
Have Passed Both State and Federal Fingerprint and Background Checks!
Are not delinquent in child support, student loans, or State or Local Taxes!

HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT YOUR OTHER CUSTOMERS?

You post the sign, and we will happily respect your wishes by spending our money elsewhere.

No problem, I think it's public domain anyway, I have had it on cards for many years.

[cprems]

Is there any liability on a business that posts a 30.006 sign and someone gets shot or injured during a rampage?

I read somewhere that if they are not posted, there was no liability and if it was posted, the business was liable for failing to protect their customers. This may have been an opinion or article that I read, I don't specifically remember.

Anyone know if this is fact and whether it has ever been tested - either here in Texas or other States?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Is there any liability on a business that posts a 30.006 sign and someone gets shot or injured during a rampage?

I read somewhere that if they are not posted, there was no liability and if it was posted, the business was liable for failing to protect their customers. This may have been an opinion or article that I read, I don't specifically remember.

Anyone know if this is fact and whether it has ever been tested - either here in Texas or other States?

As a general statement, a business does not have liability if a customer is injured or killed by a 3rd party over whom the business has no control and for whom the business is not responsible as a matter of law. This is true whether or not the customer is a CHL who disarmed because of the business owner's no-guns policy. There are exceptions. The most common exception applies when the business is in a known high-crime area and there is a threat to employees and customers. Liability may well exist under those circumstances, again, without regard to whether the customer is a CHL. The negligence would be based upon not taking reasonable steps to address the known threat. It could be argued that under the high-crime area exception, being forced to disarm increased the danger to the customer, but this would be a case of first impression.

Because of the general rule mentioned above, business do not incur liability for failure to ban firearms on their property. Any statement or implication to the contrary in the MDA article is a lie.

Chas.

[Jumping Frog]

When the hit piece is moaning about accurate 30.06 signs, let us not forget the entire point: if a CHL faces up to a year in jail for armed trespass, the CHL should have the right to expect consistent and clear warnings where such restrictions are imposed.

I've lived in places where a one inch drawing of a pistol with a slash through it made with crayon on a brown grocery sack, then posted on the back wall below the ceiling had the force of law. (It was an Ohio Waffle House restaurant.)

Well, that is no way to warn someone that they risk a year in jail.

[FML]

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/ar ... 232690.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a close-to-home example, in 2012 a 72-year-old grandmother was dining in a Kingwood restaurant when she was shot after a pistol fell out of a nearby careless patron's coat pocket. Her seven surgeries cost more than $400,000.

It sounds like she was shot by an irresponsible concealed carrier. Where did all the anti open carry arguments come from in this thread and the chronic hatchet job?

[sjfcontrol]

Anybody remember if the guy who dropped the gun in the restaurant had a CHL? I remember the incident, but not the details.

He did. It was some type of derringer and went off when it fell out of his coat pocket and hit the floor. I am thinking it was probably a NAA .22 and was not indexed properly between cylinders. They are prone to discharging if the cylinder is not set right and you hit the hammer.

I just assumed he grabbed for it as it fell. That's how many ND's happen, and it's always "The gun went off when it hit the floor".