Repeal 30.06

[BenGoodLuck]

I've been a member for a long time but haven't posted too often. I apologize if there are other threads along this line, but I searched and couldn't find any. Is there any legislation being proposed to repeal 30.06? I wrote the following to my State Senator Ken Paxton and State Representative Van Taylor:

Dear ,

I urge you to sponsor legislation that would repeal Texas Penal Code - Section 30.06. Trespass By Holder Of License To Carry Concealed Handgun.

The great state of Texas passed legislation allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns and then crippled that legislation by also including the ability for businesses and individuals to prevent citizens from exercising their right. Section 30.06 creates gun-free zones while doing nothing to prevent criminals from bringing guns into those gun-free zones.

I accept that citizens have the right to control who may enter their property, but they should not be given legal recourse to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to conceal carry other than asking the person to leave their property if they discover that the person is legally carrying a concealed handgun.

There should be no legal penalty for carrying in a posted area. As of now, the penalty for violating 30.06 is a Class A misdemeanor. The entire section should be repealed.

Mass-shootings and killings take place in gun-free zones. It's time for Texas to strengthen the concealed carry laws and allow law-abiding, licensed citizens to carry everywhere. We have almost 20 years of evidence showing that concealed handgun permit holders are law abiding, responsible citizens. Criminals are not stopped by 30.06 signs; only law-abiding citizens are left defenseless.

Sincerely,

Name, address, phone #

I would like to participate in a grass-roots effort to repeal 30.06. If something like this is already happening, please let me know

[gigag04]

LOL at "Class 3 Misdemeanor"

[Keith B]

I think you are a little late to try to get anything into this session. Also, you need to get your facts straight on what the penalty really is. It would be up to a Class A misdemeanor depending on where it was. There is no such thing as a Class 3 misdemeanor in Texas.

[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!

[EEllis]

I can't help but feel if people don't want any activity on private property they should be allowed to exclude it and that there should be consequences for the public that ignores this. I don't see the need to trample on others rights to support my own. We may need a reg like 30.06 to insure that proper notice is given so that CHLs aren't prosecuted when ample notice wasn't given but for me, if a business makes it clear they don't want CHL's inside then I wont go 30.06 or not.

[cbunt1]

Actually, the ONLY problem I have with 30.06 is this:

If a merchant posts a sign that says "No food or drinks" and I waltz into the place with a hamburger and a coke, I have (in practice) done no more or less than if I waltz past a no guns sign carrying a pistol. Both activities are generally allowed (granted that I need to have a license to carry the pistol, but that's another discussion entirely). From a prosecutor's perspective though, they are much different.

If the merchant then asks me to leave with my burger and coke, and I don't I again have committed no more or less (in practice) a crime than if the same is asked of me with my pistol.

30.06 WAS absolutely necessary early on. I remember all the no gun signs and prohibitions going up right after we got concealed carry in Texas. In fact, that was the reason I didn't bother as an early adopter--it looked to me like everywhere I wanted to go was a place I couldn't go. Then we got the 30.06, and they went up everywhere. Eventually they went away for the most part. I'm not sure but what it's hasn't run its course.

I completely support the rights of property owners. I just have an issue that a "no guns" sign or even a properly worded 30.06 raises things to the level of CRIMINAL trespass (a Class-A misdemeanor) when it's simple trespass if I ignore a "no food or drink" sign or a "no shirt no shoes no service" sign. It's the act of refusing to comply with a property owner's request that has happened, and the fact that it was by carrying a pistol, chewing gum, eating a hamburger, or failing to wear a shirt is a side issue.

I'm sure there are logistical issues I'm missing here, but I think it's time that "no guns" sign no longer have "the force of law" any more than "no food/drink" signs do. Of course unlicensed carry (better known as unlawful possession of a concealed weapon) already has its own consequences and legal doctrine, and always has...

Long and short: 30.06 WAS a good thing. It's run its course, IMO, but I want us to be very careful how we look at "moving on" if we do so...

[BenGoodLuck]

LOL at "Class 3 Misdemeanor"

Thanks for catching the mistake. I corrected the post.

[BenGoodLuck]

I think you are a little late to try to get anything into this session. Also, you need to get your facts straight on what the penalty really is. It would be up to a Class A misdemeanor depending on where it was. There is no such thing as a Class 3 misdemeanor in Texas.

Thank you for the input and I corrected the mistake.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[BenGoodLuck]

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.

That is actually what I'm looking for. We can keep 30.06 but change it so that armed CHLs cannot be prohibited from carrying on commercial/business property. Senate Bill 321 was passed prohibiting public and private employers in Texas from banning guns from employee parking lots. I would like to see that expanded to allow carrying on those same properties.

[Keith B]

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.

That is actually what I'm looking for. We can keep 30.06 but change it so that armed CHLs cannot be prohibited from carrying on commercial/business property. Senate Bill 321 was passed prohibiting public and private employers in Texas from banning guns from employee parking lots. I would like to see that expanded to allow carrying on those same properties.

So your letter needs to be worded to not repeal 30.06, but to amend it to exclude commerical property and businesses from being validly posted, much as they do for government owned locations now.

[EEllis]

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.

That is actually what I'm looking for. We can keep 30.06 but change it so that armed CHLs cannot be prohibited from carrying on commercial/business property. Senate Bill 321 was passed prohibiting public and private employers in Texas from banning guns from employee parking lots. I would like to see that expanded to allow carrying on those same properties.

I could maybe see making limiting certain businesses from 30.06 because people almost have to go to them, like grocery stores, and it would be hard if not impossible in some few rural areas that only have limited businesses. Overall thou I dislike the idea. It is using government to force behavior that should be the decision of the business owner. Just because the Govt does it in other cases and I happen to want the business personally to do so doesn't mean I agree with the idea of increasing govt coercion.

[Beiruty]

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.

[sjfcontrol]

For the most part, the only places that I regularly find posted are hospitals and medical facilities. Would be nice to restrict 30.06 from them!

[Dragonfighter]

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.