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

[SigM4]

Article from BearingArms.com here

In the state of Texas, businesses that want their premises to be off-limits to the carrying of firearms are required to post signage alerting gun owners to that fact. It’s a pretty simple and reasonable requirement, and the signs themselves aren’t hard to find. A new federal lawsuit filed by a coffee shop and a church in the Houston area, however, claims that the requirement is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The suit, which is being supported by Everytown for Gun Safety’s in-house law firm, claims that the free speech rights of those wanting to ban guns from their property has been burdened by the requirement that they must display the signage as required by the state legislature, instead of being able to use whatever sign they want.

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. By contrast, property owners who wish to exclude others for any other reason at all do not face these same burdens. This viewpoint-based discrimination was entirely intentional; the Texas state land commissioner who drafted these requirements admits that he “intentionally made the sign’s language cumbersome” to discourage businesses from prohibiting entry to customers carrying guns.

Moms Demand Action has been complaining about the signage for at least two years. Back in 2018, the Austin American-Statesman devoted an entire article to the issue, highlighting the gun control group’s opposition to the signage requirement.

The Moms Demand Action members say some gun owners are “gaming” the system by ignoring a property owner’s wishes if the sign doesn’t fit literally the one-inch letter of the law or violates other specifics.

They showed me numerous screen shots listing establishments with allegedly illegal signs. The assumption, at least based on the Internet conversations, is that an armed customer can’t be convicted of criminal trespass if the sign isn’t technically correct.

“We saw it was being deliberately exploited by ‘law abiding’ gun owners,” Burke said. “From a mom’s perspective, if I’m at the hospital with my child and see a no guns sign, I shouldn’t have to worry that the mom next to me has a gun.”

Frankly, if you think a “no guns” sign is automatically going to stop criminals from carrying a firearm, you’ve got much bigger problems with the size of the sign.

This lawsuit is a pretty blatant attempt to not only make it easier for establishments to legally ban guns from their property, but to actually encourage businesses to take that step.

As for the claim that former Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson intentionally designed the signage to make it a burden to post, he calls the claim “bogus“.

“They’re complaining that the sign is too prominent essentially,” Patterson told Houston Public Media. “But if it’s that important to them, would they feel good with a two-inch-by-two-inch sign that had a handgun with a red circle around it and a red diagonal bar across it that nobody’s going to see?”

He also pointed out that the signs are not actually required. Gun carriers must leave a property if the owner tells them verbally that firearms are not welcome.

The lawsuit addresses this by saying that it would be impractical to advise each person who enters and would require hiring an employee just to do that.

“Decisions about how to protect worshippers and create a welcome environment are important to any congregation, and the requirements we’re challenging make those decisions far more complicated,” Bruce Beisner, minister of Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Church, said in a statement. “Our hope is to make it easier for houses of worship across the state to put in place the practices around firearms that make sense for them.”

Or, you know, you can just post the required signage and then the problem disappears.

I suspect that this lawsuit isn’t going anywhere, but for Texas gun owners it should be another warning sign that Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group has its eyes on the Lone Star State. The group is already spending millions of dollars this election cycle in an attempt to flip the state House, and if they get a foothold in the legislature, expect a spate of gun control legislation to be filed along with their anti-Second Amendment lawsuits.

[SigM4]

Sounds like Everytown might be perusing the Texas3006.com site.

[G.A. Heath]

I suspect this case will have a far greater impact than MDA and company anticipates. If they win then specific sign requirements for everything are out the window. The anti-human-trafficing posting required for alcohol sales, will go out the window. A case could also be made for license plates as a violation of ones first amendment rights using their logic.

[Rafe]

I find the existence of Everytown for Gun Safety excessively and unduly burdensome to my rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Since their lawsuit effectively describes all LTC holders as an identified class, can we file a class-action lawsuit against Everytown?

[rtschl]

I saw the lawsuit today too! Here's the actual suit: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... PLAINT.pdf

I suspect my team and the LTC community must be doing something right if we are so prominently listed in the text of the case


Capture.PNG

Yep. Guess they don't understand the purpose is that we avoid, if at all possible, businesses that post. I don't want them to have my money. But I think they know that. It's a battle for every inch of ground and the left seems to have a bottomless pit of money to fight against the 2nd Amendment.

If they filed in a friendly, i.e liberal court, they may win the first round. But doubt it would go real far. States would then be barred from any signage requirements because it violates the First Amendment - uh no.

But long term, what if Texas turns purple/blue and a democrat AG is elected? What if a democrat AG decided not to fight it? Elections matter!!!

[SigM4]

I saw the lawsuit today too! Here's the actual suit: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... PLAINT.pdf

I suspect my team and the LTC community must be doing something right if we are so prominently listed in the text of the case


Capture.PNG

Thank you for that Russell, I’d gone looking for that.

Talk about twisting the truth here. As others note I use your site as a clearing house to know which businesses will get my money, not whether I can ignore a sign. Regardless of whether it meets the requirements or not, the presence of a sign is a pretty clear indication of that businesses intent.

Keep up the good work Russell and team.

[dlh]

Wow--Everytown is bringing in the heavies on this one.

Jones Day---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Day

I smell about $800 to $1,000.00 an hour on this one.

[The Annoyed Man]

Wow--Everytown is bringing in the heavies on this one.

Jones Day---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Day

I smell about $800 to $1,000.00 an hour on this one.

Hopefully it breaks them.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

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......

[carlson1]

I was happy today when I went to my Cardiologist in Irving and they have taken down all signs. They are remodeling so I hope they do NOT go back up after the remodel.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

In all the years I’ve been carrying now, I’ve carried past a non-compliant 30.06 sign probably fewer than 4 or 5 times at most. My advice to others is, do it if you want to....or not.....I don’t care. I choose to not give my business to people who trust criminals more than they trust me, and I’ll only walk past a non-compliant sign if there’s not another alternative within convenient driving distance to obtain what I need. And THAT is what a 30.06 sing says...."I trust the unlicensed criminal element more than I trust someone who has been thoroughly vetted by the state." People like that are too stupid to know what to do with the money I’d pay them, so my patronage is wasted on them anyway.

[SQLGeek]

I saw the lawsuit today too! Here's the actual suit: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... PLAINT.pdf

I suspect my team and the LTC community must be doing something right if we are so prominently listed in the text of the case


Capture.PNG

Also confirms what we already know in that the gun grabbing lunatics are watching this forum.

So smile and wave folks, we're on candid camera!

[2farnorth]

From the original post---
" By contrast, property owners who wish to exclude others for any other reason at all do not face these same burdens. "

What other persons may be discriminated against? With their reasoning the " No Shirt, No shoes, No service" would have to come down.

[srothstein]

From the original post---
" By contrast, property owners who wish to exclude others for any other reason at all do not face these same burdens. "

What other persons may be discriminated against? With their reasoning the " No Shirt, No shoes, No service" would have to come down.

I think you misunderstand. Within their reasoning, the "No Shirt No Service" sign means if you enter without a shirt you would be committing a crime of criminal trespass. They want the police to be able to arrest any person for violating any sign with any language.

My question would be how many signs would be needed if they allowed the circle/slash to apply. Does it mean no guns or just no pistols of the type pictured? If it shows a Beretta, can I still carry my 1911? Or can I carry a revolver? The benefit of the 30.0x sign is that it is clear to all it applies to exactly what is covered.