Fix 30.06 & 30.07 Sign Requirements

[Beiruty]

Oh, 2ndA does not sop at the door of my home, otherwise, no one should have an LTC or open carry an AK/AR on the streets (OC of long gun has never been regulated in Texas anyway).

[srothstein]

The first and second amendment are only limited to protecting you from the government, and are therefore invalid on private property.

I know that you wrote this sentence with your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek, but it is really an accurate statement and we should all think about it. The Second Amendment does not apply to my private property if I, as the owner, says it does not. It is solely a restriction on the government, which is also why the government cannot legally post 30.06 signs.

The First Amendment also does not apply on private property (except in a few very rare cases). I do not have to allow you on my property to post any sign I do not want there. I do not have to allow you to post anything I want on an Internet web site that I own. You have full freedom of speech when the government does not do anything to restrict you, but certainly may censor you on my page. And as a quite simple proof that we all recognize this, I will point out how many people have been banned from this forum. I know that Charles is very tolerant of dissenting opinions, but banning people for the way they express that opinion (for example profanity or personal attacks) is still a form of censorship that we all accept, and possibly even request. I the lack of personal attacks and courtesy shown are some of the reasons I like the forum.

The government doesn't HAVE to grant you the "privilege" of excluding people with force of law from carrying on your publicly open property by using a sign... In fact in Texas they don't, if you're a cop, or employee carrying in your vehicle. I'm also still not convinced that a "no Trump hats" sign in your publicly open business (say Grapevine Mills Mall) invokes criminal trespass if someone ignores it.

Common carriers like the phone and internet company are forced to accept all payers regardless of the content of the traffic, unless such traffic is illegal (like child porn or communication in furtherance of a crime).

A private forum like this one may post conduct rules and edit, delete, ban users or posts, but it's doubtful whether criminal trespass could be invoked (under the concept of trespass to chattel) in advance for someone breaking the rules....Maybe if they hacked into the board AFTER being warned off.

The newspaper doesn't HAVE to take your gun ad because of the 1st amendment, but if you sneak it in the classifieds, the paper can't use the government to prosecute you criminally for posting it...can they?

The government doesn't HAVE to do much, but there is a difference between requiring it to do something (have to) and allowing it to. The fact that they do not have to pass laws to enforce my personal property rights does not mean that they cannot or should not do so. Carried to its extreme, your argument could be extended to saying the government does not have to make criminal trespass a crime at all under any circumstances. I think it is reasonable to do so and should be done, but you may feel free to disagree. I also happen to disagree with the exceptions to criminal trespass for both cops and LTC in the parking lot. If it is my property, I get to say who or what comes on it, period. Obviously, I have not yet convinced the legislature or the courts of this position.

As for the forum rules, it can be argued that if you break them knowingly, you can be prosecuted. The specific law would be section 33.02 of the Penal Code, Breach of Computer Security. The concept is the exact same as for criminal trespass. It says you have committed the offense if you access my system without my effective consent. Since my consent was based on your obeying the forum rules, as acknowledged by you when you created the login, it is then posting without my effective consent and becomes a crime the same way.

And yes, posting a no Trump hat sign would mean that a person is guilty of criminal trespass when they enter with one. I am unaware of any specific case of a Trump hat, but I am aware of several bars and restaurants with very specific dress codes (or even vaguer ones like no biker gear or no gang clothing) that have had successful prosecutions for criminal trespass when the dress code is violated.

Better look again at the common carrier side of things. That was part of what the whole "net neutrality" controversy was all about. It is still winding its way through courts to see if the regulations are legal or not.

But I will admit that the newspaper issue is an interesting case. I am unaware of any laws on it, if only done in print. But they can certainly sue you for the violation of their policies.

[ScottDLS]

The first and second amendment are only limited to protecting you from the government, and are therefore invalid on private property.

I know that you wrote this sentence with your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek, but it is really an accurate statement and we should all think about it. The Second Amendment does not apply to my private property if I, as the owner, says it does not. It is solely a restriction on the government, which is also why the government cannot legally post 30.06 signs.

The First Amendment also does not apply on private property (except in a few very rare cases). I do not have to allow you on my property to post any sign I do not want there. I do not have to allow you to post anything I want on an Internet web site that I own. You have full freedom of speech when the government does not do anything to restrict you, but certainly may censor you on my page. And as a quite simple proof that we all recognize this, I will point out how many people have been banned from this forum. I know that Charles is very tolerant of dissenting opinions, but banning people for the way they express that opinion (for example profanity or personal attacks) is still a form of censorship that we all accept, and possibly even request. I the lack of personal attacks and courtesy shown are some of the reasons I like the forum.

The government doesn't HAVE to grant you the "privilege" of excluding people with force of law from carrying on your publicly open property by using a sign... In fact in Texas they don't, if you're a cop, or employee carrying in your vehicle. I'm also still not convinced that a "no Trump hats" sign in your publicly open business (say Grapevine Mills Mall) invokes criminal trespass if someone ignores it.

Common carriers like the phone and internet company are forced to accept all payers regardless of the content of the traffic, unless such traffic is illegal (like child porn or communication in furtherance of a crime).

A private forum like this one may post conduct rules and edit, delete, ban users or posts, but it's doubtful whether criminal trespass could be invoked (under the concept of trespass to chattel) in advance for someone breaking the rules....Maybe if they hacked into the board AFTER being warned off.

The newspaper doesn't HAVE to take your gun ad because of the 1st amendment, but if you sneak it in the classifieds, the paper can't use the government to prosecute you criminally for posting it...can they?

The government doesn't HAVE to do much, but there is a difference between requiring it to do something (have to) and allowing it to. The fact that they do not have to pass laws to enforce my personal property rights does not mean that they cannot or should not do so. Carried to its extreme, your argument could be extended to saying the government does not have to make criminal trespass a crime at all under any circumstances. I think it is reasonable to do so and should be done, but you may feel free to disagree. I also happen to disagree with the exceptions to criminal trespass for both cops and LTC in the parking lot. If it is my property, I get to say who or what comes on it, period. Obviously, I have not yet convinced the legislature or the courts of this position.

As for the forum rules, it can be argued that if you break them knowingly, you can be prosecuted. The specific law would be section 33.02 of the Penal Code, Breach of Computer Security. The concept is the exact same as for criminal trespass. It says you have committed the offense if you access my system without my effective consent. Since my consent was based on your obeying the forum rules, as acknowledged by you when you created the login, it is then posting without my effective consent and becomes a crime the same way.

And yes, posting a no Trump hat sign would mean that a person is guilty of criminal trespass when they enter with one. I am unaware of any specific case of a Trump hat, but I am aware of several bars and restaurants with very specific dress codes (or even vaguer ones like no biker gear or no gang clothing) that have had successful prosecutions for criminal trespass when the dress code is violated.

Better look again at the common carrier side of things. That was part of what the whole "net neutrality" controversy was all about. It is still winding its way through courts to see if the regulations are legal or not.

But I will admit that the newspaper issue is an interesting case. I am unaware of any laws on it, if only done in print. But they can certainly sue you for the violation of their policies.

The government doesn't HAVE to create a crime of criminal trespass, though it has in almost every state that I'm aware of. And what it almost never does, is make the trespass statute a criminal enforcement mechanism for contracts or "rules" on publicly open property, without requiring that you be asked to leave or denied entry in the first place. The whole idea of "signs" barring specific activity on publicly open property came up in 1995 when AG Morales issued an opinion stating that it was the legislature's intent to allow 30.05 to be used to bar entry to private property by CHL, because there was no other statute applicable. When 30.06 passed the issue became moot.

In order to get a criminal trespass conviction for a dress code violation in a public venue, I suspect there would be additional circumstances that made it clear that the "biker" was not permitted to enter the property.. been there before and warned off...stared at the sign, and walked in in full regalia while being observed and motioned off, etc. It's a bit of stretch to assume that prosecutor would take a 30.05 prosecution for walking past a "no Trump hats sign, unless the "Trumpian" was told to leave and failed to depart. When you read the statute it seems clear that it was intended to prevent you from coming on private property not open to the public, and for allowing an owner to revoke permission AFTER granting you entry. I haven't seen where it's been held in Texas to apply as a criminal enforcement of a property owner's "house rules". If you walk into a "coat and tie" required restaurant tieless I question the ability of the proprietor to have you arrested if you leave after he tells you to. If I violate my company policy by showing up for work late, can they have me arrested for trespass? Because my permission to be on the property is given only if I comply with the employee handbook?

In PC 33.02 I think the Forum might have a hard time establishing a crime if a person with a valid user ID subsequently violated the rules...As in any private forum the rules are interpreted by the owner, and hard to establish a bright enough line for when a violation becomes illegal access. Illegal access is really more breaking and entering ("picking the lock" by hacking a userid) or logging in by "trickery" after you've already been kicked out.

Getting "trespassed" for breaking the house rules has a pretty high bar in common law and most case law. At the least, you have to be clearly made aware that your permission to be on the property is subject to certain conditions. A circle slash Beretta sign probably isn't going to cut it in prohibiting a concealed rifle. Or vague/arbitrary rules...No Trump hats, shirts...I don't see the prosecutor taking the case. Some states REQUIRE that you be given a chance to depart a publicly open place before you can be prosecuted (defiant trespass). And I question whether 30.05 applies to hidden conduct (pink briefs, Trump shirt under your jacket).

Last if the Dallas Morning News sues me for violating their classified ad rules by posting my MAC10 for sale, I believe the case will be thrown out because there is no provable damage. I seriously doubt they can have me arrested, as breaking a contract is a civil not a criminal matter.

[rotor]

"No shirt, no shoes, no service". Is that a no trespassing sign? I always thought it meant that they wouldn't serve you. It doesn't say you can't enter. Does a "No Trump" hat mean no entrance? It doesn't say you can't enter. "No trespassing" sign- you can't enter.

[ScottDLS]

Good point. And the circle slash Beretta signs means they don't like Berettas, not "No Trespassing".

[twomillenium]

The required text of 30.06 and 30.07 signs should end with a nice legal statement to the effect that "Posting this sign also means that you or your next of kin can sue us for everything we're worth if you are harmed in any way that might have been prevented if we had not denied your rights as described by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We also hereby accept full criminal responsibility for such incidents."

I could agree with that if there were a law that required or forced someone to do business with the businesses that post. That law would even be more foolish than this post.
Folks have the right to choose and it doesn't always have to be my way, but I also have the right to choose where I do business and only the through negligence of that business should that business be liable. Especially when I choose to do business after they post the signs, that would be my negligence not the businesses.

[rotor]

The required text of 30.06 and 30.07 signs should end with a nice legal statement to the effect that "Posting this sign also means that you or your next of kin can sue us for everything we're worth if you are harmed in any way that might have been prevented if we had not denied your rights as described by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We also hereby accept full criminal responsibility for such incidents."

I could agree with that if there were a law that required or forced someone to do business with the businesses that post. That law would even be more foolish than this post.
Folks have the right to choose and it doesn't always have to be my way, but I also have the right to choose where I do business and only the through negligence of that business should that business be liable. Especially when I choose to do business after they post the signs, that would be my negligence not the businesses.

Have you heard of ObamaCare. Ugh! Technically you can say no and be taxed.

[twomillenium]

The required text of 30.06 and 30.07 signs should end with a nice legal statement to the effect that "Posting this sign also means that you or your next of kin can sue us for everything we're worth if you are harmed in any way that might have been prevented if we had not denied your rights as described by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We also hereby accept full criminal responsibility for such incidents."

I could agree with that if there were a law that required or forced someone to do business with the businesses that post. That law would even be more foolish than this post.
Folks have the right to choose and it doesn't always have to be my way, but I also have the right to choose where I do business and only the through negligence of that business should that business be liable. Especially when I choose to do business after they post the signs, that would be my negligence not the businesses.

Have you heard of ObamaCare. Ugh! Technically you can say no and be taxed.

I apologize, I thought this thread was about 30. signs.

[rotor]

The required text of 30.06 and 30.07 signs should end with a nice legal statement to the effect that "Posting this sign also means that you or your next of kin can sue us for everything we're worth if you are harmed in any way that might have been prevented if we had not denied your rights as described by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We also hereby accept full criminal responsibility for such incidents."

I could agree with that if there were a law that required or forced someone to do business with the businesses that post. That law would even be more foolish than this post.
Folks have the right to choose and it doesn't always have to be my way, but I also have the right to choose where I do business and only the through negligence of that business should that business be liable. Especially when I choose to do business after they post the signs, that would be my negligence not the businesses.

Have you heard of ObamaCare. Ugh! Technically you can say no and be taxed.

I apologize, I thought this thread was about 30. signs.

You are right. Didn't mean to hijack this.

[Texian]

Why not abolish 30.06 and 30.07 and adopt the wording of the "Blue" sign currently required by the TABC instead. I am opposed to unlicensed constitutional carry.

[ScottDLS]

Why not abolish 30.06 and 30.07 and adopt the wording of the "Blue" sign currently required by the TABC instead. I am opposed to unlicensed constitutional carry.

Are you opposed to unlicensed rifle carry? It's been legal in Texas since the Republic.

[Texian]

Really! You really think that. This post is about handgun law. I have always known about Texas long gun laws and since this thread is concerning handgun law I'm amazed that you would not realize what I am discussing. I have been a forum member and a LTC jpermit holder for over nine years.

[tbrown]

I am opposed to unlicensed constitutional carry.

I'm opposed to voting without a literacy test and background check.

[hovercat]

Felons lose the right to vote.

[cmgee67]

I had a chuckle when I read the quote that the OP had been on here since 08 09 and have carried for nine years and knows more than other posters. It has been my experience that even if an individual is part of an organization, a club, or a forum it does not mean they are the most knowledgeable. Just like all "old people" are wise and smart. While you should respect your elders just because you are older or have been around a long time does not mean that you know more than someone who has been around 2 years. Because that "two year old" just might have studied more and know more than you. While you very well may know more than everybody in the forum why boast it? And more importantly how would you know? It's better to be thought of as not so smart than open your mouth and prove it.

If a business posts a 30.06 / 30.07 sign that's their business. Your lack of attendance there will not hurt them. 5% of Texans have LTC and prob 2 1/2% of that actually carry. Most people I know that have it would simply disarm and go in or maybe not. I will not do business with somebody who posts but I don't slander them. And also the 2nd amendment does not just mean your home... that is absurd. It means you have the right to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed. It's talking about how we have the right to protect ourselves from the government and I believe also from all threats foreign and domestic. If I was limited to only my 2nd amendment rights at home what is the point at all of getting an LTC? And constitutional carry without a license should be permitted. The states that have done it do not have any more problems than we do. People are scared. Just like they were scared when Open Carry passed but going into its second year there have been zero problems unless the carrier brought it upon themselves. I OC all the time when I am not working and guess what? Never a negative comment. In fact a guy came up to me yesterday and said which gun are you carrying I said glock 19 he said oh nice me to! We then proceeded to have a very nice conversation and went about our ways. I think if you can legally own and purchase a firearm you should be able to carry it. Having a license to me is an infringement. But it's one I can deal with.