Poll, PC 30.06 in "Private Businesses"

[SewTexas]

I used to believe that "business" could do whatever it wants on private property, but after a lot of thought, I have decided that is an anarchistic position that has no place in civilized society.

First, it is legal for the state, via power given to it by the people, to regulate business and commerce. The US Constitution does not forbid this power to the states and every state constitution in some way creates laws and statutes regulating business.

When you open a business "TO THE PUBLIC" with no controlled access and with the intention of providing goods to the public, it is not a unilateral ultimatum, but rather an agreement between the business owner AND the public as to the terms of how that commerce will occur.

For example, the public gets to decide how many rats you have in your freezer if you run a restaurant (it better be zero) and the public gets to decide that you call a "gallon" of gas the same thing the rest of the public calls a gallon of gas. The public also tells business owners to collect sales tax, safety and occupancy laws and a myriad of other requirements that exist in order to do business with the public. Oh and they get to decide that your employees MUST WASH HAND BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK.
In general, I am for these regulations as they allow the public to buy and sell safely and efficiently.

As a society, we have decided that discrimination by business is not desired. As a white, middle aged guy who has never been turned away from a restaurant or hotel for being the "wrong color" or wrong religion, I agree with public accommodation as it exists in the US. Renting a room to a Jew, or selling gas to a black person is NOT enough of a violation of your right to free association to allow it to trump the rights of all in the US to be treated equally with respect to commerce.

Therefore, I think business should have no more right to refuse those of the PUBLIC that carry concealed than they do blacks or Baptists or Bill who is wearing his wife's underwear because he "likes how it feels." What you believe, your sexuality or what is under your clothing is, quite frankly, none of the shop keepers business. If a person has no interest in agreeing to the terms the public has created, then that person has no business opening their doors.

completely. Let me add one more point. If the business receives any public monetary support, in any fashion, is it really a private business? Examples include low interest loans for the SBA, tax breaks from the city/county, tax breaks for creating employment, or any other public tax assistance from the laundry list, is it truly a privately owned business? If one penny of my tax money, including higher taxes to finance the tax breaks, is used to enable the creation of a business with unrestricted public access, then it is no longer a privately owned business, but a government co-op where an individual or corporation is the majority stakeholder.

do you know how FEW businesses actually get SBA loans? Tax breaks are only for the huge corps! a small business actually gets nothing.

geez guys...

and people wonder why I am actually quite content to stick with an online business when I get it open next month....

[MeMelYup]

No in this case. The owner is inviting the general public into his store or business. Does the owner have the right to restrict your entry because of race? Does the owner have the right to restrict your entry because of your religion or lack thereof? Does the owner have the right to restrict your entry because of your political beliefs? Does the owner have the right to restrict your entry because of your sex?

The owner has the right to restrict your entry into his home/domicile. The owner does not have the right to restrict entry to a business where the general public is invited in for the owners gain, unless the customer is creating disturbance or an unlawful act among the customers.

[jnichols2]

#1> Private property rights are not absolute. In both our home and our business we must maintain certain standards that we as the public have decided are needed.

#2> I think a private property owner should be able to ASK anyone, at anytime, to leave their property for any reason.


#3> I don't think that it should be an offense to just enter any ones business, doing anything, without first being asked to leave. In other words, why do we have a sign that criminalizes trespass by a CHL with no other notice than just that sign? Think about how ridiculous it would seem if we attached the same standards to any other activity?

"Is this 911"

"Yes, it is."

" I need to report a gentleman who walked right passed by no shirt, no shoes sign."

"We are on our way."

I'm a "property rights" kind of guy.

If I start a business, on the property I own, I HAVE NOT given up the right to TELL anyone to leave my property.

I didn't communicate my point very well. As a private property owner I think you should be able to tell anyone, at anytime, for any reason, to leave your property.


I think if you see something (heck, even suspect something) for any reason that you don't like, you should be able to tell a person to leave and they should do so immediately. I just don't think there should be a sign for it.

I agree with the sign. I have no idea why it was written into the law the way it was, but I bet Charles Cotton could tell us.

My first experience was yesterday, the first full day with my new CHL.

At the entrance to the Saxett Gun Show in Austin was a 30.06 sign I had walked past without seeing for two years.
I just shrugged my shoulders, walked back to the parking lot, and secured my gun in the car.
They already had LEOs at the entrance to enforce it.
I never "saw" the sign before because I didn't know what it was then.

"The Law is for the Protection of the People." Kris Kristofferson

it is in a county owned facility its not enforceable but there is no case law as of yet proving that, there have been many discussions about it, some think that a short term rental of the hall negates the fact the building is owned by the county though no where in any law does it say that. me I walk past them when I go and that is rarely as you don't save a dime on anything in there

When you rent a home or place of business, you do acquire certain rights "as if you owned the property". Even the landlord can't just walk in.
Not sure if a 2 day short term rental counts. But the question was actually trumped by 3 armed LEOs prepared to enforce the sign.
The legal questions count in court among the lawyers, they do not count at the point of arrest among the arresting officers. The lawyers are later required.
Another sign stated that the LEOs performed "spot checks". I thought it best not to enter while carrying.

no it doesn't give you any renters rights at all, you get no keys you get nothing from the gubbermint that rented the space to you for 2 days. you still have to follow the rules as they see them, wee the saxet vs Austin thread. for an individual it is different when renting a room at the local motel 6 than a business renting from a county or city. also if you rent a house or apartment the landlord or owner can walk right in any time they want and you can't do squat about it, sorry you are mis informed, if its commercial property not only can the landlord walk in anytime they want they can lock you out and not allow you in anytime they want

I was informed by both the Air Force Legal Office and a private sector lawyer. The landlord has a right to inspect his property, and you must cooperate to schedule such a visit. If he uses his key to "walk in any time" he is trespassing, and you can have law enforcement evict him. When he rented to you, he assigned the control of the residence to you. That's what lease/rental is about. Also note: A car repossessor is actually outside the law if he doesn't have a court order.

The landlord CANNOT lock you out. A landlord in Austin just got his butt sued off for that. The landlord must petition a court, the court will empower the local Sherriff to evict you (lock you out). That's why it takes so much time and money to evict someone.

I won't speak to commercial property, as I have no actual experience. But, I suspect it's similar.

[JP171]

#1> Private property rights are not absolute. In both our home and our business we must maintain certain standards that we as the public have decided are needed.

#2> I think a private property owner should be able to ASK anyone, at anytime, to leave their property for any reason.


#3> I don't think that it should be an offense to just enter any ones business, doing anything, without first being asked to leave. In other words, why do we have a sign that criminalizes trespass by a CHL with no other notice than just that sign? Think about how ridiculous it would seem if we attached the same standards to any other activity?

"Is this 911"

"Yes, it is."

" I need to report a gentleman who walked right passed by no shirt, no shoes sign."

"We are on our way."

I'm a "property rights" kind of guy.

If I start a business, on the property I own, I HAVE NOT given up the right to TELL anyone to leave my property.

I didn't communicate my point very well. As a private property owner I think you should be able to tell anyone, at anytime, for any reason, to leave your property.


I think if you see something (heck, even suspect something) for any reason that you don't like, you should be able to tell a person to leave and they should do so immediately. I just don't think there should be a sign for it.

I agree with the sign. I have no idea why it was written into the law the way it was, but I bet Charles Cotton could tell us.

My first experience was yesterday, the first full day with my new CHL.

At the entrance to the Saxett Gun Show in Austin was a 30.06 sign I had walked past without seeing for two years.
I just shrugged my shoulders, walked back to the parking lot, and secured my gun in the car.
They already had LEOs at the entrance to enforce it.
I never "saw" the sign before because I didn't know what it was then.

"The Law is for the Protection of the People." Kris Kristofferson

it is in a county owned facility its not enforceable but there is no case law as of yet proving that, there have been many discussions about it, some think that a short term rental of the hall negates the fact the building is owned by the county though no where in any law does it say that. me I walk past them when I go and that is rarely as you don't save a dime on anything in there

When you rent a home or place of business, you do acquire certain rights "as if you owned the property". Even the landlord can't just walk in.
Not sure if a 2 day short term rental counts. But the question was actually trumped by 3 armed LEOs prepared to enforce the sign.
The legal questions count in court among the lawyers, they do not count at the point of arrest among the arresting officers. The lawyers are later required.
Another sign stated that the LEOs performed "spot checks". I thought it best not to enter while carrying.

no it doesn't give you any renters rights at all, you get no keys you get nothing from the gubbermint that rented the space to you for 2 days. you still have to follow the rules as they see them, wee the saxet vs Austin thread. for an individual it is different when renting a room at the local motel 6 than a business renting from a county or city. also if you rent a house or apartment the landlord or owner can walk right in any time they want and you can't do squat about it, sorry you are mis informed, if its commercial property not only can the landlord walk in anytime they want they can lock you out and not allow you in anytime they want

I was informed by both the Air Force Legal Office and a private sector lawyer. The landlord has a right to inspect his property, and you must cooperate to schedule such a visit. If he uses his key to "walk in any time" he is trespassing, and you can have law enforcement evict him. When he rented to you, he assigned the control of the residence to you. That's what lease/rental is about. Also note: A car repossessor is actually outside the law if he doesn't have a court order.

The landlord CANNOT lock you out. A landlord in Austin just got his butt sued off for that. The landlord must petition a court, the court will empower the local Sherriff to evict you (lock you out). That's why it takes so much time and money to evict someone.

I won't speak to commercial property, as I have no actual experience. But, I suspect it's similar.

they can in fact lock you out as per state law, they must by law allow you to retrieve personal property( clothes pictures personal papers things like that) but not non personal property( furniture game systems TVs stuff like that) and they may sell such property to satisfy the debt owed on rent for domicile renters, commercial property they can lock you out and not let you get a single thing period as all business assets may be sold to satisfy the debt employees must prove ownership to be allowed to remove personal property. Hmm yep I know cause well yea I have done it and will do it as I need to do again. As for entry all I have to do is say that it was an emergency entry and your required notice goes away, oooops then prove there was no emergency. On top of all that most leases are a contract and if it states in the contract that the land lord can enter at will your stuck and most leases in the Houston area are written as such

[SewTexas]

#1> Private property rights are not absolute. In both our home and our business we must maintain certain standards that we as the public have decided are needed.

#2> I think a private property owner should be able to ASK anyone, at anytime, to leave their property for any reason.


#3> I don't think that it should be an offense to just enter any ones business, doing anything, without first being asked to leave. In other words, why do we have a sign that criminalizes trespass by a CHL with no other notice than just that sign? Think about how ridiculous it would seem if we attached the same standards to any other activity?

"Is this 911"

"Yes, it is."

" I need to report a gentleman who walked right passed by no shirt, no shoes sign."

"We are on our way."

I'm a "property rights" kind of guy.

If I start a business, on the property I own, I HAVE NOT given up the right to TELL anyone to leave my property.

I didn't communicate my point very well. As a private property owner I think you should be able to tell anyone, at anytime, for any reason, to leave your property.


I think if you see something (heck, even suspect something) for any reason that you don't like, you should be able to tell a person to leave and they should do so immediately. I just don't think there should be a sign for it.

I agree with the sign. I have no idea why it was written into the law the way it was, but I bet Charles Cotton could tell us.

My first experience was yesterday, the first full day with my new CHL.

At the entrance to the Saxett Gun Show in Austin was a 30.06 sign I had walked past without seeing for two years.
I just shrugged my shoulders, walked back to the parking lot, and secured my gun in the car.
They already had LEOs at the entrance to enforce it.
I never "saw" the sign before because I didn't know what it was then.

"The Law is for the Protection of the People." Kris Kristofferson

it is in a county owned facility its not enforceable but there is no case law as of yet proving that, there have been many discussions about it, some think that a short term rental of the hall negates the fact the building is owned by the county though no where in any law does it say that. me I walk past them when I go and that is rarely as you don't save a dime on anything in there

When you rent a home or place of business, you do acquire certain rights "as if you owned the property". Even the landlord can't just walk in.
Not sure if a 2 day short term rental counts. But the question was actually trumped by 3 armed LEOs prepared to enforce the sign.
The legal questions count in court among the lawyers, they do not count at the point of arrest among the arresting officers. The lawyers are later required.
Another sign stated that the LEOs performed "spot checks". I thought it best not to enter while carrying.

no it doesn't give you any renters rights at all, you get no keys you get nothing from the gubbermint that rented the space to you for 2 days. you still have to follow the rules as they see them, wee the saxet vs Austin thread. for an individual it is different when renting a room at the local motel 6 than a business renting from a county or city. also if you rent a house or apartment the landlord or owner can walk right in any time they want and you can't do squat about it, sorry you are mis informed, if its commercial property not only can the landlord walk in anytime they want they can lock you out and not allow you in anytime they want

I was informed by both the Air Force Legal Office and a private sector lawyer. The landlord has a right to inspect his property, and you must cooperate to schedule such a visit. If he uses his key to "walk in any time" he is trespassing, and you can have law enforcement evict him. When he rented to you, he assigned the control of the residence to you. That's what lease/rental is about. Also note: A car repossessor is actually outside the law if he doesn't have a court order.

The landlord CANNOT lock you out. A landlord in Austin just got his butt sued off for that. The landlord must petition a court, the court will empower the local Sherriff to evict you (lock you out). That's why it takes so much time and money to evict someone.

I won't speak to commercial property, as I have no actual experience. But, I suspect it's similar.

they can in fact lock you out as per state law, they must by law allow you to retrieve personal property( clothes pictures personal papers things like that) but not non personal property( furniture game systems TVs stuff like that) and they may sell such property to satisfy the debt owed on rent for domicile renters, commercial property they can lock you out and not let you get a single thing period as all business assets may be sold to satisfy the debt employees must prove ownership to be allowed to remove personal property. Hmm yep I know cause well yea I have done it and will do it as I need to do again

so if you're a landlord then you should know that you can NOT go into a renter's property without arrangement or you can be taken to court for breach of contract.

I've rented in CA, CO and TX and that's the law in all three states.

[JP171]

Ma'am, most contracts allow for emergency entry without notice and everyone I have ever signed has that clause in it, if your dumping water on the unit downstairs I gotta get in and shut it off, no notice required, now prove it didn't happen, its done all the time. on Commercial Property the Leasing agent or owner can enter at will period as ALL the leases are written that way.

I do understand that renters have rights, but the owner has a supremacy right under the law to protect his or her property no matter your rights to protect the owners property and the property of others.

but back to topic, I still think that a public business should be able to ask me to leave, but not to put up a sign that makes it a crime to wear red panties nor carry a weapon into the place of business just because of the sign. That's what is currently happening, you will be taken to jail if you violate the sign and get caught, you will be convicted and you will go to jail, without the sign or gun most cops won't even touch it other than to tell you to leave and not come back or you will be arrested for criminal trespass. Like I said before LEO's don't consider your telling a person to leave to be legal notice, they have to do it. The Sign makes all of that moot by the virtue of a printed sign

[steveincowtown]

Like I said before LEO's don't consider your telling a person to leave to be legal notice, they have to do it. The Sign makes all of that moot by the virtue of a printed sign

Not sure that is accurate.

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or

(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.

(2) "Notice" means:

(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

As I said previously I don't have any issue with the fact that property owners should have the right to ASK people to leave. I just don't think the state should provide signs which preempt this to a criminal level.

[JP171]

Like I said before LEO's don't consider your telling a person to leave to be legal notice, they have to do it. The Sign makes all of that moot by the virtue of a printed sign

Not sure that is accurate.

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or

(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.

(2) "Notice" means:

(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

As I said previously I don't have any issue with the fact that property owners should have the right to ASK people to leave. I just don't think the state should provide signs which preempt this to a criminal level.

I have run in to this so many times I am sick of it, I tell you to leave my property you tell me where to go and what to do with myself and the cop tells me oh well too bad so sad and leaves after telling me he can't do anything, bout a hundred times so far. I really wish cop would do the job they were paid to do, I have had 1 and only 1 arrest a trespasser and take them to jail and it wasn't for trespassing it was for public intoxication, so yea that's how it goes. the LEO's will NOT arrest someone for criminal trespass unless they do the warning because the DA won't prosecute the crime. it may be that Harris and Galveston County deputies and local law enforcement officers and DA are just too lazy but I think it is in more than just here

[MeMelYup]

The best way if you have an altercation is tell the police; "officer I would like you to inform this person of criminal trespass." Usually the office twill be glad to and will insert it into their notes so there will be a hostelry that the individual was informed.

[JP171]

The best way if you have an altercation is tell the police; "officer I would like you to inform this person of criminal trespass." Usually the office twill be glad to and will insert it into their notes so there will be a hostelry that the individual was informed.

yea but the bad part is that the person may have already done bad things at the property and the LEO won't do a thing because its a he said, he said problem even a lot of times with video

[srothstein]

No in this case. The owner is inviting the general public into his store or business. Does the owner have the right to restrict your entry because of race? Does the owner have the right to restrict your entry because of your religion or lack thereof? Does the owner have the right to restrict your entry because of your political beliefs? Does the owner have the right to restrict your entry because of your sex?

The owner has the right to restrict your entry into his home/domicile. The owner does not have the right to restrict entry to a business where the general public is invited in for the owners gain, unless the customer is creating disturbance or an unlawful act among the customers.

We have a very interesting question (well, series of questions) here. Actually, yes you do have the right to ban people for any of those reasons. This right is recognized in the First Amendment to the Constitution in a clause that says you have the freedom to choose with whom you associate. The current state of the law in the US does not recognize some of those clauses, but it does allow ALL of them under certain circumstances. As a case in point, look at any "club" and you will see very specific limitations on who can join. Does the Augusta National Golf Club allow women in yet?

But some people in this thread have stressed a difference based on how a business is operated. So, can a corner convenience store do any of those things? Under the current law, it can do at least one. I could post a sign saying no Democrats (or whatever) allowed and I could then have anyone who entered in violation of the sign arrested for criminal trespass (in Texas). The current law bans discrimination ONLY for one of the seven protected classes. As an interesting side note, age discrimination is only banned if it is against people over 40. That is why we see businesses renting apartments to senior citizens only but no apartments just for people in their twenties.

As a further aside, under Texas law, a sign that clearly states "Do not enter without a shirt" is an enforceable criminal trespass warning and no further action is required of the owner other than a call to the police. It is not commonly done, but it is the law.


EDIT: I just happened to look it up and the Augusta National finally has admitted two women. Condoleeza Rice is a member there now.

[jnichols2]

I see things in this thread that speak to our "changed" society and concern me greatly.

The poll came out 63% to 38% in favor of property rights. But; the comments seem to tell the opposite. Or is the 38% just that vocal?

The feeling that a private property owner that chooses to start a business that deals with the public loses what property rights he had seems particularly strong. And this is coming from a forum dedicated to folks that chose to arm themselves in order to protect said rights.

I read the entire thread, and made what I thought were appropriate comments. At times, I really felt like I was at a Occupy Wall Street convention.

On the other side, one "landlord" advocates inventing a crisis in order to deprive a renter of his/her tenant rights.

Our current president stated he wanted to "fundamentally change America", I fear greatly that he has succeeded.

[txglock21]

I see things in this thread that speak to our "changed" society and concern me greatly.

The poll came out 63% to 38% in favor of property rights. But; the comments seem to tell the opposite. Or is the 38% just that vocal?

The feeling that a private property owner that chooses to start a business that deals with the public loses what property rights he had seems particularly strong. And this is coming from a forum dedicated to folks that chose to arm themselves in order to protect said rights.

I read the entire thread, and made what I thought were appropriate comments. At times, I really felt like I was at a Occupy Wall Street convention.

On the other side, one "landlord" advocates inventing a crisis in order to deprive a renter of his/her tenant rights.

Our current president stated he wanted to "fundamentally change America", I fear greatly that he has succeeded.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I'm not saying the owner should lose any rights other than to put up a sign barring someone that has done nothing wrong from entering his business that lets everyone else in. If they do something objectionable while in the business, he/she has every right to ask them to leave and if they refuse, he/she has every right to call the police and have them removed or arrested. As an example I think was posted before, a business puts up a sign stating "Nobody wearing red underwear is allowed to enter this store". First, how is anyone going to know you are wearing red underwear unless your pants fall down. Concealed means concealed. And second, if you do expose your red underwear, you should be asked to leave and ONLY if you refuse to leave should the police be called. In my opinion, everyone wins in this situation and nobody loses any rights. My 2 cents + inflation.

[LSUTiger]

I think business should have no more right to refuse those of the PUBLIC that carry concealed than they do blacks or Baptists or Bill who is wearing his wife's underwear because he "likes how it feels." What you believe, your sexuality or what is under your clothing is, quite frankly, none of the shop keepers business. If a person has no interest in agreeing to the terms the public has created, then that person has no business opening their doors.

I agree with this for "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" Private Property only because by law they can't discriminate based on other factors. (Not that I am for discrimination, but it seems it's ok to discriminate against some and not others).

I can't just do whatever makes me feel good or is not against my beliefs. Like not baking a cake for a gay couple. Bake the darn cake, just make it a lousy tasting one. That will teach'em.

[RKirkwood]

If I our a business open to the public my number 1 concern is how much money you are going to spend, you are satisfied with my product/service and you did not disrupt my business. Carrying concealed is like wear 2 different colors of socks. I don't see either and it doesn't disrupts anything.

If you are going to come in to cause problems I'm sure a sign or a law is not going to stop you.