Moms Demand Action Seeks to Change 30.06 Signage Requirement

[Jaguar]

30.06 signs have to be big and properly worded because the penalty for disregarding them is so large, i.e. $4,000.00 fine and 1 year in jail plus loss of CHL. Now if the requirements are changed and any little sticker makes it a Class A, CHL will basically be gone in Texas and only good for carrying out of state.

If they do change the sign requirements they should make the violation a Class C misdemeanor with a $10 fine for each violation. That would make it fair once again. Of course I would rather see them keep the current sign and still lower the penalty.

I am pretty sure a "No Shirts, No Shoes" violation does not carry such harsh penalties.

[Bladed]

I'm pretty sure the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Rural Affairs and Homeland Security is still working on their interim study on "removing barriers to Second Amendment rights." Perhaps we should each drop them a line and let them know how important the current 30.06 rules are to the integrity of Texas's concealed carry laws.

[gljjt]

30.06 signs have to be big and properly worded because the penalty for disregarding them is so large, i.e. $4,000.00 fine and 1 year in jail plus loss of CHL. Now if the requirements are changed and any little sticker makes it a Class A, CHL will basically be gone in Texas and only good for carrying out of state.

If they do change the sign requirements they should make the violation a Class C misdemeanor with a $10 fine for each violation. That would make it fair once again. Of course I would rather see them keep the current sign and still lower the penalty.

I am pretty sure a "No Shirts, No Shoes" violation does not carry such harsh penalties.

Excellent point!

[stavos]

30.06 signs have to be big and properly worded because the penalty for disregarding them is so large, i.e. $4,000.00 fine and 1 year in jail plus loss of CHL. Now if the requirements are changed and any little sticker makes it a Class A, CHL will basically be gone in Texas and only good for carrying out of state.

If they do change the sign requirements they should make the violation a Class C misdemeanor with a $10 fine for each violation. That would make it fair once again. Of course I would rather see them keep the current sign and still lower the penalty.

I am pretty sure a "No Shirts, No Shoes" violation does not carry such harsh penalties.

The penalty for regular trespassing is the same if you're armed.
Sec. 30.05. (d) An offense under this section is: (3) a Class A misdemeanor if: (B) the person carries a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
Sec. 30.06. (d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

[Jaguar]

30.06 signs have to be big and properly worded because the penalty for disregarding them is so large, i.e. $4,000.00 fine and 1 year in jail plus loss of CHL. Now if the requirements are changed and any little sticker makes it a Class A, CHL will basically be gone in Texas and only good for carrying out of state.

If they do change the sign requirements they should make the violation a Class C misdemeanor with a $10 fine for each violation. That would make it fair once again. Of course I would rather see them keep the current sign and still lower the penalty.

I am pretty sure a "No Shirts, No Shoes" violation does not carry such harsh penalties.

The penalty for regular trespassing is the same if you're armed.
Sec. 30.05. (d) An offense under this section is: (3) a Class A misdemeanor if: (B) the person carries a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
Sec. 30.06. (d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Okay, change 30.05(d)(3)(B) as well.

[Bladed]

30.06 signs have to be big and properly worded because the penalty for disregarding them is so large, i.e. $4,000.00 fine and 1 year in jail plus loss of CHL. Now if the requirements are changed and any little sticker makes it a Class A, CHL will basically be gone in Texas and only good for carrying out of state.

If they do change the sign requirements they should make the violation a Class C misdemeanor with a $10 fine for each violation. That would make it fair once again. Of course I would rather see them keep the current sign and still lower the penalty.

I am pretty sure a "No Shirts, No Shoes" violation does not carry such harsh penalties.

The penalty for regular trespassing is the same if you're armed.
Sec. 30.05. (d) An offense under this section is: (3) a Class A misdemeanor if: (B) the person carries a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
Sec. 30.06. (d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Okay, change 30.05(d)(3)(B) as well.

Texas Penal Code Section 30.05:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun.

[tbrown]

Cool story bro but having a CHL doesn't give you a right to trespass on my property. I got purple paint and everything.

[jimlongley]

Hopefully this is a wakeup call for the people who thought Morons Demand Attention were reacting to open carry protests. Their detailed knowledge of 30.06 and attack on same revealed the truth. A sign to ban open carry (except police, military, and security guards) is simple.

So simple even a Moron can do it.

This is not a knee jerk response to a single situation, it is a carefully crafted campaign that they were waiting for the right impetus to trot out.

[Bladed]

Cool story bro but having a CHL doesn't give you a right to trespass on my property. I got purple paint and everything.

Whom are you addressing? Where did anyone claim that having a CHL gives him/her a right to trespass on your property?

[Bladed]

Hopefully this is a wakeup call for the people who thought Morons Demand Attention were reacting to open carry protests. Their detailed knowledge of 30.06 and attack on same revealed the truth. A sign to ban open carry (except police, military, and security guards) is simple.

So simple even a Moron can do it.

This is not a knee jerk response to a single situation, it is a carefully crafted campaign that they were waiting for the right impetus to trot out.

And they couldn't have asked for a stronger impetus.

[Oldgringo]

This is not going to end well for gun owners. Businesses that didn't post a discreet gunbuster sign to ban visible guns will read the newspaper article and post large IYF signs that only bans hidden guns. Mark my words, by the time Memorial Day weekend is over, half the restaurants in Texas will have 30.06 signs.

We'll just eat at the other half....or home, eh?

[Bladed]

This is not going to end well for gun owners. Businesses that didn't post a discreet gunbuster sign to ban visible guns will read the newspaper article and post large IYF signs that only bans hidden guns. Mark my words, by the time Memorial Day weekend is over, half the restaurants in Texas will have 30.06 signs.

We'll just eat at the other half....or home, eh?

If I'm in the middle of making dinner and realize that I'm out of eggs, I don't want to have to decide between being defenseless at the grocery store near my house or driving an extra thirty minutes round trip to the grocery store that hasn't banned concealed carry. I'm less interested in making a political statement every time I choose a restaurant or a coffee shop or a grocery store than in being able to defend myself wherever my day-to-day activities may take me. I think some Texas CHL holders take for granted how relatively easy it is to work around the <1% of businesses that currently post 30.06.

[ScottDLS]

30.06 signs have to be big and properly worded because the penalty for disregarding them is so large, i.e. $4,000.00 fine and 1 year in jail plus loss of CHL. Now if the requirements are changed and any little sticker makes it a Class A, CHL will basically be gone in Texas and only good for carrying out of state.

If they do change the sign requirements they should make the violation a Class C misdemeanor with a $10 fine for each violation. That would make it fair once again. Of course I would rather see them keep the current sign and still lower the penalty.

I am pretty sure a "No Shirts, No Shoes" violation does not carry such harsh penalties.

Theoretically it's a Class B to walk past such a sign (unarmed), if it constitutes "NOTICE" as defined in 30.05. Same penalty as a DWI.

30.05 defines NOTICE, but doesn't seem to be specific regarding premises that are generally open to the public, but want to ban a specific behavior. It was posited prior to the 1997 enactment of 30.06 that ANY sign was good. I believe by anti-gun former Texas AG Dan Morales. This would seem to include a 8 point font list of "rules" at shoe level or even the infamous "circle slash Beretta"...which we all know is the internationally recognized NOTICE under 30.05 of the Texas Penal Code; that entry upon the premises with anything; up to and including nail clippers is criminal trespass.

Since I'm not aware of any proverbial "test cases" in 1996, I guess we just won't know until one of us concealed machine-gun or rifle carriers walks past such a sign, believing it not to apply, or perhaps missing the 8 point font, and is subsequently discovered. However, if the application of 30.05 is handled as it is commonly for illegal skateboarders or loiterers at my local shopping plaza; then the transgressors will be verbally (orally) informed that they must depart. And in rare cases, the authorities may be summoned to emphasize that a repeat loitering or skating incident will result in arrest.

[cb1000rider]

Supid, Stupid, STUPID! What is WRONG with these people that they can't wake up and get a clue?

My guess is that we're busy dividing up into "us" versus "them". Anything that "they" do is wrong. Anything "they" do is stupid.
IF you're an OC demonstrator you:
1) Are stupid.
2) Don't support concealed carry.
3) Are helping support anti-firearm factions via public confrontation.

My guess is that if we weren't so "us vs them" we might make some progress. I believe there are some moderate OC advocates out there and some that understand why carrying an AR-15 at Starbucks isn't going to win friends and influence people in the right direction.

I'm not sure how you'd illustrate, maybe by associating confrontational tactics with downstream legislation attempts... And by confrontational, I don't mean peacefully assembled, permitted (if required), constitutional speech in an area where you'd expect to see such demonstrations.

Rather than calling them stupid and drawing lines, why not engage in a little conversation?
And sure, there are those that will be fringe and won't compromise one bit, but they're not the majority... They are the guys that you're noticing - the guys that are causing you to select a "side" on this issue, when there really is a vast amount of common ground...

And then there is that solution we don't want to talk about. Brand me anti-gun (I've been called worse here), but if we don't want to see AR-15s in public places, maybe we should change the law? That would certainly clear the issue up.

[gthaustex]

An earlier story/article on the matter:

http://www.click2houston.com/news/group ... s/26083696" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the linked story above on this:

Chase says some businesses owners have discovered their signs inadvertently violate state law and when that happens they are targeted by concealed weapon license owners who say it is their right to go inside the property

Interesting to me how the story says the signs "violate" state law....and then how CHLs "target" their businesses....