Charles L. Cotton wrote:...
You refute your own stated position. You clearly do want the state to "play a role in criminally enforcing the private prejudices of the business owners . . ." You want the state to arrest and prosecute anyone who does not leave private property when told to do so. You would expressly allow a property owner to tell someone to leave specifically because they have a gun. It's only the method of of delivering the message that you want to change. You want to allow a person who knows that guns are not welcome (saw the 30.06 sign) to enter property anyway and force the owner to confront the armed trespasser. You won't sell that argument to many people.
As I've said many times, I support not allowing businesses to prohibit Licensees from carrying concealed handguns. However, I won't push the issue because it has no support and pushing it would pit legislative friends against friends and hurt our overall effort. (I would note that my preferred change would not force a confrontation between the business owner and the Licensee as would yours.)
I really wasn't as clear as intended as I've made this case in a number of threads...but to keep it on topic, I will clarify my position in regards to political capital and 30.06.
If it was worth the political capital, which you have stated it's not...I would like to see exactly what you have proposed, but this is how I would articulate it:
- Make it not a crime to carry a concealed handgun past a sign in a business open to the public. That would require making 30.06 not apply to those businesses. I am assuming oral notice (30.05) still applies as long as the reason is anything other than carrying a concealed handgun. I'm not refuting my argument by still allowing 30.05 notice.
- My main argument is that 30.05 was never intended to apply to enforcing codes of conduct by sign or written notice, except that it was interpreted as such for handguns by AG Morales. His ruling was based on the legislative discussion record of CHL law, but he applied trespass law (30.05) in a new way with regards to signs prohibiting specific conduct.
This was then mooted by 30.06 in 1997. The nice thing about 30.06 is that it clarifies how notice must be given for prohibiting a specific conduct (carrying a concealed handgun), there is no such clarification in 30.05. If 30.05 was really intended and held to prohibit specific conduct, by written notice, on publicly open businesses, then NO COPS, NO POCKETKNIVES, and NO CELL PHONES signs (in whatever form delivered) would automatically create a class B misdemeanor trespass crime every time someone failed to notice them and comply. You would not be required to discover and confront the cop, pocketknife carrier, or cell phone concealer, for them to be committing a crime. This seems unusual and not the way most general trespass statutes in other jurisdictions, or even in Texas have previously been interpreted.
I guess we've gone as far as possible as we can with the 30.06 sign violation being reduced to a class C. This is good because it protects people who miss the sign due to placement, etc. I'd like to see the 46.035 places eliminated and maybe school carry.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"