No Off Limit Places

[carlson1]

I do not know if anyone else agrees or not, but I would like the 30.06 to be done away with. I would even go for the CHL class time to be increased if they would allow carry every where just as a Peace Officer. Anyone else vote for this?

[KBCraig]

Depends on what you mean by doing away with 30.06.

If you mean doing away with property owners' right to ban guns, then no; I wouldn't agree. I believe too strongly in private property rights. (While it's very un-PC, and while I despise discrimination, I also believe that property owners should be able to exclude anyone, for any reason, or for no reason at all.)

If you mean rolling back the penalties for criminal trespass while armed, so that a CHL would face no more penalties than a belligerant customer who refused to leave, then... maybe. It's something to discuss. As it is, the penalty is way too severe.

I do agree the restrictions on CHLs and LEOs should be identical. I don't believe the CHL class needs to be expanded to allow for that. If LEOs were restricted by 30.06, I guarantee that by the end of the next Legislature, 30.06 would be rolled back, or the penalty reduced to meaninglessness.

Kevin

[longtooth]

I am also like KB. I want to preserve personal property rights. I have always said that if someone did not want me in their house, store, barn yard that they should have the right to tell me they don't want to sell me the widget if it is at a garage sale, store shelf or public auction. Do away w/ the legally off limits places & let the owners or managers decide. That way when they get tired of fooling w/ the troublesome signs & forget about it, like most of the hospitals did, then we carry.

[KBCraig]

I forgot to add... you have to remember why 30.06 was written. In the original CHL law, any "no guns" sign could be used against you, even a 2" ghostbusters sign, white on clear glass, mixed in with the credit card stickers.

I like the fact that 30.06 places a burden on those who wish to ban carry. I respect property rights, and a valid 30.06 sign lets me know that the property owner has gone to some lengths to let me know that he doesn't want me, my gun, or my money on his property. As you wish!

Kevin

[nitrogen]

I do not know if anyone else agrees or not, but I would like the 30.06 to be done away with. I would even go for the CHL class time to be increased if they would allow carry every where just as a Peace Officer. Anyone else vote for this?

I would not be for this. I would like to see additional burdens on public businesses that want to ban lawful carry, though.
Arizona just passed a law mandating secure storage for any facility that bans carry. such a storage facility must make the stored weapons readily available if needed.

I'd be all for adding this requirement to any public establishment that wants to ban lawful carry.

[cyphur]

I think that property rights of business' is one thing - but to restrict my rights to carry is another. There should be a middle ground.

If they are going to maintain the 30.06 statute - then they should pass a bill requiring establishments to have a secure place to lock up my firearm while doing business there. Thats only fair, if they want us to respect their rights, they should respect ours.

However for property privately owned by say a home or such, then I completely agree that it is their perogative to restrict who carries what, and when, on their turf.


Edit - Dang, beat me to it Nitrogen!!

[Charles L. Cotton]

As Kevin noted, 30.06 was enacted to make it more difficult to post a location as off-limits to armed CHL's. I also agree that homeowners should be able to prohibit anyone they wish from entering their property, including armed CHL's.

When it comes to commercial/business property however, I feel differently. When I go to someone’s home or other non-commercial property I do so for my benefit, whether that be for fellowship with a friend or for some other reason. When I go to a business, I do so because the business owner has asked me to come and hopefully spend money. I do not believe the business owner should be allowed to require me to disarm thus increasing the risk of me becoming a crime victim. Yes, I could choose to go to another store, but I should not have to do so.

Business/commercial property is heavily controlled now and the private property argument isn’t even raised. We have fire codes that require the property owner to install certain equipment and limits the number of people you can have in the building at one time. The owner of commercial property must allow city inspectors to enter the property at any time during business hours, without a warrant. There are restrictions on locking doors during business hours. A business owner cannot post a sign saying “No Jews, Catholics, blacks or women,� while a homeowner can. Commercial property is treated differently because its purpose is to attract customers and government has an interest in requiring a certain level of protection for those customers. I believe there is a legitimate interest in protecting customers who have CHLs by not requiring them to cross parking lots or traverse dark parking garages unarmed, simply because a business owner doesn’t want them armed in his store. By passing the CHL statute, the State of Texas has determined that it is the public policy of this State the law-abiding people should be able to protect themselves from violent attack by the carrying of handguns. The State set requirements for obtaining the CHL and business/commercial property owners should not be able to thwart this State’s public policy.

As for equating the CHL with a LEO as it relates to off-limits locations, I agree with one exception. I think court buildings should remain off-limits to CHL’s, but I’ll go one further. I think they should also be off-limits to LEO’s who are not there in their official capacity. I’ve seen wonderful people go crazy over trial or rulings from the bench. I saw a deputy constable go ballistic over a ruling in his divorce case and even the bailiff was getting ready for what he thought was coming.

Here is something you may not be aware of; LEO’s cannot be prosecuted for trespass under TPC §30.05 if the reason for their exclusion was that they were armed. This is true whether or not they are on official business! So, you can’t prohibit a LEO from entering your home simply because he has a gun.

Here is the operative language from TPC §30.05:

(g) This section does not apply if:

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

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace
officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized
state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of
Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or
special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an
official duty while carrying the weapon.

Regards,
Chas.

[ElGato]

Several good post here and intresting reading.

My comment would be that 30.06 has worked well for me since it's revision, I'm sure there others, but the only place I can think of at the moment where it has effected me is St. John's Hospital. I have seen it improperly used at Court houses but I couldn't go there anyway.

I tend to believe that the wording requirements and the responsibly that seems to go along with it make make private business reluctant to use 30.06.
I do believe the penalties are to severe.

Please take into consideration that I may not move about in public as much as some of you.

[carlson1]

Plus 1 Mr. Cotton. I have never thought about the Courts before, but that is also true. I had the non pleasurable experience of being with in court with family members of a police officer who was on trial. When the verdict was rendered it was a very bad scene. Courts, jails, etc. . .should remain off limits. A business is an open invitation to the PUBLIC and also believe a Church is an open invitation for the PUBLIC and I believe strongly that it is my right to be able to protect myself.

[seamusTX]

... also believe a Church is an open invitation for the PUBLIC and I believe strongly that it is my right to be able to protect myself.

But many churches have a doctrine against carrying weapons or engaging in any violence in church. The Catholic church is one. I imagine the pacifistic faiths like Jehova's Witnesses do also.

- Jim

[nitrogen]

... also believe a Church is an open invitation for the PUBLIC and I believe strongly that it is my right to be able to protect myself.

But many churches have a doctrine against carrying weapons or engaging in any violence in church. The Catholic church is one. I imagine the pacifistic faiths like Jehova's Witnesses do also.

- Jim

I don't know about others, but I'd have a huge problem being a member of a church that felt I should just submit to violence.

[seamusTX]

You might accept it if you grew up in that church.

It's not an easy path to follow. The Nazis killed Jehovah's Witnesses because they wouldn't serve in the military.

- Jim

[carlson1]

... also believe a Church is an open invitation for the PUBLIC and I believe strongly that it is my right to be able to protect myself.

But many churches have a doctrine against carrying weapons or engaging in any violence in church. The Catholic church is one. I imagine the pacifistic faiths like Jehova's Witnesses do also.

- Jim

I don't know about others, but I'd have a huge problem being a member of a church that felt I should just submit to violence.

It all goes back to where you want to go. The Church is still inviting the PUBLIC, so it should not be off limits. I agree with you, I would not be there either. There are many places I do not shop because of the 30.06. Do be frankly honest it is might RIGHT to carry. So, I feel my rights are violated. I don't like the ideal of having to have the CHL, because I go back to it is my RIGHT to carry. Just my little brain thinking out loud.

[anygunanywhere]

... also believe a Church is an open invitation for the PUBLIC and I believe strongly that it is my right to be able to protect myself.

But many churches have a doctrine against carrying weapons or engaging in any violence in church. The Catholic church is one. I imagine the pacifistic faiths like Jehova's Witnesses do also.

- Jim

Making such statements about the Catholic church is a sign of ignorance on your part.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2263

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

I am Catholic, I carry at Mass, the church is not posted.

The Catechism also states that capital punishment is acceptable to protect society. When a Catholic, even the Pope states they are against things like capital punishment and RKBA, it is their personal opinion and is not binding to all Catholics since the Pope must speak in step with the Magisterium in matters of faith and dogma only- not society's concerns.

You really should do your research.

Anygun

[cyphur]

My wife is a Witness and she at this point in time is not comfortable carrying a gun due to the fact that they do not believe in violence. Let alone carry in her Kingdom Hall.

However, Jehovah's Witness' pacifism is limited in my experience to humans - they have no compunction against hunting animals in the true form of you eat what you kill.

I find the hypocrisy in that she doesn't mind depending on me protecting her and the girls and engaging in whatever violent acts that may require. I would do them willingly without reserve, however I still find that expectation hypocritical.

I am unsure whether I would carry at her church. My gut would say yes.... but my gut isn't the only thing to consider in that equation.