C-dub wrote:Is it just me or do these two sentences seem contradictory?
Thank you for posting. I don’t see them as contradictory since I respect the right of any private property owner to be able to ask anyone to leave. My problem is specifically how the law is written. The fact that a sign makes a concealed carry person a criminal is what I want changed. I am not opposed to them asking me to leave, and (although I don’t like it) I am not even complaining about having to pay a fine if I accidently enter a business with a sign. A civil matter is not a big deal, but a permanent criminal conviction is a serious thing.
In a perfect world I would like to be able to carry anywhere law enforcement can carry, and I would be willing to pay for significant extra training to obtain that right. We need many, many more well trained, responsible, armed citizens ready to stop bad things from happening.
I posted above with the list of places we go a lot, I was simply disheartened to learn how many businesses have 30.06 signs, and that is in addition to any federal land, amusement parks, houses of worship, schools, etc.
I definitely understand your thought pattern here.
I agree with the idea that a private property owner should have the right to decide who comes on the property. But applying the force of law to one specific sign, for one specific kind of person seems like it should go away.
Sure, a 'no trespassing' sign has the force of law that applies to all - cross it and you have legal consequences. But that applies to everyone, not just a select few. 'No shoes, no shirt, no service' is a simple enough sign to understand, but if you ignore it and walk inside, then (a) you can still be asked to leave, and (b) you have not broken the law just by walking inside.
Now, the folks where were here when the original CHL laws were passed will tell us about how the 30.06 was a good compromise, and without it, we never would have gotten CHL passed in the first place. There were powers to be that wanted any old sign to have the force of law, but they successfully the 30.06 rules passed so that we wouldn't be criminally responsible for accidentally missing an easily miss-able sign.
I'm glad that original compromise was made, in order to get the CHL program off the ground here in Texas. I was also happy when it got changed so that if I accidentally miss a sign, I now get a Class C instead of a Class A misdemeanor. I'll be even happier if and when they remove the force of law altogether from the signs.
Note that I'm NOT advocating limitation of private property rights. I do believe those are important. However, I will be happy if and when private property rights would be applied equally so that oral notice is valid every time, but with no exceptions carved out in the law that adds the force of law to just one type of sign, for just one class of citizen.
And, welcome to the forum!