Gun show 30.06 and the law

[RPBrown]

Okay, we have all known about the illegal 30.06 signs at gun shows on city property. We all should be turning them in when we see one.

My question is a little different though. When entering with a weapon, the people at the door make sure it is unloaded and zip tied. Then you are allowed to put it back in your holster. Now, 30.06 says nothing about loaded or unloaded so aren't you effectively still carrying concealed? This would be true anywhere a 30.06 is legal though, correct?

[locke_n_load]

My opinion - No one on city property can ask you to disarm/take off your weapon for any reason, unless they are a peace officer. If they are a peace officer and they ask for ID, then they ask to hold your weapon, when they are done talking to you, they must give your weapon back. They have no right to make it inoperable - it's your property, and you are on public property.
If venues/officers try to pull this garbage, I imagine the next legislative session will have another amendment to add. Or there will be a test case, when someone cuts the zip tie and reloads in the restroom to make their weapon operable again (much more likely with Open Carry, and I believe this would be proven to be a lawful course of action).

[EEllis]

My opinion is that there is an argument to be made that a house rule that requires guns to be made safe wouldn't violate SB273. It would also just be a house rule with no legal consequences to violating it. As a practical matter any firearm that would be handled in any way during a gun show should be made safe. So if anyone thinks they might want to try a holster, mag, or what have you, then their gun should dang well be made safe regardless of the legality. They should have real unloading stations instead of people at card tables though.

[locke_n_load]

My opinion is that there is an argument to be made that a house rule that requires guns to be made safe wouldn't violate SB273. It would also just be a house rule with no legal consequences to violating it. As a practical matter any firearm that would be handled in any way during a gun show should be made safe. So if anyone thinks they might want to try a holster, mag, or what have you, then their gun should dang well be made safe regardless of the legality. They should have real unloading stations instead of people at card tables though.

House rules mean nothing as far as a handgun goes with a license holder if the property is owned by city/county/state. It voids all the purpose behind 273 and the previous law that made the signs unenforceable, if you have to unload your weapon upon entering.
Be kind of like "yeah, you can drive your car on this road with your driver's license, but you have to empty your tank before you get on it."

[Goldspurs]

My opinion is that there is an argument to be made that a house rule that requires guns to be made safe wouldn't violate SB273. It would also just be a house rule with no legal consequences to violating it. As a practical matter any firearm that would be handled in any way during a gun show should be made safe. So if anyone thinks they might want to try a holster, mag, or what have you, then their gun should dang well be made safe regardless of the legality. They should have real unloading stations instead of people at card tables though.

Someone stated the other day in a posting that you could be trespassed for not following the house rules and that is how they could keep you from entering. I don't know how accurate that is on public property. Would welcome input from anyone more knowledgeable on the subject.

[dhoobler]

Okay, we have all known about the illegal 30.06 signs at gun shows on city property. We all should be turning them in when we see one.

My question is a little different though. When entering with a weapon, the people at the door make sure it is unloaded and zip tied. Then you are allowed to put it back in your holster. Now, 30.06 says nothing about loaded or unloaded so aren't you effectively still carrying concealed? This would be true anywhere a 30.06 is legal though, correct?

Let me expand your hypothesis. If you were to unload and zip tie your gun, holster it, conceal it and carry it past a 30.06 sign posted on private property, where TPC 30.06 is effective, do you think that you would be acquitted?

[dhoobler]

My opinion is that there is an argument to be made that a house rule that requires guns to be made safe wouldn't violate SB273. It would also just be a house rule with no legal consequences to violating it. As a practical matter any firearm that would be handled in any way during a gun show should be made safe. So if anyone thinks they might want to try a holster, mag, or what have you, then their gun should dang well be made safe regardless of the legality. They should have real unloading stations instead of people at card tables though.

Someone stated the other day in a posting that you could be trespassed for not following the house rules and that is how they could keep you from entering. I don't know how accurate that is on public property. Would welcome input from anyone more knowledgeable on the subject.

Texas penal code contains two sections regarding criminal trespass, 30.05 and 30.06 (and come January 1, 2016, 30.07). TPC 30.06, trespass by a holder of a CHL, does not apply to government owned buildings, regardless of house rules. Section 30.05, general criminal trespass, contains an exclusion (actually a defense to prosecution) if the reason trespass is alleged is that the actor is carrying a concealed handgun. It seems to me that neither 30.05 nor 30.06 could be applied to someone who carried a concealed handgun onto government owned property.

Setting that aside, does it make sense to talk about trespass on public property?

[Goldspurs]

My opinion is that there is an argument to be made that a house rule that requires guns to be made safe wouldn't violate SB273. It would also just be a house rule with no legal consequences to violating it. As a practical matter any firearm that would be handled in any way during a gun show should be made safe. So if anyone thinks they might want to try a holster, mag, or what have you, then their gun should dang well be made safe regardless of the legality. They should have real unloading stations instead of people at card tables though.

Someone stated the other day in a posting that you could be trespassed for not following the house rules and that is how they could keep you from entering. I don't know how accurate that is on public property. Would welcome input from anyone more knowledgeable on the subject.

Texas penal code contains two sections regarding criminal trespass, 30.05 and 30.06 (and come January 1, 2016, 30.07). TPC 30.06, trespass by a holder of a CHL, does not apply to government owned buildings, regardless of house rules. Section 30.05, general criminal trespass, contains an exclusion (actually a defense to prosecution) if the reason trespass is alleged is that the actor is carrying a concealed handgun. It seems to me that neither 30.05 nor 30.06 could be applied to someone who carried a concealed handgun onto government owned property.

Setting that aside, does it make sense to talk about trespass on public property?

I agree with what you are saying. I am basing my assumptions that LEO could trespass you on government property based on videos I have seen of them doing it. I didn't know if this was ignorance of the law on their part or not.

[dhoobler]

My opinion is that there is an argument to be made that a house rule that requires guns to be made safe wouldn't violate SB273. It would also just be a house rule with no legal consequences to violating it. As a practical matter any firearm that would be handled in any way during a gun show should be made safe. So if anyone thinks they might want to try a holster, mag, or what have you, then their gun should dang well be made safe regardless of the legality. They should have real unloading stations instead of people at card tables though.

Someone stated the other day in a posting that you could be trespassed for not following the house rules and that is how they could keep you from entering. I don't know how accurate that is on public property. Would welcome input from anyone more knowledgeable on the subject.

Texas penal code contains two sections regarding criminal trespass, 30.05 and 30.06 (and come January 1, 2016, 30.07). TPC 30.06, trespass by a holder of a CHL, does not apply to government owned buildings, regardless of house rules. Section 30.05, general criminal trespass, contains an exclusion (actually a defense to prosecution) if the reason trespass is alleged is that the actor is carrying a concealed handgun. It seems to me that neither 30.05 nor 30.06 could be applied to someone who carried a concealed handgun onto government owned property.

Setting that aside, does it make sense to talk about trespass on public property?

I agree with what you are saying. I am basing my assumptions that LEO could trespass you on government property based on videos I have seen of them doing it. I didn't know if this was ignorance of the law on their part or not.

If we started a thread about ignorance of the law or disregard of the law by LEO's, it could get out of hand in a hurry. I have lost track of the number of times I have heard legal advice form an LEO that is wrong.

Your problem is that if a LEO chooses to act on their ignorance, it came make for a bad day for you, even if you win in the end. Police have a saying, "you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.".

[EEllis]

My opinion is that there is an argument to be made that a house rule that requires guns to be made safe wouldn't violate SB273. It would also just be a house rule with no legal consequences to violating it. As a practical matter any firearm that would be handled in any way during a gun show should be made safe. So if anyone thinks they might want to try a holster, mag, or what have you, then their gun should dang well be made safe regardless of the legality. They should have real unloading stations instead of people at card tables though.

House rules mean nothing as far as a handgun goes with a license holder if the property is owned by city/county/state. It voids all the purpose behind 273 and the previous law that made the signs unenforceable, if you have to unload your weapon upon entering.
Be kind of like "yeah, you can drive your car on this road with your driver's license, but you have to empty your tank before you get on it."

I understand your argument and it may well be correct but I believe the opposing argument is strong enough that, barring action from the AG, it would be something that would have to be decided in court or by a slight modification in the wording of the law next session.

[EEllis]

My opinion is that there is an argument to be made that a house rule that requires guns to be made safe wouldn't violate SB273. It would also just be a house rule with no legal consequences to violating it. As a practical matter any firearm that would be handled in any way during a gun show should be made safe. So if anyone thinks they might want to try a holster, mag, or what have you, then their gun should dang well be made safe regardless of the legality. They should have real unloading stations instead of people at card tables though.

Someone stated the other day in a posting that you could be trespassed for not following the house rules and that is how they could keep you from entering. I don't know how accurate that is on public property. Would welcome input from anyone more knowledgeable on the subject.

That would be the theory. Public property doesn't really change anything in this case. They can keep you from bringing in food or drink, have a dress code, all kinds of things. This would in theory just be one more rule.

[Goldspurs]

My opinion is that there is an argument to be made that a house rule that requires guns to be made safe wouldn't violate SB273. It would also just be a house rule with no legal consequences to violating it. As a practical matter any firearm that would be handled in any way during a gun show should be made safe. So if anyone thinks they might want to try a holster, mag, or what have you, then their gun should dang well be made safe regardless of the legality. They should have real unloading stations instead of people at card tables though.

Someone stated the other day in a posting that you could be trespassed for not following the house rules and that is how they could keep you from entering. I don't know how accurate that is on public property. Would welcome input from anyone more knowledgeable on the subject.

Texas penal code contains two sections regarding criminal trespass, 30.05 and 30.06 (and come January 1, 2016, 30.07). TPC 30.06, trespass by a holder of a CHL, does not apply to government owned buildings, regardless of house rules. Section 30.05, general criminal trespass, contains an exclusion (actually a defense to prosecution) if the reason trespass is alleged is that the actor is carrying a concealed handgun. It seems to me that neither 30.05 nor 30.06 could be applied to someone who carried a concealed handgun onto government owned property.

Setting that aside, does it make sense to talk about trespass on public property?

I agree with what you are saying. I am basing my assumptions that LEO could trespass you on government property based on videos I have seen of them doing it. I didn't know if this was ignorance of the law on their part or not.

If we started a thread about ignorance of the law or disregard of the law by LEO's, it could get out of hand in a hurry. I have lost track of the number of times I have heard legal advice form an LEO that is wrong.

Your problem is that if a LEO chooses to act on their ignorance, it came make for a bad day for you, even if you win in the end. Police have a saying, "you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.".

I was not intending to hijack the thread. I do not want to see it go into a tailspin on Leo conduct. I am also ignorant to the law on this and thought it was keeping with the OPs question.

[EEllis]

Okay, we have all known about the illegal 30.06 signs at gun shows on city property. We all should be turning them in when we see one.

My question is a little different though. When entering with a weapon, the people at the door make sure it is unloaded and zip tied. Then you are allowed to put it back in your holster. Now, 30.06 says nothing about loaded or unloaded so aren't you effectively still carrying concealed? This would be true anywhere a 30.06 is legal though, correct?

Let me expand your hypothesis. If you were to unload and zip tie your gun, holster it, conceal it and carry it past a 30.06 sign posted on private property, where TPC 30.06 is effective, do you think that you would be acquitted?

I don't think it really matters in the scenario we are discussing. It's about if these house rules fall under the specifics in the language of SB273. How TPC30.06 is interpreted wouldn't necessarily mean anything.

[gljjt]

Why not just have anyone who wants to holster check or sell a handgun have it tagged (ziptied) at the door. Concealed handguns carried for defensive purposes cannot be removed from cover at any time except for legal self defense purposes. Any CHL holder removing their carry piece is breaking the law. It could easily argued that unloaded zipped handguns are handled for "sporting" purposes and are exempt from concealed requirements while a loaded weapon is not. You could exempt an unloaded weapon for show purposes but not a loaded weapon. This doesn't seem that difficult to me.

[locke_n_load]

My opinion is that there is an argument to be made that a house rule that requires guns to be made safe wouldn't violate SB273. It would also just be a house rule with no legal consequences to violating it. As a practical matter any firearm that would be handled in any way during a gun show should be made safe. So if anyone thinks they might want to try a holster, mag, or what have you, then their gun should dang well be made safe regardless of the legality. They should have real unloading stations instead of people at card tables though.

Someone stated the other day in a posting that you could be trespassed for not following the house rules and that is how they could keep you from entering. I don't know how accurate that is on public property. Would welcome input from anyone more knowledgeable on the subject.

That would be the theory. Public property doesn't really change anything in this case. They can keep you from bringing in food or drink, have a dress code, all kinds of things. This would in theory just be one more rule.

Except that having food and drink on public owned property is not a lawfully protected action, while carrying with a CHL is.