Search found 13 matches

by CZp10
Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:35 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

MechAg94 wrote:Perhaps I missed it in the preceding pages I didn't read, but has anyone ever been prosecuted for carrying in a premises covered by a 30.06 sign?
I searched the interweb, and can’t find one, but I don’t have access to criminal records.
I know of people who have been asked to leave, but don’t know of any who were arrested even though they left.
by CZp10
Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:06 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

I see what you are saying about 30.05, but I think many people believe that it is ridiculous to have possible criminal penalties and consequences for a person who is acting completely lawfully and enters a location freely open to the public. There are many places in Texas and other state’s laws that have civil penalties for such things as walking past a sign into a public establishment. My complaint is that it should be a fine and civil issue if a concealed carry person leaves when asked, and only a criminal offense when they don’t leave.

There are others who would argue that a location open to the general public is not the same as a private business location or someone’s home. Being open to the public and choosing not to provide a serious level of security for your patrons in order for you to make more money, might not give you the right to withhold a person’s constitutional right to bear arms.

However, at this point I don’t see any business owner with a 30.06 sign being able to actually prove, in a court of law, that the concealed carry person would not volunteer in an emergency situation. Until there is an actual court challenge to HB 435 I don’t see how 30.06 signs really mean much anymore.
by CZp10
Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:21 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

C-dub wrote:I see that ScottDLS brought up the speed limit thing. I was going to mention this as well. It is a sign, that if you do what it prohibits then you are a criminal just the same as if you CC past a 30.06 sign. Are speed limit signs unconstitutional?
The speed limit sign has been put up by the government, not a private individual, also it applies to everyone not to a select few. Furthermore it has been tested in the courts many times. Just trying to point out that I view that differently than the 30.06/30.07 signs.

My basic wish would be that the penalty part of 30.06/30.07 (assuming you leave when asked directly) would be just a fine, not criminality, it would escalate to a crime when you refused to leave.

Speaking of being able to carry in more places, has anyone ever suggested that we could choose, at our own expense, to get a significantly greater amount of firearms training to receive what you might call a higher level of carry permit? Basically you get a lot more law enforcement type training, and that allows you to carry in all but a few specific places? I am wondering if that would make the anti carry crowed feel better or not.
by CZp10
Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:18 am
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

ScottDLS wrote: A Defense to Prosecution is the same thing that you have for carrying ANYWHERE under the authority of LTC, or while being a cop, or any of the other 46.15 exceptions, they are by appellate level case law only DEFENSES to prosecution. So the same thing with VESP and 30.06... Are you the "test case" every day by carrying with a LTC? :shock:
Just to be clear, it is not my definition, but the definition of the word criminal. Again, that is just pointless semantics, I was just trying to better, and I guess failing to, explain my earlier comments.

Being new to all this, I really don’t see how a “defense to prosecution” means much in the real world. It is just a few words that will not protect you in and of themselves. It seems like it will be up to the prosecution if they will challenge that particular defense, then the judge can weigh in, and ultimately up to the jury I guess. Looks like a lot of laws are written a bit vaguely and open ended to allow the court and prosecution to decide how they want to play it. I guess we are all test cases for a lot of things every day.

I don’t know how to search legal records, so I don’t know if anyone has ever been charged and convicted of a 30.06 or 30.07 class C level violation. If no one has ever been charged after they agreed to leave a properly posted location, I am not sure how we know what any of this means in the real world.
by CZp10
Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:09 am
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

Twomillenium,
I apologize for not being more clear, and for my ignorance. The law states that you have committed Criminal Trespass if you carry past a correctly worded/posted sign. I understand that you have to charged and agree to pay the $200 fine before you become a convicted criminal. I was arguing against, in principle, what I see as a poorly written law that, however unlikely, can theoretically can be used against otherwise law abiding people. Not being charged/convicted doesn’t undo the reality of actually being in violation of the law. Semantics I suppose, the basic definition of the word “criminal” is one who breaks the law, not just one who happens to end up being convicted. I can’t see anywhere that you can only be charged after refusing to leave, as you state. Leaving when asked still makes it a Class C violation, not leaving makes it a class A, why would there be two specifically listed classes of misdemeanor if you can only be charged with class A as you state?

Liberty,
I know I am making a mountain out of molehill, but I (rightly or wrongly) choose to think in the .01% chance of things happening, not the 99.99% it won’t. I also wanted to contradict posts that I see claiming paying the $200 is no big deal. It is a criminal conviction which can legally be used against you in the future. Would you mind please letting me know why you think being a red cross CPR certified volunteer would not be considered as: “any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations”?

Crazy2medic,
That is the $10,000 question. I would guess that not one single person anywhere can answer that question until it is tested in court. I have read everything I can find so far on it, and the bottom line is the law is so unbelievably vague that any defense attorney should be happy to fight in court for you. However, as I posted, you will have to pay for that attorney yourself. But as so many helpful people here have pointed out, it is a long series of events that have to occur before it matters. You have to carry past a correct sign, then law enforcement has to be called or be present and notice you, then they and the DA have decide to pursue the misdemeanor charge. I don’t think the law is meant to imply people can ignore 30.06 signs, but it gives you a “defense to prosecution” if you are seen to fall under the volunteer emergency personnel definition. Mr. Cotton wrote, “However, the Bill also provides a defense to TPC §§30.06 and 30.07 merely because they are VESP, whether or not they are “on duty.” This goes too far. Such exception should apply, but only when actually rendering emergency services.” I really don’t know how this will play out in reality.
by CZp10
Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:56 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

Just did some reading on HB435, wow, what a confusing and vague amendment that is. Whoever wrote that either made some big mistakes or seemed to have intentionally eliminated 30.06 and 30.07 almost completely. I would assume they meant to write that 30.06 and 30.07 can be defended against when volunteer emergency personnel are entering a prohibited business in order to provide immediate assistance. However, the way it is written, it doesn’t mention anything about needing to enter to provide aid.

With extremely little effort, anyone can be considered as: “any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.”

So does this mean my basic problem and complaints about 30.06 have just effectively been removed via HB435? Any opinions on this would be much appreciated.
by CZp10
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:10 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

ninjabread wrote:HB 435 takes effect next month.
Ok, thanks. I read that but I am not clear on what the exact legal definition of "Volunteer emergency services personnel".
So just getting a Red Cross certification counts, or is there something you need to do for Texas?
Sorry for all the questions and thanks very much for the help.
by CZp10
Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:46 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

ninjabread wrote:Get a red cross first aid card and soon you can ignore 30.06 signs.
Seriously? Can I ask how that works? I am not familiar with it.
by CZp10
Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:56 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

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.
by CZp10
Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:22 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

Flightmare wrote: Most Cinemark are 30.07 only, not 30.06. A buddy of mine works for Cinemark and he said that he believes they refused to prohibit carry completely after what happened in Aurora, CO. This is his opinion though, not from corporate.
Ah, thanks, I misread that one. I wish more people felt that way.
by CZp10
Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:07 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

Liberty wrote:
I am not sure where you live but, I can weeks without seeing a 30.06 sign. The major grocery stores around here, have none. (Randell's, Walmart, Krogers, Arlans, and HEB. (HEB has 30.07 signs) The last restaurant I saw with a 30.06 sign was Taco Cabana. It was too small to be enforceable and came down after a public outcry and email campaign (mostly from this forum). That was several years ago. I think you might be confusing the 30.07 sign with the 30.06 sign. I view the 30.07 sign without it's mean brother the 30.06 sign as a dress code. They just don't wanna see your gun. They might have a 'shirts required' sign too because they don't wanna see our ugly hairy chests.

BTW: the signs at the zoos are probably unenforcible.
Zoos signs seem to enforceable per the Texas AG website, and we go to zoos quite a bit.

I searched the website for 30.06, and since we have kids we go to a lot of these places. Just to name a few that we frequent that have 30.06 signs: AMC theaters, Cinemark, Half Priced Books, Ikea, Main Event, Sprouts Market, Whole Foods, Strikz, American Girl, Cheesecake Factory, Toys R Us, Golfsmith, Pinstack, auto dealers, etc. There are more but I tend to get frustrated listing all of them.
by CZp10
Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:42 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

Re: another 30.06 question

Thank you very much for all the great replies, this is a very helpful community :smile: . I really wish the antigun crowd knew what great people the vast majority of carry advocates are.

If there is someone here with direct knowledge of this I would appreciate them setting me straight, but I think some people may be underestimating the ramifications of being convicted of a criminal offense.

A class C misdemeanor of 30.06 would seem to be “Criminal Trespass”. The key being that once you pay the $200 you are admitting guilt and you will have a permanent record of being convicted of a crime. It is not anything like a traffic ticket. Texas officers have the right to arrest you for class C misdemeanors as well.

From a Texas attorney’s websites it shows that Class C convictions can be seen by private employers in background checks and that can be used to deny you employment. You have the right to fight it in court but you will not be provided with an attorney, you must hire your own whether you can afford it or not. Depending on the case it will easily cost 5000 to 10000 dollars.

Texas DPS says that if you get more than one of these 30.06 class C violations the courts will most likely raise it to a higher more serious conviction, and that can be used to revoke your concealed carry permit, and a higher misdemeanor can result in jail time.

I realize that these might seem unlikely consequences to some, but I still believe it is far more serious that most are assuming.
by CZp10
Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:48 am
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 11149

another 30.06 question

Sorry, I am new here (and to concealed carry), but I have a question that has been bothering me for some time. I have read through a number of threads on this topic, but I honestly don’t understand the complacency. I apologize for bringing this up again, but I am really struggling with this. Since I am new to all this, please let me know if I am misunderstanding anything, or just being dumb in general (my wife seems to think that happens a lot for some strange reason :smile: ).

Personally (and this is just my own opinion) I don’t have a problem with the requirements for a concealed carry permit, nor do I have a problem with people or businesses who do not want firearms on their private property. However, I can’t understand how the placing of a sign makes an otherwise completely law abiding citizen a forever recorded criminal for simply placing a foot inside a building open to all of the general public just they put up a discriminatory sign.

If someone is asked to leave, for any reason, from a private residence or a business they should leave and criminal penalties might ensue if they refuse. But how in the world are you automatically a criminal for being a law abiding citizen? There is a reason you can’t put up a sign saying “No (fill in the blank) People Allowed!”

I know there is the argument that 30.06 is the law, and if you don’t like it you should leave Texas. I honestly mean no offense, but this is a nonsensical argument. Every new law that has been enacted or changed over the millennia would never have been done if that argument made any sense.

The other argument is that you should just choose not to go anywhere with the sign up. This might work in some cities, but frankly I find this quite literally impossible. That would mean NEVER going to the movies, a very large number of grocery stores, any houses of worship, any and all zoos, amusement parks, or the like, toy stores, auto dealers, many restaurants, etc. Looking at texas3006 there are a huge number of locations with signs. It is in no way some small number of locations, it is a very significant inconvenience and extremely dangerous to anyone who has to unholster and lock up their firearm in a car every single time they go to any of these places.

The only thing I really have a problem with is that stepping one foot past a sign into any of a very large buildings in Texas makes any concealed carry person a de facto criminal, and that criminal record will follow them forever. They can put up signs, and they can ask you to leave, but you automatically being a criminal for walking through a door to a building open to the public seems utterly ridiculous.

30.06 seems unconstitutional, and I would very much like it challenged and taken as high in the court system as necessary. I don’t see the difference of putting up a sign for anything a business owner doesn’t like and you being a criminal if you enter the building. Can you put up a sign that says no democrats allowed, no Christians allowed, etc.?

Why are law enforcement exempt from carry weapons in posted businesses? The normal answer might be that they can be trusted with their weapons and concealed carry permit holders can’t. Either the training and requirements for concealed carry are adequate or they are not, either concealed carry is legal or it is not. If a business will not allow law abiding citizens, which the state has judged and permitted to concealed carry, to defend themselves and others, then they should be required to have trained, armed security guards at their business and metal detectors for everyone entering to keep out the bad guys (I realize that is never going to happen but hopefully you get my point).

Why has there been no fund setup to raise money to fight this in court? Why are we just accepting it? Many laws have been overturned in the courts, why not this one?

TLDR: Take out the following four words from 30.06 (d): “a Class C misdemeanor”

Return to “another 30.06 question”