TexasCHLforum.com

As we all know, there are several legal grey areas with the 06/07 statutes that need cleaning up.

First of all, for the love of God, can we PLEASE add "at each entrance" to signage requirements for 06 like they are on 07? Had one too many surprises lately where the side or back entrance to a place I stopped by in traveling turned out to be posted, while the front door and entrance I inspected had no warnings to speak of.

Secondly, either create a definition for "property" or, ideally, replace the word with "premises" and use 46.035's definition. This is way too murky as it stands right now, and I'm not in a hurry to risk jail for defending myself in an outdoor mall parking lot because the spa on the corner I never visit turns out to be posted.

Thirdly, can we nix all the redundancies where it says this or that place is illegal, but wait, it's actually ok if they didn't post?

And finally, this is just me being wishful. Can we add a verbal warning requirement to 06? Basically, the sign is still there, but there's no penalty UNLESS someone asks you to leave, then maybe the sign escalates to Class A whereas no sign and a refused requested is Class C.

Ideally, this would also be added to 07, but I understand the concerns for property rights playing into this. 06 would be easier to argue, IMO, because if it's concealed, you aren't exactly going to "scare" away customers.

Just my 2c.

Add a definition of "school" and clear up all of the other ambiguities.

I would like to see the legislature do away with the verbal notice of 30.06 and or 30.07. If they don't want you in their establishment then they MUST post the signs. That way you know ahead of time whether or not you choose to enter the business.

This happened to me back during the summer, where I entered a store (no signs posted) and was told by the clerk I could not carry (I was open carrying) in the store. As it turned out, it was his personal agenda and not the policy (I did some research) of the store and it's owners. I discovered with some research that he was a convicted felon for drug, assault and weapons charges, and I believe he was just jealous that he couldn't own or possess a firearm due to his past criminal history.

So, to sum it up, NO verbal notice, a business MUST POST SIGNS because the clerk behind the counter may think or seem like he or she has the authority, when he or she really doesn't.

I'd like to see LTC holders to stop being treated like second class citizens that pose some horrific threat to society. With few restrictions, we should be able to carry. At least concealed. I would also like to see a very large ad campaign to educate the public on LTC.

tomtexan wrote:I would like to see the legislature do away with the verbal notice of 30.06 and or 30.07. If they don't want you in their establishment then they MUST post the signs. That way you know ahead of time whether or not you choose to enter the business.

This happened to me back during the summer, where I entered a store (no signs posted) and was told by the clerk I could not carry (I was open carrying) in the store. As it turned out, it was his personal agenda and not the policy (I did some research) of the store and it's owners. I discovered with some research that he was a convicted felon for drug, assault and weapons charges, and I believe he was just jealous that he couldn't own or possess a firearm due to his past criminal history.

So, to sum it up, NO verbal notice, a business MUST POST SIGNS because the clerk behind the counter may think or seem like he or she has the authority, when he or she really doesn't.

Not gonna happen, nor do I think it should happen. Someone in control of a property can and should be able to ask someone to leave for any reason (other than protected classes like race, sex, gender, religion, etc.).

mr1337 wrote:

tomtexan wrote:I would like to see the legislature do away with the verbal notice of 30.06 and or 30.07. If they don't want you in their establishment then they MUST post the signs. That way you know ahead of time whether or not you choose to enter the business.

This happened to me back during the summer, where I entered a store (no signs posted) and was told by the clerk I could not carry (I was open carrying) in the store. As it turned out, it was his personal agenda and not the policy (I did some research) of the store and it's owners. I discovered with some research that he was a convicted felon for drug, assault and weapons charges, and I believe he was just jealous that he couldn't own or possess a firearm due to his past criminal history.

So, to sum it up, NO verbal notice, a business MUST POST SIGNS because the clerk behind the counter may think or seem like he or she has the authority, when he or she really doesn't.

Not gonna happen, nor do I think it should happen. Someone in control of a property can and should be able to ask someone to leave for any reason (other than protected classes like race, sex, gender, religion, etc.).

No sign, properly concealed, then there's no issue.
Openly carrying a sidearm comes with the risk of someone asking you to leave because they are scared of inanimate objects. (Or jealousy/whatever other reasons they can come up with)
This is my humble opinion, and not intended as a kick at you or anyone who chooses to openly carry, just my observation of the current state of things.

Charles has said that changes to 30.06/7 have very little chance in the 2017 Legislature. I think we had a great win in making it a Class C misdemeanor.

Now if we could focus on getting rid of all of 46.035, or at least the prohibited places that need a 30.06 (church, amusement park, hospital). The lowering of 30.06 to a class C really takes the issue of where the signs are posted out of the picture, which I believe was exactly what was intended.

mr1337 wrote:

tomtexan wrote:I would like to see the legislature do away with the verbal notice of 30.06 and or 30.07. If they don't want you in their establishment then they MUST post the signs. That way you know ahead of time whether or not you choose to enter the business.

This happened to me back during the summer, where I entered a store (no signs posted) and was told by the clerk I could not carry (I was open carrying) in the store. As it turned out, it was his personal agenda and not the policy (I did some research) of the store and it's owners. I discovered with some research that he was a convicted felon for drug, assault and weapons charges, and I believe he was just jealous that he couldn't own or possess a firearm due to his past criminal history.

So, to sum it up, NO verbal notice, a business MUST POST SIGNS because the clerk behind the counter may think or seem like he or she has the authority, when he or she really doesn't.

Not gonna happen, nor do I think it should happen. Someone in control of a property can and should be able to ask someone to leave for any reason (other than protected classes like race, sex, gender, religion, etc.).

I would actually prefer the opposite. If you don't want me on your property, then tell me to leave, and I will happily oblige. This is the essence of Trespass law. Pure and simple.

HootHoot wrote: First of all, for the love of God, can we PLEASE add "at each entrance" to signage requirements for 06 like they are on 07? Had one too many surprises lately where the side or back entrance to a place I stopped by in traveling turned out to be posted, while the front door and entrance I inspected had no warnings to speak of.

If the sign was not visible where you entered and you didn't know it was posted, then you have not been notified. You are asking for more signs to make sure you know it is posted?

rotor wrote:

HootHoot wrote: First of all, for the love of God, can we PLEASE add "at each entrance" to signage requirements for 06 like they are on 07? Had one too many surprises lately where the side or back entrance to a place I stopped by in traveling turned out to be posted, while the front door and entrance I inspected had no warnings to speak of.

If the sign was not visible where you entered and you didn't know it was posted, then you have not been notified. You are asking for more signs to make sure you know it is posted?

I'm asking for 06 to match 07 and include the words "at each entrance" to remove the needless risk of a prosecutor interpreting the matter a little differently. If this additional requirement was enough to include in 07, it should be in 06 as well.

HootHoot wrote:

rotor wrote:

HootHoot wrote: First of all, for the love of God, can we PLEASE add "at each entrance" to signage requirements for 06 like they are on 07? Had one too many surprises lately where the side or back entrance to a place I stopped by in traveling turned out to be posted, while the front door and entrance I inspected had no warnings to speak of.

If the sign was not visible where you entered and you didn't know it was posted, then you have not been notified. You are asking for more signs to make sure you know it is posted?

I'm asking for 06 to match 07 and include the words "at each entrance" to remove the needless risk of a prosecutor interpreting the matter a little differently. If this additional requirement was enough to include in 07, it should be in 06 as well.

Be careful what you ask for: Changes to the 30:06 laws opens the opportunity for mischief and unwanted additions. The Conspicuously Posted aspect pretty much protects us anyway. If the sign isn't posted at the entrance that I use, then it isn't really all that conspicuous.

How many people have been prosecuted because of confused or unclear signs? Where does our political capital need to be utilized?

Liberty wrote:

HootHoot wrote:

rotor wrote:

HootHoot wrote: First of all, for the love of God, can we PLEASE add "at each entrance" to signage requirements for 06 like they are on 07? Had one too many surprises lately where the side or back entrance to a place I stopped by in traveling turned out to be posted, while the front door and entrance I inspected had no warnings to speak of.

If the sign was not visible where you entered and you didn't know it was posted, then you have not been notified. You are asking for more signs to make sure you know it is posted?

I'm asking for 06 to match 07 and include the words "at each entrance" to remove the needless risk of a prosecutor interpreting the matter a little differently. If this additional requirement was enough to include in 07, it should be in 06 as well.

Be careful what you ask for: Changes to the 30:06 laws opens the opportunity for mischief and unwanted additions. The Conspicuously Posted aspect pretty much protects us anyway. If the sign isn't posted at the entrance that I use, then it isn't really all that conspicuous.

How many people have been prosecuted because of confused or unclear signs? Where does our political capital need to be utilized?

I haven't heard of anyone being charged under the law, for not seeing signs, or refusing to leave when asked. More regulations, could cause more confusion among business owners, that was already caused by groups like MDA, and even libtard legislators after the last session.

Business owners, are not posting signs nearly as often as they were, and many are taking down signs they posted when they were scared by Maternal Units Strongly Suggesting Motion, who told them their businesses would be taken over by hordes of camo wearing, AK 47 wielding, mouth breathers if they didn't.
While the OP may have been asked to leave a particular business, I have never encountered that scenario, but if I had been, I would have contacted the business regarding their policy and let them know that they would not be getting another penny of my money. If that wasn't their policy, and they had hired a convicted felon to be in charge, I would definitely question their ethics, and sanity, for having a criminal, determine that their business is a gun free zone. JMHO