Employers banning guns in parking lots

[mojo84]

Where's my popcorn emoji?

I wouldn't click on the link to the thread if I were you.

[ScottDLS]

Just because there some restrictions such as your eviction analogy, which involved the process of terminating a contract between two private parties. Once you have completed the process of eviction and the former tenant remains on the premises, the state can and will effect the eviction and if the former tenant resists, they can be arrested.

Let's stop with using the non-related analogies. I only used the green underwear because someone else brought that up and I thought using it would help make my point. Apparently, some are having trouble applying an analogy.

If one doesn't want to break the law, don't violate the law by trespassing on someone's private property. If I see a 30.06 sign and I don't want to disarm to enter, I go somewhere else. Yeah, it may be an inconvenience but I believe both parties rights are being respected. It comes down to character, integrity and honesty. Each one of us has to chose for ourselves.

I think you're missing the analogy. The argument you're making is that you should be able to apply trespass law prospectively (in advance) via a sign to prohibit any conduct/activity/state of being, even hidden from you...and use the force of the State even if your restriction is nonsense. The simple answer is...you can't, legally. Texas specifically added CC to the list of things that can be enforced via trespass prospectively with a sign...most states don't. The reason we keep offering the ridiculous examples...green underwear, being a republican, etc. is to point out that trespass law is not intended to make a crime out of activities/mannerisms, that you disagree with. Quick analogy... SIGN "Dress Code, jacket and tie required"...I walk in, tieless, and the hostess (quietly without telling) calls the police and I am immediately arrested for a class B 30.05. Do you think I would "take the ride", would the DA press charges, would I get convicted?

ETA: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin??? On the point???

[mojo84]

Quick analogy... SIGN "Dress Code, jacket and tie required"...I walk in, tieless, and the hostess (quietly without telling) calls the police and I am immediately arrested for a class B 30.05. Do you think I would "take the ride", would the DA press charges, would I get convicted?

I do not believe you would take a ride or be convicted in your analogy. Nor, do I think you should.

However, you seem to be missing my point, which is the 30.06 and 30.07 and the employee parking lot laws are intended to find a balance between two fundamental human rights. Right to bear arms and private property rights. The lawmakers have attempted to do so.

This is a complex issue because it deals with two very important individual rights that could have significant consequences. Jacket, tie, and underwear dress codes do not pose significant consequences with regard to rights. A dress code deals with a privilege. A cop or DA just isn't going to consider it a significant enough violation to arrest or prosecute the person unless the person continues to refuse to leave or put on the coat, tie or cover up the underwear.

Comparing insignificant inconsequential privileges with significant individual rights is not productive.

I'll leave it at this and move on now.

[Glockster]

I could have pinned this as a response to one of several above posts, but thought I'd just leave it as a general reply. So where exactly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it enumerate what rights any property owner has other than from unlawful seizure by the government. I hear so many arguments about so-called property rights, but where exactly are those rights granted? And if they are not constitutionally protected, then why exactly should those rights usurp what is an enumerated constitutional right?

They are natural God given rights. Just as the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they do not need to be enumerated. I would expect someone that has a Liberty avatar would understand that.

So your answer seems to be affirming then that you agree that property rights are not spelled out as you didn't refute what I stated. I don't agree that the rights within the Bill of Rights don't need to be enumerated, as clearly that's exactly what they are and would presume then that there was an overarching need to enumerate them. My question though was WHERE in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are individual rights of property owners spelled out or even acknowledged other than the one protection from governmental seizure?

[Glockster]

I could have pinned this as a response to one of several above posts, but thought I'd just leave it as a general reply. So where exactly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it enumerate what rights any property owner has other than from unlawful seizure by the government. I hear so many arguments about so-called property rights, but where exactly are those rights granted? And if they are not constitutionally protected, then why exactly should those rights usurp what is an enumerated constitutional right?

They are natural God given rights. Just as the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they do not need to be enumerated. I would expect someone that has a Liberty avatar would understand that.

I'm actually agreeing with both of you. The RIGHTS that you talk about are statutorily enforceable by general trespass law in almost every state. I think the issue that some of us have is, Using State power to prospectively enforce those "rights" on conduct that you are neither aware of nor affected by.

-Wear green underwear (under my clothes where you can't see) after you have invited me on your property (by opening your business to the public). "Being" a Republican or a cop on your property, despite a sign saying no cops or republicans or green underwear wearers, but using the State to arrest me before you specifically ask me to leave....

I do get your point, but I'm simply trying to lay out the position that property rights are not constitutionally protected. Protection from trespass only exists so long as the law exists, and only to the extent that the law allows. A new law could be passed tomorrow that eliminates trespass as a law. In a round about way I'm trying to suggest that in many ways passing laws that effectively restrict 2A rights are to many folks little different than having a trespass law used to restrict where someone can exercise their natural right to self defense. I see it argued here ALL the time that laws should not be enacted which restrict 2A, but little sympathy when it comes to property laws doing much the same. One is a constitional protection of a natural right, the latter is simply a law passed.

[ScottDLS]

I could have pinned this as a response to one of several above posts, but thought I'd just leave it as a general reply. So where exactly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it enumerate what rights any property owner has other than from unlawful seizure by the government. I hear so many arguments about so-called property rights, but where exactly are those rights granted? And if they are not constitutionally protected, then why exactly should those rights usurp what is an enumerated constitutional right?

They are natural God given rights. Just as the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they do not need to be enumerated. I would expect someone that has a Liberty avatar would understand that.

I'm actually agreeing with both of you. The RIGHTS that you talk about are statutorily enforceable by general trespass law in almost every state. I think the issue that some of us have is, Using State power to prospectively enforce those "rights" on conduct that you are neither aware of nor affected by.

-Wear green underwear (under my clothes where you can't see) after you have invited me on your property (by opening your business to the public). "Being" a Republican or a cop on your property, despite a sign saying no cops or republicans or green underwear wearers, but using the State to arrest me before you specifically ask me to leave....

I do get your point, but I'm simply trying to lay out the position that property rights are not constitutionally protected. Protection from trespass only exists so long as the law exists, and only to the extent that the law allows. A new law could be passed tomorrow that eliminates trespass as a law. In a round about way I'm trying to suggest that in many ways passing laws that effectively restrict 2A rights are to many folks little different than having a trespass law used to restrict where someone can exercise their natural right to self defense. I see it argued here ALL the time that laws should not be enacted which restrict 2A, but little sympathy when it comes to property laws doing much the same. One is a constitional protection of a natural right, the latter is simply a law passed.

I agree. I think we were all talking around the same point. You have correctly noted that restricting personal conduct of others on your private property through force of government, is NOT a Constitutional right, nor in my opinion a Natural right. Self defense IS a Natural right so, there should be a higher Constitutional bar to prohibiting "carry", then for example "not wearing a tie". So I find myself in violent agreement with you...

Thanks again to Charles for making the forum available for all of us to discuss the fine points of Texas CHL statutes...

[Glockster]

I could have pinned this as a response to one of several above posts, but thought I'd just leave it as a general reply. So where exactly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it enumerate what rights any property owner has other than from unlawful seizure by the government. I hear so many arguments about so-called property rights, but where exactly are those rights granted? And if they are not constitutionally protected, then why exactly should those rights usurp what is an enumerated constitutional right?

They are natural God given rights. Just as the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they do not need to be enumerated. I would expect someone that has a Liberty avatar would understand that.

I'm actually agreeing with both of you. The RIGHTS that you talk about are statutorily enforceable by general trespass law in almost every state. I think the issue that some of us have is, Using State power to prospectively enforce those "rights" on conduct that you are neither aware of nor affected by.

-Wear green underwear (under my clothes where you can't see) after you have invited me on your property (by opening your business to the public). "Being" a Republican or a cop on your property, despite a sign saying no cops or republicans or green underwear wearers, but using the State to arrest me before you specifically ask me to leave....

I do get your point, but I'm simply trying to lay out the position that property rights are not constitutionally protected. Protection from trespass only exists so long as the law exists, and only to the extent that the law allows. A new law could be passed tomorrow that eliminates trespass as a law. In a round about way I'm trying to suggest that in many ways passing laws that effectively restrict 2A rights are to many folks little different than having a trespass law used to restrict where someone can exercise their natural right to self defense. I see it argued here ALL the time that laws should not be enacted which restrict 2A, but little sympathy when it comes to property laws doing much the same. One is a constitional protection of a natural right, the latter is simply a law passed.

I agree. I think we were all talking around the same point. You have correctly noted that restricting personal conduct of others on your private property through force of government, is NOT a Constitutional right, nor in my opinion a Natural right. Self defense IS a Natural right so, there should be a higher Constitutional bar to prohibiting "carry", then for example "not wearing a tie". So I find myself in violent agreement with you...

Thanks again to Charles for making the forum available for all of us to discuss the fine points of Texas CHL statutes...

(with all of the above!)

[mojo84]

It comes down to the concept of property ownership and what rights come along with ownership of real property. Research "Bundle of Rights".

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bun ... rights.asp

We could argue about whether we like the criminal aspect of the law till the end of time. The legislature did their best to balance the two issues and 30.06 and 30.07 is what they came up with. Sometimes, living in a society with other people just sucks.

[srothstein]

I am glad of the wording of the 30.06 law and its application instead of the general trespass law applying. If we did not have 30.06 (and 30.07), then an owner could ban guns with just a little sticker that says no guns, your traditional pistol with a red slash sticker would do. OK, the sticker might need to be posted in a more conspicuous manner than most did, but it would be legal and enforceable. This would not be nearly as good for LTCs.

Why does a gunbuster sign have to be legally enforceable absent 30.06/30.07? Why can't we carve out a trespassing exception for licensed carriers? Or, if you prefer, don't make carrying, or anything for that matter, become criminal trespassing unless you have been asked to leave and refuse.

We could carve out the exception but it would never pass. I, and most businessmen I suspect, would never support anyone telling me I had to allow something on my property against my wishes. That is the problem with not having 30.06/07. If you do not have specific wording of the sign, then you have the general 30.05 law which says anything that gives notice is permissible to make it illegal or you have an exception that forces people to allow guns on their property against their wishes.

I think 30.06/07 is the best compromise. It allows a property owner to have his right to ban the item he dislikes and it protects the LTC by requiring specific wording and a sign that is sort of an unsightly spectacle to the public. In a way, it sort of discourages people posting their property wihtout infringing on their rights.

[srothstein]

I for one would love to see 30.06 signage language stricken from Texas statutes. I continue to believe that we should just rely on general trespass laws for this. If a business owner does not want me on their property and tells me to leave, then I should leave. But it is none of their business what I have beneath my clothing.

I am glad of the wording of the 30.06 law and its application instead of the general trespass law applying. If we did not have 30.06 (and 30.07), then an owner could ban guns with just a little sticker that says no guns, your traditional pistol with a red slash sticker would do. OK, the sticker might need to be posted in a more conspicuous manner than most did, but it would be legal and enforceable. This would not be nearly as good for LTCs.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. IANAL, but I do not think that such a sign would be legal or enforceable. I know that there was a random AG opinion that tried to twist the law on this a long time ago. That was an AG disguising their personal agenda as law. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been prosecuted for trespassing at a privately owned business simply because they walked past a sign that "banned" something they were carrying. A cop walking past a "no cops" sign while wearing his uniform is not breaking the law unless he refuses to leave after being told to do so by the property owner. Same goes for "no fat chicks", "no guns", "no Aggies", "no Yankees", or whatever. Any lawyers on the board, please feel free to educate me with the relevant code sections on trespassing.

As someone who has had the unpleasant duty to enforce those laws, I will point out that the wording of 30.05 explicitly states that entering the property without the consent of the owner is illegal. I have been called about those exact types of situations. The most common were in bars where the person entered wearing "biker" gear or "gang colors" and the owner/bartender was afraid to approach the person and state that their attire was not allowed. They called the police who are not allowed to be afraid to do that. One was an H.E.B. where the man entered while smoking a cigarette. Dumb case but I was not given a choice in it.

Regardless, if this is a real risk, then perhaps we should also clarify the trespass laws to explicitly state that trespass at a business open to the public only occurs when someone is told to leave and they refuse to do so, or when they are told to never come back and they show up at a later date. We can keep the part about marking fence posts and the like for private property that is not open to the public.

That might be an acceptable alternative. I could support something like that if it were worded correctly (my opinion of correctly obviously, I would need to see how it could be misapplied).

[MeMelYup]

I think I understand what you are both saying. The only logical answer would be to make the private property owner responsible for your safety from the time you leave your firearm in your vehicle until you re-access your vehicle if they post 30.06. That may be kind of hard to get through the legislature. A person could possibly sue the property managers and owners with the law the way it is, if you could prove negligence.

It would be nice if the responsibility were spelled out in the law.

[GlassG19]

The parking lot laws are an effort to balance the two rights. Sometimes living in a civilized society, there are compromises one must suffer. I think the parking lot laws strike a fair balance of the two rights.

I also do not believe this is comparable to race and believe it is a shame that race has to be brought up almost every time we have such a discussion.

[remington79]

I have lived here and before and elsewhere. The best compromise I've found is signs do NOT have the force of law. You can carry past them. If the property owner finds out and asks you to leave then you have to or get charged with trespassing. When my wife was giving birth I carried past the no guns sign the whole time. I finally found it by chance but it was white letters on clear background waist high. This wasn't in Texas so I just kept carrying on by and didn't give it a second thought. As far as Texas goes I find their carry laws to be too restrictive and expensive to get get your permit.

Back on topic my vehicle is my property and I will have whatever I want in their despite what anyone says. I've had jobs before where they state in the employee that your vehicle is subject to search. I'd never let them. I would probably tell them they could after I can search their house. A violation of rights should not be a condition of employment.

[Take Down Sicko]

If you cant have a gun on your employers parking lot that means you cant be armed to and from your home to work and back again. That would really BITE to have to be unarmed every day.