TexasCHLforum.com

Embalmo wrote:

frazzled wrote:I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

If I understand you correctly, that is a false analogy. Shoes are designed to protect one's feet. Not allowing someone to carry concealed is like forcing people to go into your hardware store with no shoes and assume no responsibility when they step on a nail. I cannot understand how it can be someone else's right to decide if I can protect myself or family.

I'm sure we all of understand that 30.06 mean "criminals welcome to carry weapons without fear of retribution".

Embalmo

Actually, I think it is a pretty good analogy, but backards. If it is my business, and I want to ban you for any reason, I should have that right. If I ban you because you are wearing shoes, I am responsible for any nails puncturing your feet. If i ban you because I don't like leather jackets, I am responsible for any abrasions you might suffer. If I ban you because I don't want you carrying a gun, I am responsible for any incidents where you could not protect yourself.

I own the property and I should have the right to say who or what is allowed on it.

srothstein wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

frazzled wrote:I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

If I understand you correctly, that is a false analogy. Shoes are designed to protect one's feet. Not allowing someone to carry concealed is like forcing people to go into your hardware store with no shoes and assume no responsibility when they step on a nail. I cannot understand how it can be someone else's right to decide if I can protect myself or family.

I'm sure we all of understand that 30.06 mean "criminals welcome to carry weapons without fear of retribution".

Embalmo

Actually, I think it is a pretty good analogy, but backards. If it is my business, and I want to ban you for any reason, I should have that right. If I ban you because you are wearing shoes, I am responsible for any nails puncturing your feet. If i ban you because I don't like leather jackets, I am responsible for any abrasions you might suffer. If I ban you because I don't want you carrying a gun, I am responsible for any incidents where you could not protect yourself.

I own the property and I should have the right to say who or what is allowed on it.

Unfortunately if you post 30.06 you are assuming zero responsibility for my personal safety and putting me and my family at risk. As a business owner that is posted 30.06, you are are stripping me of my ability to protect me and my family to grant yourself a false sense of security out of ignorance. What if you denied me the right to carry nitroglycerin in my pocket for a heart condition because you "heard that stuff blows up", or my asthma rescue inhaler because you heard that the propellant was bad for the environment. A liberal would balk, but such meds, like a handgun, can make make the difference between life and death in the blink of an eye.

Embalmo

The Annoyed Man wrote:hoplophobes

Wow, learn something new every day ...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... hoplophobe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem with Texas is that we patch sores, instead of excising them. The solution to the infamous PC 46.035 "churches, amusement parks, etc." list of places off limits was not to delete those places from the code, but to add the "(i)" section (waaaaay down the page) saying they were only off limits if a 30.06 notice was posted.

The same was true for the problem of "gunbusters" notices in 1996-'97: the problem was that via PC 30.05(d)(3)(B), a simple case of trespass automatically jumped all the way up to a Class A misdemeanor, one level short of a felony.

The 30.06 notice patched the sore, instead of excising the problematic statute.

While I salute the creative lobbing and legislating involved, and I love the "big ugly sign" requirement, I would prefer minimizing the penalty like some other states have done, where "simple trespass" isn't even an arrestable offense, and is a "violation" below Class C level, sometimes with a maximum $25 fine.

In short: remove the aggravating factor of carrying "a deadly weapon", add the mitigating factor of being legally authorized to carry a gun, and reduce the penalty to a $10 fine, but only if refusing to leave upon being given direct notice by a person, not a sign.

Dragonfighter wrote:

frazzled wrote:I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

My argument is, and always has been this. There is a difference with private property domicile, private property with restricted access (individual ID, key card or other security) and private property open to the public. Exclusive vs. inclusive as it were.

In the latter case, a store or restaurant for example, anyone can enter and shop. There are not security checks or handbag searches to gain entry so any person regardless of appearance, race, sex or even criminal history can come and go as they please...during business hours. In THIS case I think we can and should tell a business owner that if you allow unfettered access to the general public then you can not restrict persons who are exercising other legal rights, especially those that are non invasive like concealed carry.

In the meantime, education and boycott are our only viable alternatives.

If I were a business owner I'd pay good money to defeat that. Hence why the parking lot bill was contested. Texas and the US has a strong history of businesses prohibiting items. Outside of the usual thou shalt nots businesses have great leeway. Freedom to contract or not contract is a US -and perviously an English- tradition. This is an extension of that.

austinrealtor wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:hoplophobes

Wow, learn something new every day ...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... hoplophobe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I knew what a hoplophobe was, but the "urbandictionary" link above has very interesting definitions for it!
Including...

...the policed noted the irony in the fact that the killer had scored three hits in the "O" portion of Seth's OBAMA 08 T-shirt.

How about making the signs even bigger and uglier? Perhaps we can include more languages -- Arabic, Chinese, Hindu, Latin...

I believe, without a doubt, that all CHL legislation, to date, has been a giant leap forward.
30.06 is no exception to this. However, I sincerely hope that none of the legislation to date has or is believed to have “hit the wall” and cannot go further.

I, personally, would not have a problem with private property owners restricting access to anyone, regardless of their reason, except…… that is not the law. I (we) don’t break laws just because we disagree with them. Our only recourse is to work to get them changed or repealed.

Unfortunately, this is dependent on political climate. I hope that the political climate of Texas is changing, for the better. While there may be little hope of changing federal laws, we may be able to change Texas laws. We must press forward. We haven’t hit the wall, yet.

I agree that criminalizing an, otherwise, legal act or possession is wrong. However, right now, it is ‘the law’. What can be done to change or improve it?

One other thought. I’m a simple person. I try to keep my principles and actions simple and logical. I’ve tried very hard to keep ‘Common Sense’ alive in my life and in my family (even though I have heard that it is deceased elsewhere). If I park my car in a public parking lot (legally carrying) and proceed to the doors of a ‘public accommodation’ (again, legally carrying) and find that everyone that I passed on my way to the door is allowed entry (whether they are legally carrying, or not), and I am not allowed to enter, that is discrimination. It’s actually worse than discrimination, because, if I continue, I am now a criminal. Where is the logic in that?!

srothstein wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

frazzled wrote:I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

If I understand you correctly, that is a false analogy. Shoes are designed to protect one's feet. Not allowing someone to carry concealed is like forcing people to go into your hardware store with no shoes and assume no responsibility when they step on a nail. I cannot understand how it can be someone else's right to decide if I can protect myself or family.

I'm sure we all of understand that 30.06 mean "criminals welcome to carry weapons without fear of retribution".

Embalmo

Actually, I think it is a pretty good analogy, but backards. If it is my business, and I want to ban you for any reason, I should have that right. If I ban you because you are wearing shoes, I am responsible for any nails puncturing your feet. If i ban you because I don't like leather jackets, I am responsible for any abrasions you might suffer. If I ban you because I don't want you carrying a gun, I am responsible for any incidents where you could not protect yourself.

I own the property and I should have the right to say who or what is allowed on it.

This responsibility/liability concept could be a partial solution to concerns of “more businesses posting 30.06 signs”; be it for OC, campus carry, parking lot, or any other reason a business may be prompted to post the sign. If a business posts a 30.06 sign then they must have, and produce on authority demand, proof of liability insurance. This would be similar to the automotive liability insurance requirement.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

There is a great amount of time spent discussing the problems associated with 30.06, trespass and CHL. I would like to hear some discussions about non-30.06 signs and how "trespass" laws would be applied to peace officers that go beyond a gunbuster sign at a business. I don't think peace officers think twice about ignoring the owner's wishes to maintain a gun free environment. The police know that NOTHING will be done to them or their ability to carry a weapon anywhere they want anytime they want.

Texgun wrote:There is a great amount of time spent discussing the problems associated with 30.06, trespass and CHL. I would like to hear some discussions about non-30.06 signs and how "trespass" laws would be applied to peace officers that go beyond a gunbuster sign at a business. I don't think peace officers think twice about ignoring the owner's wishes to maintain a gun free environment. The police know that NOTHING will be done to them or their ability to carry a weapon anywhere they want anytime they want.

LEOs are governed by criminal law and constitutional rights. It has jack to do with CHL. Where are you going with this?

frazzled wrote:

Texgun wrote:There is a great amount of time spent discussing the problems associated with 30.06, trespass and CHL. I would like to hear some discussions about non-30.06 signs and how "trespass" laws would be applied to peace officers that go beyond a gunbuster sign at a business. I don't think peace officers think twice about ignoring the owner's wishes to maintain a gun free environment. The police know that NOTHING will be done to them or their ability to carry a weapon anywhere they want anytime they want.

LEOs are governed by criminal law and constitutional rights. It has jack to do with CHL. Where are you going with this?

[hijack alert]
They are also open carrying...
[/hijack alert]

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

frazzled wrote:

Texgun wrote:There is a great amount of time spent discussing the problems associated with 30.06, trespass and CHL. I would like to hear some discussions about non-30.06 signs and how "trespass" laws would be applied to peace officers that go beyond a gunbuster sign at a business. I don't think peace officers think twice about ignoring the owner's wishes to maintain a gun free environment. The police know that NOTHING will be done to them or their ability to carry a weapon anywhere they want anytime they want.

LEOs are governed by criminal law and constitutional rights. It has jack to do with CHL. Where are you going with this?

[hijack alert]
They are also open carrying...
[/hijack alert]

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Texgun wrote:There is a great amount of time spent discussing the problems associated with 30.06, trespass and CHL. I would like to hear some discussions about non-30.06 signs and how "trespass" laws would be applied to peace officers that go beyond a gunbuster sign at a business. I don't think peace officers think twice about ignoring the owner's wishes to maintain a gun free environment. The police know that NOTHING will be done to them or their ability to carry a weapon anywhere they want anytime they want.

A peace officer cannot be prosecuted for violation of TPC §30.05 if the sole reason for excluding them is that they are armed. This applies whether or not the LEO is engaged in discharging his/her duties as a LEO. Yeah I know, it stinks. This means a private property owner cannot prevent an armed off-duty LEO from coming on their property.

Chas.

TPC §30.05(i) wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.