We Need To Be More Thankful For 30.06

[carlson1]

If they own a business it should remain their responsibility to learn how to keep CHL's out of their business. They have to learn how to get a tax number, file taxes, and to keep up with the City codes. As others have said it is fine the way it is.

[Pawpaw]

True but where does a business owner learn what sign is correct? Unless they take a chl course they wont know.

Have you ever heard of an otherwise law-abiding citizen being told, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."? What's good for the goose...

[rotor]

I can't completely agree and I am a business owner. I have no anti-gun signs at my business. Do I have the right to tell patrons not to bring a pocket knife in? Can I tell them no screwdrivers allowed? A business that is unrestricted and open to the public has given up some rights. A non customer can legally come into my business and use the restroom. If they are diisabled and want to bring their seeing eye horse in they legally can and I can't stop them. I personally don't see why a business should have the right to restrict the legal carry of a concealed weapon by a licensed holder. My business is not the same as my home. Once a year the fire department comes to my business to check the fire extinguishers and make sure the dates are up to date on the tags. They don't do that at my residence. So, I believe there is a difference with a business open to the public and a private residence not open to the public and I guess the 30.06 is a compromise. I wonder if a facility with a 30.06 and no armed guards could be sued if I was injured during a robbery? Would that business then have the responsibility of protecting me since they have banned my ability to protect myself? I don't even understand the 51% alcohol rule as I am basically a non-drinker. What exactly is the rationale for that? I went to a recent humane society charity benefit and beer was being sold. They had a 51% sign up so I couldn't carry. Many laws make no sense to me but these especially are non-sensical. Just my gripe I guess.

[oohrah]

I don't know the history, but my guess on the 30.06 law is that it was put in as a compromise to garner votes for CC.

[WildBill]

I don't know the history, but my guess on the 30.06 law is that it was put in as a compromise to garner votes for CC.

According to my research, in 1997, the 30.06 cleared up a conflict between the concealed carry rules and alcoholic beverage license regulations. More significantly, that same bill also effectively removed hospitals and nursing homes, amusement parks, places of worship, and government meetings from the list of places where concealed carry is automatically prohibited. Another law established the "30.06" sign as the only one property owners could officially use to ban concealed carry.
http://www.txchia.org/history.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[WildBill]

I can't completely agree and I am a business owner. I have no anti-gun signs at my business. Do I have the right to tell patrons not to bring a pocket knife in? Can I tell them no screwdrivers allowed? A business that is unrestricted and open to the public has given up some rights.

It probably wouldn't be a good business decision, but I believe that you do have that right. I don't think that businesses are "unrestricted and open to the public." You can charge a membership fee, have a sign that says that you can refuse service, or one that says "no shirt, no shoes, no service." I believe that all of those choices are legal and up to the owner to decide.

As far as the 30.06 sign, I like the fact that the precise wording, size of lettering and manner of displaying are specified in the law.

I wouldn't want to be arrested because of an anti-gun sign drawn in crayon by a third grader.

I also like the fact that the 30.06 sign has to have the Spanish translation.

That means the sign has to be twice as big [and ugly looking] so business owners are less likely to post.

[srothstein]

I can't completely agree and I am a business owner. I have no anti-gun signs at my business. Do I have the right to tell patrons not to bring a pocket knife in?

Yes, you can ban almost anything.

Can I tell them no screwdrivers allowed?

Yes, you can ban almost anything.

A business that is unrestricted and open to the public has given up some rights. A non customer can legally come into my business and use the restroom.

I know of no such law. Could you cite the reference for me please?

If they are disabled and want to bring their seeing eye horse in they legally can and I can't stop them. I personally don't see why a business should have the right to restrict the legal carry of a concealed weapon by a licensed holder. My business is not the same as my home. Once a year the fire department comes to my business to check the fire extinguishers and make sure the dates are up to date on the tags. They don't do that at my residence. So, I believe there is a difference with a business open to the public and a private residence not open to the public and I guess the 30.06 is a compromise.

I agree that there are differences between a business and a home. But a business is still private property and the business owner still has rights. We have some laws that do infringe on those rights to a certain point. As of right now, the ability to choose your customers is still legal EXCEPT for a few specific instances specified in law. In Texas, you cannot discriminate against someone for being in one of a few protected classes (over 40, race, national origin, sex, religion, previous servitude, disability, and I might have missed one or two). The only weird one in Texas is that you cannot discriminate against a cop for carrying his weapon, though you can discriminate against him for being a cop.

I wonder if a facility with a 30.06 and no armed guards could be sued if I was injured during a robbery? Would that business then have the responsibility of protecting me since they have banned my ability to protect myself?

This has been debated and most of us think you could sue and win. The key points to the lawsuit would be if the danger was reasonably foreseeable and if your being armed could have prevented or lessened the danger, IMO.

I don't even understand the 51% alcohol rule as I am basically a non-drinker. What exactly is the rationale for that? I went to a recent humane society charity benefit and beer was being sold. They had a 51% sign up so I couldn't carry. Many laws make no sense to me but these especially are non-sensical. Just my gripe I guess.

This was a general fear by legislators that drunks may carry guns. One way to avoid it was to ban people carrying where the primary purpose of people going was, as the legislators saw it, to get drunk. They also made it illegal to carry while intoxicated. In the case of 51% signs, I think the implementation of the law has been more faulty than the law itself.