TexasCHLforum.com

No realistic options. No, I do not want O.C. at any cost. I want Constitutional Carry where the State has no power to control the wearing of arms in any way. Private property owners can restrict anyone they want by verbally informing the person carrying they do not allow firearms in/on their property. If the person does not leave the owner can call and report them. The LEOs can inform them that they will be charged with trespassing if they do not leave. The only way a person can get arrested and charged with trespassing is if they refuse to obey the LEO. That protects property owners and those who choose to exercise their 2A rights. Anything less than no state control is not acceptable.

If the State insists on controlling "postings" I think they should require the signs to be posted in any language of any person that may enter that property. That means roughly 6500 spoken languages so at least that many proper 30.06 signs.

For open carry to work there would have to be a new set of rules and 30.06 is not it.

Lets say I get invited to diner with a friend and have never been to the place. I strap on my military rig with a nice 1911 in plain view on my thigh.
I get there, meet my friend and we walk together to the door where clear and legal is the "new" 30.06 that doesn't allow weapon concealed or open to enter.
Ok so I'm hungry and my friend did invite me so I walk back out to the truck and remove my weapon, put in in the glovebox, lock it up and go to eat.
My thinking is anyone that saw me walk to and from the truck nows knows there is a really nice 1911 just a glass break away. And ever car made comes stock with the best glass breaker, glove box pry open tire removal tool standard issue in the trunk. I walk out after diner to see the pile of glass and know that my weapon is now in the hands of someone who isn't scared to B&E a car so my bet is he's not scared to shoot someone with a weapon registered
to someone else.

It will have to be a set in stone "here's where you can carry and here's where you can't" law and if a business owner doesn't like it then they need to move to Illinois where the only gun he has to worry about is the one that the criminal is going to rob/kill him with.

Rule #1 Violation wrote:For open carry to work there would have to be a new set of rules and 30.06 is not it.

Lets say I get invited to diner with a friend and have never been to the place. I strap on my military rig with a nice 1911 in plain view on my thigh.
I get there, meet my friend and we walk together to the door where clear and legal is the "new" 30.06 that doesn't allow weapon concealed or open to enter.
Ok so I'm hungry and my friend did invite me so I walk back out to the truck and remove my weapon, put in in the glovebox, lock it up and go to eat.
My thinking is anyone that saw me walk to and from the truck nows knows there is a really nice 1911 just a glass break away. And ever car made comes stock with the best glass breaker, glove box pry open tire removal tool standard issue in the trunk. I walk out after diner to see the pile of glass and know that my weapon is now in the hands of someone who isn't scared to B&E a car so my bet is he's not scared to shoot someone with a weapon registered
to someone else.

It will have to be a set in stone "here's where you can carry and here's where you can't" law and if a business owner doesn't like it then they need to move to Illinois where the only gun he has to worry about is the one that the criminal is going to rob/kill him with.

Please tell us where your weapon is registered? Thanks!

Rule #1 Violation wrote:For open carry to work there would have to be a new set of rules and 30.06 is not it.

There's already a set of rules for open carry, because open carry is legal for shotguns and rifles. And in Texas, they don't have to be registered.

Ameer wrote:

Rule #1 Violation wrote:For open carry to work there would have to be a new set of rules and 30.06 is not it.

There's already a set of rules for open carry, because open carry is legal for shotguns and rifles. And in Texas, they don't have to be registered.

As far as I know, there is no registration of firearms in Texas. Period.

Purplehood wrote:

Ameer wrote:

Rule #1 Violation wrote:For open carry to work there would have to be a new set of rules and 30.06 is not it.

There's already a set of rules for open carry, because open carry is legal for shotguns and rifles. And in Texas, they don't have to be registered.

As far as I know, there is no registration of firearms in Texas. Period.

No registration, except for Class 3 fun guns.

Personally, I'd like to see Texas adopt a system like Florida where no 30.06-like provision exists.

I would support a more forgiving CC rules than an OC that may close doors for us.

GaryAdrian wrote:I would support a more forgiving CC rules than an OC that may close doors for us.

Such as?

Pyrat wrote:Personally, I'd like to see Texas adopt a system like Florida where no 30.06-like provision exists.

TPC §30.06 was passed in 1997 to stop the flood of small generic "no gun" signs and decals that were popping up on businesses all over the State. 30.06 requires either verbal notice, or the posting of a "big ugly sign" to bar armed CHL's. If we repealed TPC §30.06, we be back to TPC §30.05 and any sign or decal would serve as notice not to enter.

TPC §30.06 is a great benefit to CHL's.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pyrat wrote:Personally, I'd like to see Texas adopt a system like Florida where no 30.06-like provision exists.

TPC §30.06 was passed in 1997 to stop the flood of small generic "no gun" signs and decals that were popping up on businesses all over the State. 30.06 requires either verbal notice, or the posting of a "big ugly sign" to bar armed CHL's. If we repealed TPC §30.06, we be back to TPC §30.05 and any sign or decal would serve as notice not to enter.

TPC §30.06 is a great benefit to CHL's.

Chas.

Yes, and like Pyrat said, "a system like Florida" would be a greater benefit.

Bart wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pyrat wrote:Personally, I'd like to see Texas adopt a system like Florida where no 30.06-like provision exists.

TPC §30.06 was passed in 1997 to stop the flood of small generic "no gun" signs and decals that were popping up on businesses all over the State. 30.06 requires either verbal notice, or the posting of a "big ugly sign" to bar armed CHL's. If we repealed TPC §30.06, we be back to TPC §30.05 and any sign or decal would serve as notice not to enter.

TPC §30.06 is a great benefit to CHL's.

Chas.

Yes, and like Pyrat said, "a system like Florida" would be a greater benefit.

No it wouldn't, unless you are saying that the State of Florida won't allow private property owners to exclude armed licensees. Is that what you are saying?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:No it wouldn't, unless you are saying that the State of Florida won't allow private property owners to exclude armed licensees. Is that what you are saying?

Chas.

It sounds like they're saying a sign doesn't have teeth in Florida, which is a little different, and that matches what I heard. Of course management can tell a person to leave and they're trespassing if they don't. However, the way I heard it works in Florida, it's not a crime to ignore a "no guns" sign (or a "no blue socks" sign) posted in a store. If they see your gun (or your socks) and ask you to leave, then you have to leave or you're trespassing, irregardless of whether they even have a sign.

Barbi Q wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:No it wouldn't, unless you are saying that the State of Florida won't allow private property owners to exclude armed licensees. Is that what you are saying?

Chas.

It sounds like they're saying a sign doesn't have teeth in Florida, which is a little different, and that matches what I heard. Of course management can tell a person to leave and they're trespassing if they don't. However, the way I heard it works in Florida, it's not a crime to ignore a "no guns" sign (or a "no blue socks" sign) posted in a store. If they see your gun (or your socks) and ask you to leave, then you have to leave or you're trespassing, irregardless of whether they even have a sign.

Yup, it's Texas thats differnt here. Most states, "no guns" is just like "no shirt no shoes no service", they can tell you to leave and call the cops to make you if you don't. But in Texas if your carrying a gun while you trespass the penalty jumps up to a year in jail, class a instead of class c.

Change the penalty in 30.05, problem solved.

Bullwhip wrote:

Barbi Q wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:No it wouldn't, unless you are saying that the State of Florida won't allow private property owners to exclude armed licensees. Is that what you are saying?

Chas.

It sounds like they're saying a sign doesn't have teeth in Florida, which is a little different, and that matches what I heard. Of course management can tell a person to leave and they're trespassing if they don't. However, the way I heard it works in Florida, it's not a crime to ignore a "no guns" sign (or a "no blue socks" sign) posted in a store. If they see your gun (or your socks) and ask you to leave, then you have to leave or you're trespassing, irregardless of whether they even have a sign.

Yup, it's Texas thats differnt here. Most states, "no guns" is just like "no shirt no shoes no service", they can tell you to leave and call the cops to make you if you don't. But in Texas if your carrying a gun while you trespass the penalty jumps up to a year in jail, class a instead of class c.

Change the penalty in 30.05, problem solved.

Well not in Florida, nor, to my knowledge, in any other state. If you have citations to any other state's trespass statutes that require verbal instructions to leave, I'd love to have them. I just confirmed Florida law with Marion Hammer, head of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, that property owners can post enforceable signs and they don't have to be special signs like the TPC §30.06 "big ugly sign." In fact, the Florida code expressly states that unauthorized entry onto posted land is prima facie evidence of intent to commit trespass. The Florida code even authorizes the property owner to take a trespasser into custody and detain them until the police arrive. So it's clear that verbal instructions to leave followed by a refusal to do so is not required to be prosecuted for trespass in Florida.

Also, trespass while armed is a felony in Florida!

Once again, Texans are far better off with TPC §30.06.

Chas.

§810.07 wrote:(1) The unauthorized entry by any person into or upon any enclosed and posted land shall be prima facie evidence of the intention of such person to commit an act of trespass.

§810.08(2)(c) wrote:Any owner or person authorized by the owner may, for prosecution purposes, take into custody and detain, in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable length of time, any person when he or she reasonably believes that a violation of this paragraph has been or is being committed, and he or she reasonably believes that the person to be taken into custody and detained has committed or is committing such violation. In the event a person is taken into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called as soon as is practicable after the person has been taken into custody.

§810.08(2)(c) wrote:If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or arms himself or herself with such while in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.