TexasCHLforum.com

To use Barbi's example, you're saying if there's a sign prohibiting blue socks at a store in Florida, and someone with a licensed concealed weapon is wearing blue socks and walks past the sign during normal business hours, that's a felony in Florida?

Ameer wrote:To use Barbi's example, you're saying if there's a sign prohibiting blue socks at a store in Florida, and someone with a licensed concealed weapon is wearing blue socks and walks past the sign during normal business hours, that's a felony in Florida?

It has to be a no gun sign, not a no blue sock sign.

WildBill wrote:

Ameer wrote:To use Barbi's example, you're saying if there's a sign prohibiting blue socks at a store in Florida, and someone with a licensed concealed weapon is wearing blue socks and walks past the sign during normal business hours, that's a felony in Florida?

It has to be a no gun sign, not a no blue sock sign.

Show me that in the Florida statutes.

Ameer wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Ameer wrote:To use Barbi's example, you're saying if there's a sign prohibiting blue socks at a store in Florida, and someone with a licensed concealed weapon is wearing blue socks and walks past the sign during normal business hours, that's a felony in Florida?

It has to be a no gun sign, not a no blue sock sign.

Show me that in the Florida statutes.

I'll leave that to the lawyers.

You were real sure of your opinion until you were asked for the tiniest shred of evidence to back it up.

Ameer wrote:To use Barbi's example, you're saying if there's a sign prohibiting blue socks at a store in Florida, and someone with a licensed concealed weapon is wearing blue socks and walks past the sign during normal business hours, that's a felony in Florida?

I suppose it is possible, but I highly doubt that this would happen. I think it would be more like one's presence on the property while carrying a gun would be a felony. I very much doubt the blue sock theory would hold up. However, stranger things have happened. Where was that story about a child being arrested for having a toy gun on school grounds on the weekend?

Ameer wrote:You were real sure of your opinion until you were asked for the tiniest shred of evidence to back it up.

Show me the statute for the Florida Blue Sock law and then we can have a useful discussion.

Hint: It's the same law.

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.

I agree, we have a friend in our unique Texas 30.06 sign. Take a ride around the states that recognize Texas' CHL and try to guess where you and your CCW are welcome. In Texas, it is up front and it is cut and dried.

srothstein wrote: Private citizens have the right to control their property. You have the right to carry your weapon. As in any situation where the rights conflict, there must be some way to resolve the conflict. In this case, the conflict is easy to solve because you have the choice to enter their property or not. You can work there and park on the street, for example. You can work with the employer and management to change policies, just as you can with any business owner.

This may be true in theory but it's far from true in reality. For one thing, the discussion is about businesses open to the public, not private citizens. As a private citizen I can control to a fairly large extent who can enter my property, but my control is not even close to as absolute as you suggest. A business open to the public is subject to much more infringement by law and regulation. For example, the law doesn't allow a business to let their customers smoke.

Edited to remove a paragraph used in the following response.

Purplehood wrote:I had to vote Yes.

I look at it this way (with my admittedly warped sense of logic, or lack thereof):

We got OC. Therefore we are getting our rights back. People start OC'ing and as usual, the bloodshed and mayhem predicted by the Brady-bunch pundits never actually happens.
Stores notice that OC and CC folks are not shopping in their stores.

The signs will come down.

I'd like to believe you're right but I fear you're mistaken. The population of Texas is about 25 million --which makes people with CHLs less than 2% of the population. How many people of that 25 million do you suppose are of the liberal anti-gun nut mentality? Comrade Obama got 3.5 million votes in the last election. So, there could be more people in the anti-gun crowd that are going to protest people like us carrying their guns around "the children" than there are going to be CHLers protesting being banned. That seems obvious to me from reading posts on this board from people who are especially concerned with CHL. Many times we've heard those who don't have CHLs question: why do you need a gun to go to Wal-Mart? Many CHLers still trade with businesses that deny them their self-defense rights, and there are no doubt a number of us with spouses, girlfriends, other family members, and friends, who aren't going to support not patronizing Target or McDonalds just because they don't allow people to carry guns. Potentially, businesses could lose more from those against carry than those who support it. I don't know how it will turn out but I'd hate to take a step backwards.

BTW, I have mixed feelings on this issue because I do agree with you that if people openly carrying guns could get to be something people are accustomed to seeing as normal, it will be harder to take away 2nd amendment rights.

VMI77 wrote:For one thing, the discussion is about businesses open to the public, not private citizens. As a private citizen I can control to a fairly large extent who can enter my property, but my control is not even close to as absolute as you suggest. A business open to the public is subject to much more infringement by law and regulation. For example, the law doesn't allow a business to let their customers smoke.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. We are not even seeing basics in the same light for us to agree on a detailed refined idea. I don't see a business as any different from a house. Both are private property and the owner should be able to make the rules. You seem to see a philosophical difference between the two because it is a business.

I would point out that the problem I see with your argument is that it is along the lines of "I am already violating your rights so I can just add another violation and it is ok". You see, I don't see the laws on smoking - or most other business rules - as morally correct. They are an infringement on the business owner's rights to use his property. I would not dispute the facts that this is going on, nor would I even dispute the fact that the government has the authority to do so very heavily. I was debating the moral right or wrong of a proposed law as I see it. So, as I said, reasonable people can disagree reasonably, and we can agree to disagree on this.

srothstein wrote:I don't see a business as any different from a house. Both are private property and the owner should be able to make the rules. You seem to see a philosophical difference between the two because it is a business.

The state cannot force me to make my house handicapped accessible. The state CAN force me to make my place of business handicapped accessible. Therefore, I do not have the same rights as a property owner at my place of business as I do as a property owner at my home. This is why I believe that the parking lot bill is justifiable. Business owners manifestly do not have the same private property rights as a homeowner. They have private property rights, but they are more constrained. The law says so.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

(I am currently in South Florida) After reading Charles post I was a bit concerned about the legality of 'no guns' signs that may be posted here. I asked a family friend that is a Captain with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. He told me you can be asked to leave if you walk past a sign and only arrested if you then refuse to leave. Not really 'feeling it', I asked a local LEO that I saw at the local Publix store. He is an officer with the Palm Beach Gardens PD. He stated the same thing--you could only be arrested if you refuse to leave when asked. I again asked about the force of the sign and he said that a 'no guns' sign is not the same as a No Trespassing sign.

I looked up the FS and found the first line of the statute interesting:

http://archive.flsenate.gov/statutes/in ... 10.08.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
810.08
Trespass in structure or conveyance.
—
(1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.

Here is an interesting article:

http://blogs.naplesnews.com/florida-law ... apons.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ameer wrote:To use Barbi's example, you're saying if there's a sign prohibiting blue socks at a store in Florida, and someone with a licensed concealed weapon is wearing blue socks and walks past the sign during normal business hours, that's a felony in Florida?

If you are armed when you trespass in Florida, you are committing a felony. The reason you are a trespasser is irrelevant. It's the same way in Texas, except the crime is elevated to a Class A Misdemeanor, not a felony.

Chas.