TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txpilot wrote:Perhaps when OC is legal, Texas might follow the Kansas example where they have signs to cover all combinations: http://ag.ks.gov/public-safety/conceale ... ed-signage

Absolutely not!! At a minimum of 6" diameter, those generic signs are larger than the typical 2"X2" "no gun" decals we saw in Texas, but not nearly as large as a compliant 30.06 sign.

Chas.

I'm thinking those signs, but traffic size, with language that says anything smaller is not just a defense to prosecution, but just flat unenforceable.

Signs have no force of law in Kansas, so I would love to see TX catch up. Hopefully this is considered in new bills for the upcoming TX session.

jimlongley wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txpilot wrote:Perhaps when OC is legal, Texas might follow the Kansas example where they have signs to cover all combinations: http://ag.ks.gov/public-safety/conceale ... ed-signage

Absolutely not!! At a minimum of 6" diameter, those generic signs are larger than the typical 2"X2" "no gun" decals we saw in Texas, but not nearly as large as a compliant 30.06 sign.

Chas.

I'm thinking those signs, but traffic size, with language that says anything smaller is not just a defense to prosecution, but just flat unenforceable.

Does open carry really need a statutory sign? Right now, you can theoretically prohibit it (per PC Sec. 30.05) with any sign. Maybe we should just leave the signage rules as they are.

steveincowtown wrote:Signs have no force of law in Kansas, so I would love to see TX catch up. Hopefully this is considered in new bills for the upcoming TX session.

Maybe I'm not sure what you mean when you say they do not have the force of law. I frequently travel to Kansas and thought they did when they meet specific requirements.
http://ag.ks.gov/docs/default-source/do ... f?sfvrsn=6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txpilot wrote:Perhaps when OC is legal, Texas might follow the Kansas example where they have signs to cover all combinations: http://ag.ks.gov/public-safety/conceale ... ed-signage

Absolutely not!! At a minimum of 6" diameter, those generic signs are larger than the typical 2"X2" "no gun" decals we saw in Texas, but not nearly as large as a compliant 30.06 sign.

Chas.

Actually, I was thinking more about the idea of a different sign to prohibit open carry, concealed carry, or both, and not necessarily the size and content of the sign. I agree the signs need to be larger than Kansas has. The size and wording should be large enough to be obvious such as the current 30.06.

C-dub wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Signs have no force of law in Kansas, so I would love to see TX catch up. Hopefully this is considered in new bills for the upcoming TX session.

Maybe I'm not sure what you mean when you say they do not have the force of law. I frequently travel to Kansas and thought they did when they meet specific requirements.
http://ag.ks.gov/docs/default-source/do ... f?sfvrsn=6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe your link only relates to "state and municipal" buildings.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/kansas.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Page 6...

If TX would take the teeth out of 30.06 and make it a simple trespass charge we could end the conflicts about the signs issue. Signs not having the force of law is true in many states. It makes things much easier for everyone.

Bladed wrote:Does open carry really need a statutory sign? Right now, you can theoretically prohibit it (per PC Sec. 30.05) with any sign. Maybe we should just leave the signage rules as they are.

Right now under 30.05, any sign or oral notice is good enough to prohibit open carry (except for police) so as long as 30.05/30.06 are not touched, that would continue after the penalty for displaying a handgun is removed.

steveincowtown wrote:

C-dub wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Signs have no force of law in Kansas, so I would love to see TX catch up. Hopefully this is considered in new bills for the upcoming TX session.

Maybe I'm not sure what you mean when you say they do not have the force of law. I frequently travel to Kansas and thought they did when they meet specific requirements.
http://ag.ks.gov/docs/default-source/do ... f?sfvrsn=6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe your link only relates to "state and municipal" buildings.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/kansas.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Page 6...

If TX would take the teeth out of 30.06 and make it a simple trespass charge we could end the conflicts about the signs issue. Signs not having the force of law is true in many states. It makes things much easier for everyone.

How would changing it from a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and/or a $4,000 fine) to a Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine) "take the teeth out of" the law? A conviction of either a Class A or Class B misdemeanor will cost you your CHL for five years.

Bladed wrote:How would changing it from a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and/or a $4,000 fine) to a Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine) "take the teeth out of" the law? A conviction of either a Class A or Class B misdemeanor will cost you your CHL for five years.

There have been previous discussions in these forums that it should be a Class C misdemeanor to knowingly carry past a no guns sign on private property. If you are subsequently asked to leave and refuse, then that should be a Class B like an ordinary unarmed trespass.

The Class A misdemeanor for Armed Trespass should apply to an unlicensed person carrying illegally, IMO.

Jumping Frog wrote:

Bladed wrote:How would changing it from a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and/or a $4,000 fine) to a Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine) "take the teeth out of" the law? A conviction of either a Class A or Class B misdemeanor will cost you your CHL for five years.

There have been previous discussions in these forums that it should be a Class C misdemeanor to knowingly carry past a no guns sign on private property. If you are subsequently asked to leave and refuse, then that should be a Class B like an ordinary unarmed trespass.

The Class A misdemeanor for Armed Trespass should apply to an unlicensed person carrying illegally, IMO.

Then what you're actually talking about is lowering the severity of trespass by a holder of a license to carry a concealed handgun, not reclassifying trespass by a license holder as criminal trespass. I have a hard time believing that lowering the severity of trespass by a license holder to a Class C misdemeanor would pass without the offense being either reclassified as disorderly conduct or in some other way added to the list of offenses that trigger automatic revocation of the offender's CHL.

The Class A misdemeanor for armed trespass--PC Sec. 30.05(d)(3)(B)--is not the same as the Class A misdemeanor for trespass by a license holder--PC Sec. 30.06. For all intents and purposes, with regard to carrying a gun past a no-guns sign, Penal Code Section 30.06 applies only to a license holder carrying a concealed handgun, and 30.05(d)(3)(B) does not apply to a license holder carrying a concealed handgun.

I wish that no type of no-guns/no-carry sign had force of law in Texas, but given that Texans value property rights even more than gun rights, that's not likely to happen. All things considered, the 30.06 law is a pretty good system (a good system that certain open-carry groups and certain gun-control groups seem to be working together to destroy).

ONLINECHL wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

Bladed wrote:How would changing it from a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and/or a $4,000 fine) to a Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine) "take the teeth out of" the law? A conviction of either a Class A or Class B misdemeanor will cost you your CHL for five years.

There have been previous discussions in these forums that it should be a Class C misdemeanor to knowingly carry past a no guns sign on private property. If you are subsequently asked to leave and refuse, then that should be a Class B like an ordinary unarmed trespass.

The Class A misdemeanor for Armed Trespass should apply to an unlicensed person carrying illegally, IMO.

I think it's good it applies to people who are armed with a deadly weapon when trespassing, even if it's a legal long gun.

There are more serious charges that could be filed, if the deadly weapon where misused. Jail time for mere possession of a legal firearm is unwarranted. I have long sought support for a change in the law that would prohibit owners/managers of commercial property from barring entry by armed CHLs, but there's no support in Austin.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ONLINECHL wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

Bladed wrote:How would changing it from a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and/or a $4,000 fine) to a Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine) "take the teeth out of" the law? A conviction of either a Class A or Class B misdemeanor will cost you your CHL for five years.

There have been previous discussions in these forums that it should be a Class C misdemeanor to knowingly carry past a no guns sign on private property. If you are subsequently asked to leave and refuse, then that should be a Class B like an ordinary unarmed trespass.

The Class A misdemeanor for Armed Trespass should apply to an unlicensed person carrying illegally, IMO.

I think it's good it applies to people who are armed with a deadly weapon when trespassing, even if it's a legal long gun.

There are more serious charges that could be filed, if the deadly weapon where misused. Jail time for mere possession of a legal firearm is unwarranted. I have long sought support for a change in the law that would prohibit owners/managers of commercial property from barring entry by armed CHLs, but there's no support in Austin.

Chas.

What is the counter-reasoning against changing that Chas? I am having trouble finding even a poor argument that I can reason past on this topic. Allowing more CHL carry could potentially benefit all parties involved, and nobody would ever know the difference, because the CHL holders should be impossible to identify, because they're concealing their weapons. Is there something terribly obvious that I am missing Chas?

Charlies.Contingency wrote:What is the counter-reasoning against changing that Chas? I am having trouble finding even a poor argument that I can reason past on this topic.

Lowering the penalty for 30.05 would not help CHL. It would help people refusing to leave when a business manager or home owner tells them to leave. I don't think it's smart to lower the penalty for troublemakers who refuse to get off private property when told to leave.

I really don't think it's smart to lower the penalty for those same troublemakers to carry rifles and other weapons to intimidate the property owner, and refuse to leave private property.

ronin wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:What is the counter-reasoning against changing that Chas? I am having trouble finding even a poor argument that I can reason past on this topic.

Lowering the penalty for 30.05 would not help CHL. It would help people refusing to leave when a business manager or home owner tells them to leave. I don't think it's smart to lower the penalty for troublemakers who refuse to get off private property when told to leave.

I really don't think it's smart to lower the penalty for those same troublemakers to carry rifles and other weapons to intimidate the property owner, and refuse to leave private property.

I think you missed my meaning. I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders. Being asked to leave an is entirely different subject IMO. I don't like that I can be barred from places for wanting to protect my family if needed. Nobody should know I'm carrying, and I'm not there to do anything bad. If the owner doesn't want me there for whatever reason, he better be able to come up with something better than a sign saying that it's illegal for me to protect my family here, or that I'm only allowed in this store if I want my family to be helpless if we're attacked. Please counter my reasoning.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.

This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.

As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.