TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

Ruark wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:How can I, as a property owner argue that you have harmed my right to enjoy my property by carrying a gun, by being a Christian, by believe in Hitlery, or anything else, when these things are not even apparent?

Because "harming your right to enjoy your property" isn't a prerequisite for barring somebody from entering it. You don't need a reason. I can bar you or ask you to leave because I'm in the mood for it.

Granted, I wish we COULD get rid of the 06 signs - they're utterly silly, because only law-abiding people will comply with them, while criminal shooters will ignore them - but it's not going to happen.

But do you have the right to have the state pre-emptively enforce your private prejudice against shirt colors? Even when you didn't even notice that the person was wearing the wrong color shirt (under their clothes)? Can you put a no Democrats or no Gun Owners sign on your business and someone is committing a crime by entering?

Yes, under 30.05, we are all running a huge risk of arrest and imprisonment every time we step foot out of our homes. All it takes is us missing one tiny "shirt busters" sign and we are facing certain doom. Even if there is no sign at all, you might beat the rap, you won't beat the ride.

ScottDLS wrote:

hovercat wrote:My thought is that without 30.06, we would not have CC in TX at all. Businesses would have squashe'd it without a means to not have to deal with it directly.

We had CC without 30.06 for one year and 9 months...

And once businesses got their way out of participating, they directed their lobby money elsewhere. Get rid of 30.06, and some very large businesses will be against us, and contributing money to the MDA, etc., along with their own lobbyists.
Right or wrong, they see the potential of firearms inside their establishments as detrimental to their profits. And that will make them fight.

hovercat wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

hovercat wrote:My thought is that without 30.06, we would not have CC in TX at all. Businesses would have squashe'd it without a means to not have to deal with it directly.

We had CC without 30.06 for one year and 9 months...

And once businesses got their way out of participating, they directed their lobby money elsewhere. Get rid of 30.06, and some very large businesses will be against us, and contributing money to the MDA, etc., along with their own lobbyists.

My recollection is the reverse. Businesses had no objection to 30.05 applying to licensed concealed carry, particularly with the enhanced penalty for being armed while trespassing.

hovercat wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

hovercat wrote:My thought is that without 30.06, we would not have CC in TX at all. Businesses would have squashe'd it without a means to not have to deal with it directly.

We had CC without 30.06 for one year and 9 months...

And once businesses got their way out of participating, they directed their lobby money elsewhere. Get rid of 30.06, and some very large businesses will be against us, and contributing money to the MDA, etc., along with their own lobbyists.
Right or wrong, they see the potential of firearms inside their establishments as detrimental to their profits. And that will make them fight.

I don't buy that. Many other states do not have a requirement to post a sign to tell the CC or OCer they can't carry there. In fact, signs have no force of law. You have to be asked to leave and if you refuse can face trespass charges. How may of those states have done away with CC or OC due to pressure from "big business"?

The biggest fix I would like to see is requiring the signs posted at every entrance, or at least every public entrance.

Having said that, I think the reduction to a C Misd was a big win. As long as you don't refuse to leave when told, the maximum penalty is a fine.

ninjabread wrote:The biggest fix I would like to see is requiring the signs posted at every entrance, or at least every public entrance.

I would agree with this whole heartedly. 30.07 is required to be at each entrance. It would make sense for it to be posted at each entrance for 30.06. Otherwise, someone could mistakenly walk into a location that was posted at another entrance, but not the one they entered.

Flightmare wrote:

ninjabread wrote:The biggest fix I would like to see is requiring the signs posted at every entrance, or at least every public entrance.

I would agree with this whole heartedly. 30.07 is required to be at each entrance. It would make sense for it to be posted at each entrance for 30.06. Otherwise, someone could mistakenly walk into a location that was posted at another entrance, but not the one they entered.

I believe that one version of HB1911 would require 30.06 at every entrance. One thing I don't want to see is a single sign for both.

doncb wrote:

Flightmare wrote:

ninjabread wrote:The biggest fix I would like to see is requiring the signs posted at every entrance, or at least every public entrance.

I would agree with this whole heartedly. 30.07 is required to be at each entrance. It would make sense for it to be posted at each entrance for 30.06. Otherwise, someone could mistakenly walk into a location that was posted at another entrance, but not the one they entered.

I believe that one version of HB1911 would require 30.06 at every entrance. One thing I don't want to see is a single sign for both.

That would defeat the purpose of being able to see it from your vehicle in the parking lot. Sometimes a place has JUST posted and is not on texas3006.com. While I rely on the app and website in most cases, I still try verify before I park my car before going into a business. If they were to combine into a single sign, it may be difficult to see if it's a 30.07 sign, or a combination. I agree with you, they need to be kept separate.

Make businesses who want to post register on a website so you can determine before going what signs are present.