TexasCHLforum.com

rp_photo wrote:I don't see 30.06 as a sacred property right but rather a public accommodation issue.

Anyone who opens their property to the public must agree to not discriminate against various classes, which in my opinion should include legal carriers.

Along with that, property owners who don't post should be shielded from liability over actions of a legal carrier on their property, but being exposed to liability for the death and injury of a disarmed legal carrier if they choose to post. Note that this would provide a crucial upside to not posting which is missing now.

You have a choice to carry, the supposed various legal classes did not. I support individual property owners rights over the rights of the public, don't do business with them if you don't like the way they run their business. If you come in and tell me that I have to let legal carriers in my place of business, I would have to tell you I do not have to do so, I allow them to do so. Then I would tell you to leave because of I have enough stupidity for the whole place and you need to take yours elsewhere.

twomillenium wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I don't see 30.06 as a sacred property right but rather a public accommodation issue.

Anyone who opens their property to the public must agree to not discriminate against various classes, which in my opinion should include legal carriers.

Along with that, property owners who don't post should be shielded from liability over actions of a legal carrier on their property, but being exposed to liability for the death and injury of a disarmed legal carrier if they choose to post. Note that this would provide a crucial upside to not posting which is missing now.

You have a choice to carry, the supposed various legal classes did not. I support individual property owners rights over the rights of the public, don't do business with them if you don't like the way they run their business. If you come in and tell me that I have to let legal carriers in my place of business, I would have to tell you I do not have to do so, I allow them to do so. Then I would tell you to leave because of I have enough stupidity for the whole place and you need to take yours elsewhere.

What about the classes that the State doesn't let you exclude? Off duty cops, emergency volunteers, special investigators, your employees carrying in your parking lot, etc....

twomillenium wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I don't see 30.06 as a sacred property right but rather a public accommodation issue.

Anyone who opens their property to the public must agree to not discriminate against various classes, which in my opinion should include legal carriers.

Along with that, property owners who don't post should be shielded from liability over actions of a legal carrier on their property, but being exposed to liability for the death and injury of a disarmed legal carrier if they choose to post. Note that this would provide a crucial upside to not posting which is missing now.

You have a choice to carry, the supposed various legal classes did not. I support individual property owners rights over the rights of the public, don't do business with them if you don't like the way they run their business. If you come in and tell me that I have to let legal carriers in my place of business, I would have to tell you I do not have to do so, I allow them to do so. Then I would tell you to leave because of I have enough stupidity for the whole place and you need to take yours elsewhere.

On this forum, this topic is rehashed often, and it usually ends up at a point where it's perceived as a binary issue: "Which is more important, private property rights or our rights to carry?" I suggest that reducing it to A vs B is a good way to kill the discussion, rather than enable it.

But what has been highlighted here on this thread is there is a middle ground that allows both to be respected. Private property is (and should be) sacrosanct, but it already has some limitations in place. You can post signs that say, "No red shoes", "No shirt no service", "No earrings", etc., but those signs do NOT have the force of law unless you then offer an oral notification as well.

Those of us that advocate the middle ground do not ask for private property rights to be subordinate to carry rights. We simply ask that the 3006 sign have the same legally binding status as do the other signs listed in the previous paragraph. We believe that one sign, for that one choice, for one class of people who voluntarily do one thing, having legal force of law as something we'd like to see evened out with all other signs.

But we're not suggesting that we should come in and tell you that you have to let legal carriers in your place of business. That's extending our position further than what we're stating.

ScottDLS wrote:
What about the classes that the State doesn't let you exclude? Off duty cops, emergency volunteers, special investigators, your employees carrying in your parking lot, etc....

My understanding is you can exclude them, police don't have to follow The Sign, is that incorrect? Isn't that what happened to the Conroe police chief?

They have to have verbal notice?

OlBill wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:
What about the classes that the State doesn't let you exclude? Off duty cops, emergency volunteers, special investigators, your employees carrying in your parking lot, etc....

My understanding is you can exclude them, police don't have to follow The Sign, is that incorrect? Isn't that what happened to the Conroe police chief?

They have to have verbal notice?

I think that is correct OlBill. There is no sign that would prevent a police officer from carrying into a Sprouts, for example, but if they receive oral notification that they are not allowed to carry their gun into the store even if they are in uniform and not in their official capacity the officer would still have to leave. They can return without their handgun just like the rest of us can, but I'm not sure how many LEOs or us would actually return unarmed.

ScottDLS wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I don't see 30.06 as a sacred property right but rather a public accommodation issue.

Anyone who opens their property to the public must agree to not discriminate against various classes, which in my opinion should include legal carriers.

Along with that, property owners who don't post should be shielded from liability over actions of a legal carrier on their property, but being exposed to liability for the death and injury of a disarmed legal carrier if they choose to post. Note that this would provide a crucial upside to not posting which is missing now.

You have a choice to carry, the supposed various legal classes did not. I support individual property owners rights over the rights of the public, don't do business with them if you don't like the way they run their business. If you come in and tell me that I have to let legal carriers in my place of business, I would have to tell you I do not have to do so, I allow them to do so. Then I would tell you to leave because of I have enough stupidity for the whole place and you need to take yours elsewhere.

What about the classes that the State doesn't let you exclude? Off duty cops, emergency volunteers, special investigators, your employees carrying in your parking lot, etc....

What about them? I thought this was about LTC holders. (which BTW, I have no problem with anyone legally carrying on my property, but I do defend the notion that private property rights are sacrosanct) As far as parking lots are concerned, if you read the laws, even unlicensed carry in privately owned vehicles cannot be restricted. (except for the few noted exceptions)

Vol Texan wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I don't see 30.06 as a sacred property right but rather a public accommodation issue.

Anyone who opens their property to the public must agree to not discriminate against various classes, which in my opinion should include legal carriers.

Along with that, property owners who don't post should be shielded from liability over actions of a legal carrier on their property, but being exposed to liability for the death and injury of a disarmed legal carrier if they choose to post. Note that this would provide a crucial upside to not posting which is missing now.

You have a choice to carry, the supposed various legal classes did not. I support individual property owners rights over the rights of the public, don't do business with them if you don't like the way they run their business. If you come in and tell me that I have to let legal carriers in my place of business, I would have to tell you I do not have to do so, I allow them to do so. Then I would tell you to leave because of I have enough stupidity for the whole place and you need to take yours elsewhere.

On this forum, this topic is rehashed often, and it usually ends up at a point where it's perceived as a binary issue: "Which is more important, private property rights or our rights to carry?" I suggest that reducing it to A vs B is a good way to kill the discussion, rather than enable it.

But what has been highlighted here on this thread is there is a middle ground that allows both to be respected. Private property is (and should be) sacrosanct, but it already has some limitations in place. You can post signs that say, "No red shoes", "No shirt no service", "No earrings", etc., but those signs do NOT have the force of law unless you then offer an oral notification as well.

Those of us that advocate the middle ground do not ask for private property rights to be subordinate to carry rights. We simply ask that the 3006 sign have the same legally binding status as do the other signs listed in the previous paragraph. We believe that one sign, for that one choice, for one class of people who voluntarily do one thing, having legal force of law as something we'd like to see evened out with all other signs.

But we're not suggesting that we should come in and tell you that you have to let legal carriers in your place of business. That's extending our position further than what we're stating.

Just to make it clear, I do not have a problem with any legal carry on my property. However, even tho I may disagree with most of the reasons to post the .06.07 sign, I will defend the rights of the property owner to do so and defend the right that they should not be forced to middle ground because on their property all ground is theirs.

C-dub wrote:

OlBill wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:
What about the classes that the State doesn't let you exclude? Off duty cops, emergency volunteers, special investigators, your employees carrying in your parking lot, etc....

My understanding is you can exclude them, police don't have to follow The Sign, is that incorrect? Isn't that what happened to the Conroe police chief?

They have to have verbal notice?

I think that is correct OlBill. There is no sign that would prevent a police officer from carrying into a Sprouts, for example, but if they receive oral notification that they are not allowed to carry their gun into the store even if they are in uniform and not in their official capacity the officer would still have to leave. They can return without their handgun just like the rest of us can, but I'm not sure how many LEOs or us would actually return unarmed.

I think the sign should apply just like it does to me. It is notice.

OlBill wrote:

C-dub wrote:

OlBill wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:
What about the classes that the State doesn't let you exclude? Off duty cops, emergency volunteers, special investigators, your employees carrying in your parking lot, etc....

My understanding is you can exclude them, police don't have to follow The Sign, is that incorrect? Isn't that what happened to the Conroe police chief?

They have to have verbal notice?

I think that is correct OlBill. There is no sign that would prevent a police officer from carrying into a Sprouts, for example, but if they receive oral notification that they are not allowed to carry their gun into the store even if they are in uniform and not in their official capacity the officer would still have to leave. They can return without their handgun just like the rest of us can, but I'm not sure how many LEOs or us would actually return unarmed.

I think the sign should apply just like it does to me. It is notice.

30.06 is notice for LTC under that portion of the penal code; police officers are covered under a different section of the Texas penal code. I think you're going to have a hard time selling any codified restriction on police officers carrying (on or off duty). If you think LTC and officers should be in the same playing field, your best bet is removing restrictions on LTC, but then again we all saw how far HB560 went.

What is your rational that off-duty officers should be subject to 30.06?

Everybody seems to say that private property rights are so sacred in Texas, but then we have exceptions to 30.06 for cops, emergency volunteers, employees in the parking lot, etc. And let's get another myth out of the way, an oral notice to an off duty cop that he may not enter because he is carrying is not enforceable. Of course the practical solution is to tell him to leave for some other reason. And if a no red shoes, or no pink underwear sign doesn't constitute trespass notice unless an oral warning is also given, then I have been vindicated in a position I've been arguing for 12 years...

Finally I see no reason for a private property owner who otherwise invites you on his publicly open business should have the power of criminal sanction of trespass because of a sign stating his preferences. This to force you to comply with a preference of his that he can neither identify, is not aware of, nor has any effect on him (concealed carry, or pink undies).

aero10 wrote:

OlBill wrote:

C-dub wrote:

OlBill wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:
What about the classes that the State doesn't let you exclude? Off duty cops, emergency volunteers, special investigators, your employees carrying in your parking lot, etc....

My understanding is you can exclude them, police don't have to follow The Sign, is that incorrect? Isn't that what happened to the Conroe police chief?

They have to have verbal notice?

I think that is correct OlBill. There is no sign that would prevent a police officer from carrying into a Sprouts, for example, but if they receive oral notification that they are not allowed to carry their gun into the store even if they are in uniform and not in their official capacity the officer would still have to leave. They can return without their handgun just like the rest of us can, but I'm not sure how many LEOs or us would actually return unarmed.

I think the sign should apply just like it does to me. It is notice.

30.06 is notice for LTC under that portion of the penal code; police officers are covered under a different section of the Texas penal code. I think you're going to have a hard time selling any codified restriction on police officers carrying (on or off duty). If you think LTC and officers should be in the same playing field, your best bet is removing restrictions on LTC, but then again we all saw how far HB560 went.

What is your rational that off-duty officers should be subject to 30.06?

My rationale is that no one should be subject to it. There is no other section of the penal code allowing you to post a sign to restrict cops from carrying on your property. The general trespass statute 30.05 has a specific exception for LEO carry. I guess you could post a NO COPS sign, or circle slash badge pictogram which some argue would make it a class B misdemeanor for a cop to enter your property, or a class A if they were also armed. Good luck with that.

If somebody with allergies or a phobia has to let service dogs in their store, I don't understand why someone can restrict licensed carry in a public accommodation on a whim. Oh well, in two and a half weeks it will be moot for many.

ScottDLS wrote:And let's get another myth out of the way, an oral notice to an off duty cop that he may not enter because he is carrying is not enforceable.

Really? Does that mean that when they are told they cannot stay because the business doesn't allow firearms and the officer leaves that they are only doing so out of the kindness of their heart or to simply take the path of least resistance? On or off duty, in or out of uniform when just getting something to eat?

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:And let's get another myth out of the way, an oral notice to an off duty cop that he may not enter because he is carrying is not enforceable.

Really? Does that mean that when they are told they cannot stay because the business doesn't allow firearms and the officer leaves that they are only doing so out of the kindness of their heart or to simply take the path of least resistance? On or off duty, in or out of uniform when just getting something to eat?

From a legal stand point, peace officers are exempt from 30.05. 30.06 and 30.07 do not apply to them.

Texas PC 30.05 (i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Emphasis mine

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:And let's get another myth out of the way, an oral notice to an off duty cop that he may not enter because he is carrying is not enforceable.

Really? Does that mean that when they are told they cannot stay because the business doesn't allow firearms and the officer leaves that they are only doing so out of the kindness of their heart or to simply take the path of least resistance? On or off duty, in or out of uniform when just getting something to eat?

Yes.