30.07 ?

The "What Works, What Doesn't," "Recommendations & Experiences"

Moderators: carlson1, Crossfire


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: 30.07 ?

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:44 am

warnmar10 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm not Scott, but I do sometimes carry a concealed rifle past a valid 30.06 sign.

I agree that the first choice is to not give any patronage to a business that is openly against our civil rights, including our right to keep and bear arms. But unfortunately, there are some locations where I must still visit even though they believe in this type of oppression. A classic case would be to visit a relative in a hospital that is posted.

In these limited cases, I believe that it would be completely and totally irresponsible for me to willingly give up the means to defend myself and my loved ones from a potential violent assault. So I do what I am legally allowed to do to defend myself. I agree that a concealed rifle is not the best choice. I would much rather have a 1911 on my hip. But my Sub 2000 fits nicely into a computer bag, and I can have it deployed and ready to act in a matter of seconds. So I have decided that it is my next best option.

And to answer your follow on post, yes it is rare.
If you can legally carry a rifle are your 2A rights really oppressed? Inconvenient, yes. Oppressed, no. At that point isn't it really just a dress code?


You are correct. They are not actually oppressing our rights. I am reading into their signage that they would like to suppress our rights, but they are not succeeding. This is like a polling place putting up a sign that says "no Blacks allowed to vote, here or anywhere else" and then sneering at any Black person who gets in line, but ultimately giving them a ballot and letting them vote. Attempted oppression, but not actual oppression.

Regardless, I still try to avoid giving such places my patronage if at all possible. It's just that if I really need to go there for some reason I will be armed wherever I am legally allowed to do so.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


FCH
Senior Member
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:17 pm
Location: South Central Texas

Re: 30.07 ?

Postby FCH » Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:56 am

If the place also has a no weapons sign, doesn't that also make a concealed rifle illegal?
NRA Member
TSRA Member

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 30.07 ?

Postby ScottDLS » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:05 pm

FCH wrote:If the place also has a no weapons sign, doesn't that also make a concealed rifle illegal?


Arguable. Depending on circumstances, I'd be willing to risk it. Most places with generic no weapons signs don't have properly posted 30.06, so then I'd just carry a handgun.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: 30.07 ?

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:07 pm

FCH wrote:If the place also has a no weapons sign, doesn't that also make a concealed rifle illegal?


There is an AG opinion that basically says any "no ___" sign carries force of law. I believe that this has never actually been tried, however. The exact wording matters a lot here. If the sign says "no shirt, no shoes, no service" then you are not trespassing because they never said you couldn't come in without a shirt, just that you shouldn't expect to get any service. "No fat chicks" is more clear that they don't want you there, but the term "fat" could be subjective. Obviously, if you are in the 98th percentile for body fat, and you are female, you probably meet the prohibition and would therefore be guilty of trespassing per that previous Texas AG's opinion, but like I said, such a case has not actually been prosecuted I believe. And that person is no longer the AG for this state.

In your case, the term "weapon" is pretty broad. When encountering such a sign it is probably advisable to strip naked before entering so you do not accidentally bring anything in that could be deemed a "weapon". That or just go somewhere else.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


thetexan
Senior Member
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: 30.07 ?

Postby thetexan » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:42 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Abraham wrote:ScottDLS ,

Hhhmmm, I've got a couple questions: Do you do that,carry a concealed rifle into 30.06 businesses or are you simply stating one can legally do that?

Plus, why (and certainly it's your choice) give a 30.06 your business or do you do this only when you can't avoid a 30.06 posted business like maybe your doctor's office or someplace similar?


I'm not Scott, but I do sometimes carry a concealed rifle past a valid 30.06 sign.

I agree that the first choice is to not give any patronage to a business that is openly against our civil rights, including our right to keep and bear arms. But unfortunately, there are some locations where I must still visit even though they believe in this type of oppression. A classic case would be to visit a relative in a hospital that is posted.

In these limited cases, I believe that it would be completely and totally irresponsible for me to willingly give up the means to defend myself and my loved ones from a potential violent assault. So I do what I am legally allowed to do to defend myself. I agree that a concealed rifle is not the best choice. I would much rather have a 1911 on my hip. But my Sub 2000 fits nicely into a computer bag, and I can have it deployed and ready to act in a matter of seconds. So I have decided that it is my next best option.

And to answer your follow on post, yes it is rare.


STOP already!

They are not infringing on our rights. The state of Texas says our right ends at the door of a owner who wishes to exercise HIS right to prohibit guns on his property. I have a right to mow my grass but my next door neighbor has the right to prohibit me from mowing HIS grass. He is not infringing on my right to mow my grass or to mow grass in general. Are we going to not be neighborly because he is "infringing" on our God given constitutional right to mow grass?

Our right to carry a handgun in this state is limited, lawfully, by statute and supported by SCOTUS. If one wants to exercise more of their rights and take their business elsewhere then they can have at it.

This is a compromise of equally entitled rights as is so many other things. If an owner posts and someone feels the owner is undeserving of patronage then he might just as logically keep someone out even without a gun because he doesn't want the business of someone who likes guns...as is HIS right.

I will go into a business and carry, lawfully, no matter what I perceive the owner's feelings about me are...if I choose...if it PLEASES me or serves MY purpose at the time...or is at or for MY convenience at the time. I don't change my actions because the owner indicates he doesn't like guns with a 30.07 sign. I will then carry concealed, lawfully and by statute.

What I do insist on is that the owner exercise his rights in any prohibition by abiding completely by the same statutes I have to live by.

And if he does so then God bless him. He has the right to exercise his right. Just as I do in the reverse...lawfully. None of this is about right infringement. This is all about personality conflicts or disagreements in philosophies.

tex
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA Pistol Instructor, CFI, CFII, MEI Instructor Pilot

User avatar

KurtFTW
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:45 pm
Location: Victoria, Tx.

Re: 30.07 ?

Postby KurtFTW » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:37 am

thetexan wrote:
STOP already!

They are not infringing on our rights. The state of Texas says our right ends at the door of a owner who wishes to exercise HIS right to prohibit guns on his property. I have a right to mow my grass but my next door neighbor has the right to prohibit me from mowing HIS grass. He is not infringing on my right to mow my grass or to mow grass in general. Are we going to not be neighborly because he is "infringing" on our God given constitutional right to mow grass?

Our right to carry a handgun in this state is limited, lawfully, by statute and supported by SCOTUS. If one wants to exercise more of their rights and take their business elsewhere then they can have at it.

This is a compromise of equally entitled rights as is so many other things. If an owner posts and someone feels the owner is undeserving of patronage then he might just as logically keep someone out even without a gun because he doesn't want the business of someone who likes guns...as is HIS right.

I will go into a business and carry, lawfully, no matter what I perceive the owner's feelings about me are...if I choose...if it PLEASES me or serves MY purpose at the time...or is at or for MY convenience at the time. I don't change my actions because the owner indicates he doesn't like guns with a 30.07 sign. I will then carry concealed, lawfully and by statute.

What I do insist on is that the owner exercise his rights in any prohibition by abiding completely by the same statutes I have to live by.

And if he does so then God bless him. He has the right to exercise his right. Just as I do in the reverse...lawfully. None of this is about right infringement. This is all about personality conflicts or disagreements in philosophies.

tex

:iagree: Well said :thumbs2:
NRA 5 Year Member | Sig Sauer P320


twomillenium
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:42 pm
Location: houston area

Re: 30.07 ?

Postby twomillenium » Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:34 am

thetexan wrote:
STOP already!

They are not infringing on our rights. The state of Texas says our right ends at the door of a owner who wishes to exercise HIS right to prohibit guns on his property. I have a right to mow my grass but my next door neighbor has the right to prohibit me from mowing HIS grass. He is not infringing on my right to mow my grass or to mow grass in general. Are we going to not be neighborly because he is "infringing" on our God given constitutional right to mow grass?

Our right to carry a handgun in this state is limited, lawfully, by statute and supported by SCOTUS. If one wants to exercise more of their rights and take their business elsewhere then they can have at it.

This is a compromise of equally entitled rights as is so many other things. If an owner posts and someone feels the owner is undeserving of patronage then he might just as logically keep someone out even without a gun because he doesn't want the business of someone who likes guns...as is HIS right.

I will go into a business and carry, lawfully, no matter what I perceive the owner's feelings about me are...if I choose...if it PLEASES me or serves MY purpose at the time...or is at or for MY convenience at the time. I don't change my actions because the owner indicates he doesn't like guns with a 30.07 sign. I will then carry concealed, lawfully and by statute.

What I do insist on is that the owner exercise his rights in any prohibition by abiding completely by the same statutes I have to live by.

And if he does so then God bless him. He has the right to exercise his right. Just as I do in the reverse...lawfully. None of this is about right infringement. This is all about personality conflicts or disagreements in philosophies.

tex

:iagree: Excellently said! :tiphat:
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA pistol instructor, RSO, NRA Endowment Life , TSRA, Glock enthusiast (tho I have others)
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to add it to a fruit salad.

You will never know another me, this could be good or not so good, but it is still true.


Alf
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:06 pm

Re: 30.07 ?

Postby Alf » Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:16 pm

warnmar10 wrote:If you can legally carry a rifle are your 2A rights really oppressed? Inconvenient, yes. Oppressed, no. At that point isn't it really just a dress code?

If you can legally sit in the back of the bus, are you really being oppressed? Inconvenienced yes, but...

:leaving


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: 30.07 ?

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:10 pm

thetexan wrote:STOP already!

They are not infringing on our rights. The state of Texas says our right ends at the door of a owner who wishes to exercise HIS right to prohibit guns on his property. I have a right to mow my grass but my next door neighbor has the right to prohibit me from mowing HIS grass. He is not infringing on my right to mow my grass or to mow grass in general. Are we going to not be neighborly because he is "infringing" on our God given constitutional right to mow grass?

Our right to carry a handgun in this state is limited, lawfully, by statute and supported by SCOTUS. If one wants to exercise more of their rights and take their business elsewhere then they can have at it.

This is a compromise of equally entitled rights as is so many other things. If an owner posts and someone feels the owner is undeserving of patronage then he might just as logically keep someone out even without a gun because he doesn't want the business of someone who likes guns...as is HIS right.

I will go into a business and carry, lawfully, no matter what I perceive the owner's feelings about me are...if I choose...if it PLEASES me or serves MY purpose at the time...or is at or for MY convenience at the time. I don't change my actions because the owner indicates he doesn't like guns with a 30.07 sign. I will then carry concealed, lawfully and by statute.

What I do insist on is that the owner exercise his rights in any prohibition by abiding completely by the same statutes I have to live by.

And if he does so then God bless him. He has the right to exercise his right. Just as I do in the reverse...lawfully. None of this is about right infringement. This is all about personality conflicts or disagreements in philosophies.

tex


We can agree to disagree. IMHO rights are granted by our creator. The state may say that they will allow a private property owner to infringe on some rights. But that does not mean those rights no longer exist. It also does not mean that those rights are not being infringed upon. It just means that the state is OK with the infringement. The infringement may be legal, but it is still infringement.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


thetexan
Senior Member
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: 30.07 ?

Postby thetexan » Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:29 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
thetexan wrote:STOP already!

They are not infringing on our rights. The state of Texas says our right ends at the door of a owner who wishes to exercise HIS right to prohibit guns on his property. I have a right to mow my grass but my next door neighbor has the right to prohibit me from mowing HIS grass. He is not infringing on my right to mow my grass or to mow grass in general. Are we going to not be neighborly because he is "infringing" on our God given constitutional right to mow grass?

Our right to carry a handgun in this state is limited, lawfully, by statute and supported by SCOTUS. If one wants to exercise more of their rights and take their business elsewhere then they can have at it.

This is a compromise of equally entitled rights as is so many other things. If an owner posts and someone feels the owner is undeserving of patronage then he might just as logically keep someone out even without a gun because he doesn't want the business of someone who likes guns...as is HIS right.

I will go into a business and carry, lawfully, no matter what I perceive the owner's feelings about me are...if I choose...if it PLEASES me or serves MY purpose at the time...or is at or for MY convenience at the time. I don't change my actions because the owner indicates he doesn't like guns with a 30.07 sign. I will then carry concealed, lawfully and by statute.

What I do insist on is that the owner exercise his rights in any prohibition by abiding completely by the same statutes I have to live by.

And if he does so then God bless him. He has the right to exercise his right. Just as I do in the reverse...lawfully. None of this is about right infringement. This is all about personality conflicts or disagreements in philosophies.

tex


We can agree to disagree. IMHO rights are granted by our creator. The state may say that they will allow a private property owner to infringe on some rights. But that does not mean those rights no longer exist. It also does not mean that those rights are not being infringed upon. It just means that the state is OK with the infringement. The infringement may be legal, but it is still infringement.



I don't disagree. In fact I emphatically agree. It is your right, by virtue of the constitution. Whether or not that right is endowed by our creator, and by being so thus beyond the touch of human interference, is a matter of BELIEF. It was certainly the inspiring belief of our founding fathers. That belief in divine endowment, however, is not what makes it a right LEGALLY. It is the constitution that makes it a legal right. As for me I also, to my core, believe that right IS given to me by my creator and so...we agree again.

What is clear is that the owner is also endowed by HIS creator to have sovereignty over his property and that endowed right is also bestowed upon him in that very same constitution.

The constitution was created under the inspiration of that very "divine endowment" belief...belief...BELIEF!!! (And I believe that also). And, to the best of the founder's ability, they created it to support those believed endowments. How then can our endowed "right" be more deserved than the owner's endowed "right"? Obviously, it can't. So we live in a society where we must balance our collective divinely endowed, constitutionally bestowed rights to live in any kind of harmony.

The reason I would not patronize a theater that is posted is because that posting is the equivalent to a public notice that everyone inside is unarmed and easy targets. It's dangerous to be there...certainly in today's day and age. It's not because I do not think the owner is "worthy" of my patronage because he is stepping on my God given right to carry. If one does not want to come visit me at my home because I insist that they do not smoke inside my home because I am infringing on their "God given right" then I'm not sure their friendship is worth the effort. I have a God given right also.

We 2nd amendment believers sometimes rationalize to the point that we loose the big picture.

I, and everyone reading this, could come up with a hundred examples of how each of our conflicting "rights" must be respected and not be used as a point of contention...as hard as it is for me to do that myself. I could start with the "don't yell fire in the theater" example. Can the yeller of "fire" argue that his God given right to speak freely is being infringed by the legal decision that he cannot do so...that the constitution does not grant him that "God given" right. And that's just one of hundreds of examples.

Many of the people who get worked up because a store owner won't let someone on their property with a gun are the same people who, after yelling "STOP" would shoot a person coming onto THEIR yard or property with a gun, ironically, using the same "sovereignty of ownership" doctrine! Can the guy coming onto your yard with a gun (assuming you don't want that) argue with you as he continues to peacefully walk onto your yard, that he has a God endowed right????!!! I think not.

As I stated earlier, I insist that the owner exercise HIS GOD ENDOWED CONSTITUTIONALLY BESTOWED right to keep me off his property with a gun by the precise requirements of the law...just as he and society insists that you, me, and all of us exercise our GOD ENDOWED CONSTITUTIONALLY BESTOWED right to carry our guns by the precise requirements of the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

That is why I say this is not legitimately a issue of right infringement. It is more of an issue of us gun carriers thinking our God endowed, constitutionally bestowed right is more important, or has higher priority, than the other guy's God endowed, constitutionally bestowed right of sovereignty over his property. Or...that we just don't like people we think are liberal, anti-gun fanatics, which, by the way, many are not; they post simply because they think it has an economic impact on their business.

But it still irritates me that I don't get MY way. That's one of several unseemly forms of human nature we all struggle with. I just have to search my true motivations and rationale when I get this way.

To quote James T. Kirk...."Why... can't we all....just......get along!" :boxing

tex
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA Pistol Instructor, CFI, CFII, MEI Instructor Pilot


Return to “New to CHL?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest