Search found 2 matches

by Vol Texan
Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:02 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 13376

Re: another 30.06 question

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.
by Vol Texan
Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:48 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: another 30.06 question
Replies: 84
Views: 13376

Re: another 30.06 question

CZp10 wrote:
C-dub wrote: Is it just me or do these two sentences seem contradictory?
Thank you for posting. I don’t see them as contradictory since I respect the right of any private property owner to be able to ask anyone to leave. My problem is specifically how the law is written. The fact that a sign makes a concealed carry person a criminal is what I want changed. I am not opposed to them asking me to leave, and (although I don’t like it) I am not even complaining about having to pay a fine if I accidently enter a business with a sign. A civil matter is not a big deal, but a permanent criminal conviction is a serious thing.

In a perfect world I would like to be able to carry anywhere law enforcement can carry, and I would be willing to pay for significant extra training to obtain that right. We need many, many more well trained, responsible, armed citizens ready to stop bad things from happening.

I posted above with the list of places we go a lot, I was simply disheartened to learn how many businesses have 30.06 signs, and that is in addition to any federal land, amusement parks, houses of worship, schools, etc.
I definitely understand your thought pattern here.

I agree with the idea that a private property owner should have the right to decide who comes on the property. But applying the force of law to one specific sign, for one specific kind of person seems like it should go away.

Sure, a 'no trespassing' sign has the force of law that applies to all - cross it and you have legal consequences. But that applies to everyone, not just a select few. 'No shoes, no shirt, no service' is a simple enough sign to understand, but if you ignore it and walk inside, then (a) you can still be asked to leave, and (b) you have not broken the law just by walking inside.

Now, the folks where were here when the original CHL laws were passed will tell us about how the 30.06 was a good compromise, and without it, we never would have gotten CHL passed in the first place. There were powers to be that wanted any old sign to have the force of law, but they successfully the 30.06 rules passed so that we wouldn't be criminally responsible for accidentally missing an easily miss-able sign.

I'm glad that original compromise was made, in order to get the CHL program off the ground here in Texas. I was also happy when it got changed so that if I accidentally miss a sign, I now get a Class C instead of a Class A misdemeanor. I'll be even happier if and when they remove the force of law altogether from the signs.

Note that I'm NOT advocating limitation of private property rights. I do believe those are important. However, I will be happy if and when private property rights would be applied equally so that oral notice is valid every time, but with no exceptions carved out in the law that adds the force of law to just one type of sign, for just one class of citizen.

And, welcome to the forum!

Return to “another 30.06 question”