TexasCHLforum.com

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...

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?

Lambda Force wrote:

We're not talking about driving ATV's or hunting on private property, because 30.06/7 signs are irrelevant to that. Why do you think that concealed carriers should not be able to carry CONCEALED, past a "sign", on property otherwise open to the public? Most retail businesses aren't sole proprietorships like Paw Walton's saw mill. So why assume that anyone "with apparent authority" to act for the owners' is representing the owners' interests when they post a "sign". YES, 30.06/7 IS the law today, but it shouldn't need to be... That's the point I think OP and others were making.

Lambda Force wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:I have a novel idea. How about property owner's retain 100% of their rights to ask you to leave, but that the TX government quits providing a sign that makes it an automatic crime.

I disagree. My property is posted No Trespassing. I shouldn't have to chase down trespassers to give them oral notice. They have no moral or legal right to hunt or ride ATVs on my land.

You didn't invite them on your land to buy something by posting a sign that said OPEN and allow them to walk in unmolested. So why should you be able to put up a sign that says they can't carry a lighter in their pocket?

rotor wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

rotor wrote:
This is of course the question. I don't have the answer but in my mind I believe the right to self defense far outweighs a property owners right to decide who can or can not enter private property. After all, we live by the term Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. If you can not protect your life you have nothing. Property rights are important but not above the right to life, therefore the ability to defend ones self. So, in my mind if a property owner takes away my right to self defense he/she should provide for my defense.

I have a novel idea. How about property owner's retain 100% of their rights to ask you to leave, but that the TX government quits providing a sign that makes it an automatic crime.

Property owners have never had 100% of their rights to ask you to leave. There are protected classes that will scream foul at the first hint of a violation of their rights. Unfortunately the ability to use a firearm to save your life does not put you into one of those protected classes. If Texas did not provide sign language than any gunbuster sign might be valid.

We've got lots of protected classes in the current 30.06/7 law, why not expand them. Right now 30.06/7 doesn't apply to cops, special investigators (Feds), or anyone else not carrying under LTC (MPA, traveling, sporting activities, hunting, etc.) It doesn't apply to employees, or anyone else carrying concealed in their car.

The only reason the criminal offense of 30.06/7 can't be eliminated is because the business lobby will oppose it in the Legislature. Similar to the Volunteer Church Security being opposed by the Private Security crony capitalists. There's really no legitimate property rights argument to criminalize concealed carry. Unless an "owner" takes action to prevent concealed carry like frisking, wanding, and metal detectors, why make a "sign" violation a criminal act. And as I've said before, 99% of the places that are off limits are "owned" by large diverse groups who likely couldn't even come to a consensus about CCW even if they cared. Why must I be concerned about what someone "with apparent authority" to act for the owners of ExxonMobil thinks? I'm a shareholder/owner and I never got a vote. And for the record, as an owner, I wish everyone to open and/or conceal carry on Exxon property should you so desire.

Jusme wrote: The problem with this argument, is that you are/were not compelled by law to enter the private property in question. Even if it a condition of employment, the argument could be made, that you could get another job. Therefore you always have the option of walking away.
Even agent's of the state are forbidden to enter private property without either the consent of the property owner, or after obtaining a warrant.

A person should have the option to decide what behavior, is tolerated on their property. That includes the carrying of firearms. The problem with the argument of having the right to life outweighing the rights of the property owner, comes down to the fact that, by not entering the property, your life is in no danger, so the property owner is under no obligation to protect you, if you choose to enter and follow the rules, by disarming.

The only place that I go where I really have no choice, is when I visit someone in a hospital. There is not another posted business, that I have run across, that I didn't have another option to take my money.

Why must the State be obligated to use violence (police power) to enforce the property owner's wishes. If you don't want me to enter carrying concealed, put up a metal detector, and physically bar me from entry.

Cops carrying and employees carrying in their cars are already exempt from property owners wishes, at least as a matter of criminal law. If we can do it for employees, why not for the public otherwise invited to enter?

Texian wrote:Why not abolish 30.06 and 30.07 and adopt the wording of the "Blue" sign currently required by the TABC instead. I am opposed to unlicensed constitutional carry.

Are you opposed to unlicensed rifle carry? It's been legal in Texas since the Republic.

Good point. And the circle slash Beretta signs means they don't like Berettas, not "No Trespassing".

srothstein wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

srothstein wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:The first and second amendment are only limited to protecting you from the government, and are therefore invalid on private property.

I know that you wrote this sentence with your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek, but it is really an accurate statement and we should all think about it. The Second Amendment does not apply to my private property if I, as the owner, says it does not. It is solely a restriction on the government, which is also why the government cannot legally post 30.06 signs.

The First Amendment also does not apply on private property (except in a few very rare cases). I do not have to allow you on my property to post any sign I do not want there. I do not have to allow you to post anything I want on an Internet web site that I own. You have full freedom of speech when the government does not do anything to restrict you, but certainly may censor you on my page. And as a quite simple proof that we all recognize this, I will point out how many people have been banned from this forum. I know that Charles is very tolerant of dissenting opinions, but banning people for the way they express that opinion (for example profanity or personal attacks) is still a form of censorship that we all accept, and possibly even request. I the lack of personal attacks and courtesy shown are some of the reasons I like the forum.

The government doesn't HAVE to grant you the "privilege" of excluding people with force of law from carrying on your publicly open property by using a sign... In fact in Texas they don't, if you're a cop, or employee carrying in your vehicle. I'm also still not convinced that a "no Trump hats" sign in your publicly open business (say Grapevine Mills Mall) invokes criminal trespass if someone ignores it.

Common carriers like the phone and internet company are forced to accept all payers regardless of the content of the traffic, unless such traffic is illegal (like child porn or communication in furtherance of a crime).

A private forum like this one may post conduct rules and edit, delete, ban users or posts, but it's doubtful whether criminal trespass could be invoked (under the concept of trespass to chattel) in advance for someone breaking the rules....Maybe if they hacked into the board AFTER being warned off.

The newspaper doesn't HAVE to take your gun ad because of the 1st amendment, but if you sneak it in the classifieds, the paper can't use the government to prosecute you criminally for posting it...can they?

The government doesn't HAVE to do much, but there is a difference between requiring it to do something (have to) and allowing it to. The fact that they do not have to pass laws to enforce my personal property rights does not mean that they cannot or should not do so. Carried to its extreme, your argument could be extended to saying the government does not have to make criminal trespass a crime at all under any circumstances. I think it is reasonable to do so and should be done, but you may feel free to disagree. I also happen to disagree with the exceptions to criminal trespass for both cops and LTC in the parking lot. If it is my property, I get to say who or what comes on it, period. Obviously, I have not yet convinced the legislature or the courts of this position.

As for the forum rules, it can be argued that if you break them knowingly, you can be prosecuted. The specific law would be section 33.02 of the Penal Code, Breach of Computer Security. The concept is the exact same as for criminal trespass. It says you have committed the offense if you access my system without my effective consent. Since my consent was based on your obeying the forum rules, as acknowledged by you when you created the login, it is then posting without my effective consent and becomes a crime the same way.

And yes, posting a no Trump hat sign would mean that a person is guilty of criminal trespass when they enter with one. I am unaware of any specific case of a Trump hat, but I am aware of several bars and restaurants with very specific dress codes (or even vaguer ones like no biker gear or no gang clothing) that have had successful prosecutions for criminal trespass when the dress code is violated.

Better look again at the common carrier side of things. That was part of what the whole "net neutrality" controversy was all about. It is still winding its way through courts to see if the regulations are legal or not.

But I will admit that the newspaper issue is an interesting case. I am unaware of any laws on it, if only done in print. But they can certainly sue you for the violation of their policies.

The government doesn't HAVE to create a crime of criminal trespass, though it has in almost every state that I'm aware of. And what it almost never does, is make the trespass statute a criminal enforcement mechanism for contracts or "rules" on publicly open property, without requiring that you be asked to leave or denied entry in the first place. The whole idea of "signs" barring specific activity on publicly open property came up in 1995 when AG Morales issued an opinion stating that it was the legislature's intent to allow 30.05 to be used to bar entry to private property by CHL, because there was no other statute applicable. When 30.06 passed the issue became moot.

In order to get a criminal trespass conviction for a dress code violation in a public venue, I suspect there would be additional circumstances that made it clear that the "biker" was not permitted to enter the property.. been there before and warned off...stared at the sign, and walked in in full regalia while being observed and motioned off, etc. It's a bit of stretch to assume that prosecutor would take a 30.05 prosecution for walking past a "no Trump hats sign, unless the "Trumpian" was told to leave and failed to depart. When you read the statute it seems clear that it was intended to prevent you from coming on private property not open to the public, and for allowing an owner to revoke permission AFTER granting you entry. I haven't seen where it's been held in Texas to apply as a criminal enforcement of a property owner's "house rules". If you walk into a "coat and tie" required restaurant tieless I question the ability of the proprietor to have you arrested if you leave after he tells you to. If I violate my company policy by showing up for work late, can they have me arrested for trespass? Because my permission to be on the property is given only if I comply with the employee handbook?

In PC 33.02 I think the Forum might have a hard time establishing a crime if a person with a valid user ID subsequently violated the rules...As in any private forum the rules are interpreted by the owner, and hard to establish a bright enough line for when a violation becomes illegal access. Illegal access is really more breaking and entering ("picking the lock" by hacking a userid) or logging in by "trickery" after you've already been kicked out.

Getting "trespassed" for breaking the house rules has a pretty high bar in common law and most case law. At the least, you have to be clearly made aware that your permission to be on the property is subject to certain conditions. A circle slash Beretta sign probably isn't going to cut it in prohibiting a concealed rifle. Or vague/arbitrary rules...No Trump hats, shirts...I don't see the prosecutor taking the case. Some states REQUIRE that you be given a chance to depart a publicly open place before you can be prosecuted (defiant trespass). And I question whether 30.05 applies to hidden conduct (pink briefs, Trump shirt under your jacket).

Last if the Dallas Morning News sues me for violating their classified ad rules by posting my MAC10 for sale, I believe the case will be thrown out because there is no provable damage. I seriously doubt they can have me arrested, as breaking a contract is a civil not a criminal matter.

srothstein wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:The first and second amendment are only limited to protecting you from the government, and are therefore invalid on private property.

I know that you wrote this sentence with your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek, but it is really an accurate statement and we should all think about it. The Second Amendment does not apply to my private property if I, as the owner, says it does not. It is solely a restriction on the government, which is also why the government cannot legally post 30.06 signs.

The First Amendment also does not apply on private property (except in a few very rare cases). I do not have to allow you on my property to post any sign I do not want there. I do not have to allow you to post anything I want on an Internet web site that I own. You have full freedom of speech when the government does not do anything to restrict you, but certainly may censor you on my page. And as a quite simple proof that we all recognize this, I will point out how many people have been banned from this forum. I know that Charles is very tolerant of dissenting opinions, but banning people for the way they express that opinion (for example profanity or personal attacks) is still a form of censorship that we all accept, and possibly even request. I the lack of personal attacks and courtesy shown are some of the reasons I like the forum.

The government doesn't HAVE to grant you the "privilege" of excluding people with force of law from carrying on your publicly open property by using a sign... In fact in Texas they don't, if you're a cop, or employee carrying in your vehicle. I'm also still not convinced that a "no Trump hats" sign in your publicly open business (say Grapevine Mills Mall) invokes criminal trespass if someone ignores it.

Common carriers like the phone and internet company are forced to accept all payers regardless of the content of the traffic, unless such traffic is illegal (like child porn or communication in furtherance of a crime).

A private forum like this one may post conduct rules and edit, delete, ban users or posts, but it's doubtful whether criminal trespass could be invoked (under the concept of trespass to chattel) in advance for someone breaking the rules....Maybe if they hacked into the board AFTER being warned off.

The newspaper doesn't HAVE to take your gun ad because of the 1st amendment, but if you sneak it in the classifieds, the paper can't use the government to prosecute you criminally for posting it...can they?

infoman wrote:I like that we have a license a person must qualify for to legally carry in public. All you have to do is obey the law & you can get an LTC. Those that break the laws & are not eligible based on our current criteria don't deserve to enjoy the same priveledges as good law abiding citizens. As far as the places posting 30.06/30.07 signs, that's their right as property owners. If you don't like it- take your business somewhere else.

I think there should be a license to write articles on the Internet, and if you don't meet the requirements and pay the $140 fee for your LTW then you don't deserve the same 1st amendment privileges as good rule following citizens...

And if somebody puts up a circle slash elephant (Republican) sign on their private business, then it's their right to have you arrested and incarcerated by the state for going into their business with a Trump hat on. It's like a "no shirt-no shoes no service" sign or a circle slash Beretta sticker. Kind of like a dress code for politics.

The first and second amendment are only limited to protecting you from the government, and are therefore invalid on private property. And the government can impose common sense restrictions like requiring you to keep your gun disassembled at home, or prohibiting making a movie about a candidate during election season. In fact, per election law, you can't publish a book trying to influence an election unless you are a licensed journalist, or limit your support of the book to a certain amount determined by the FEC.

Also if you are part of a corporation you don't have any 1st or 2nd amendment rights. Corporations are not people and in order to keep dark money from the 1% from influencing elections you need to be silenced. Only unions and illegal aliens have rights under the 1st and 2nd amendment.