TexasCHLforum.com

Vol Texan wrote:Charles,

I do agree that 30.06 saved the program, and I do agree that it is MUCH better than the alternative of 'no guns' signs being valid for us. The history of the program is very important, but I'm of the mind that the future could be better.

It seems that if we follow the thread of logic presented in the OP (which I've also thought of in the past), then sure, any business can ask anyone to leave for any reason (e.g. being disruptive, dressed inappropriately, bad smell, or no reason at all), but if that reason happens to conflict with a civil right (e.g. I've told a gay couple I don't want them holding hands in here, so I asked them to leave), then it's not legal.

The courts have been used lately as the 'hammer' to force such things (think about the cake designer who was forced to make a cake for a gay couple, or the student who was not allowed into the law school because the standards applied to her race were higher than to other races). It may have to be that the court becomes the vehicle for tossing out 30.06. Not tossing out in the direction of valid 'no guns' signs, but instead tossing it out in the direction of 'you cannot categorically discriminate against someone who is exercising their right to carry'.

I welcome your opinion on this.

Note I said 'categorically discriminate'. I still believe any private property owner should be allowed to single out an individual for expulsion from their property. As a business owner, I should be able to walk up to anyone and say, "I'd prefer you to leave the store, as you're being disruptive to my other guests for ....(name your reason)." But a sign, preventing a whole class of people from entering (white, black, Asian, straight, gay, young, old) should not be allowed - in my perfect world view.

30.06 doesn't infringe on your rights In any way shape or form. You (I) have no "right" to be on private property not our own, regardless of wether it's open to public or not. Therefore, you (I) can make a choice about wether to accept the conditions set by the owner for entry onto said property.

Based on that logic, minorities and the handicapped have the right to choose not to shop in a place where there are anti signs posted. I see it as a safety issue. I consider my daily carry the same as any other tool that maintains my health and safety like my asthma rescue inhaler.

M. Ball Moe

Winchster wrote:

30.06 doesn't infringe on your rights In any way shape or form. You (I) have no "right" to be on private property not our own, regardless of wether it's open to public or not. Therefore, you (I) can make a choice about wether to accept the conditions set by the owner for entry onto said property.

I understand your position completely, and as a business owner, I do feel the same way. But relating back to the OP's comments, I'm repeating the idea that there is a difference between 'private property' such as your home versus 'private property' such as a business that you've decided to open up to the public, such as a retail store.

The courts have, in recent years, heightened this distinction. They've been requiring businesses to do things they have not otherwise wanted to do, in the name of civil rights. Given that, it's not a big extrapolation to include the 2nd Amendment within those same civil rights.

I agree this is a slippery slope, but it's one that the left has already started for us. Why would we not want to allow rights that are favored by conservatives to not also be included in the party?

I understand why others may not agree strongly. I also waiver on this. But I like the discussion.

Embalmo wrote:Based on that logic, minorities and the handicapped have the right to choose not to shop in a place where there are anti signs posted. I see it as a safety issue. I consider my daily carry the same as any other tool that maintains my health and safety like my asthma rescue inhaler.

M. Ball Moe

Not at all. Minorities are protected by federal law (Civil Rights Act) and the handicapped are protected by the Americans With Disabilities Act. That's the only reason a business cannot bar people from entering solely because they are a minority and why they must install wheelchair ramps in new construction.

Chas.

Vol Texan wrote:

Winchster wrote:

30.06 doesn't infringe on your rights In any way shape or form. You (I) have no "right" to be on private property not our own, regardless of wether it's open to public or not. Therefore, you (I) can make a choice about wether to accept the conditions set by the owner for entry onto said property.

I understand your position completely, and as a business owner, I do feel the same way. But relating back to the OP's comments, I'm repeating the idea that there is a difference between 'private property' such as your home versus 'private property' such as a business that you've decided to open up to the public, such as a retail store.

The courts have, in recent years, heightened this distinction. They've been requiring businesses to do things they have not otherwise wanted to do, in the name of civil rights. Given that, it's not a big extrapolation to include the 2nd Amendment within those same civil rights.

I agree this is a slippery slope, but it's one that the left has already started for us. Why would we not want to allow rights that are favored by conservatives to not also be included in the party?

I understand why others may not agree strongly. I also waiver on this. But I like the discussion.

As I noted earlier, I'm with the group that believes private property used for business purposes should not be allowed to bar armed CHLs. I lost that battle.

Now I'll play devils advocate on the issue of signs not being enforceable. "Mr. Cotton, you want us to pass your bill that would render all no trespassing signs unenforceable, right? Then in order for a property owner to prevent people walking around their store with guns the store owner or employee must approach an armed person and tell them to leave. Do I have that right Mr. Cotton?" My answer of "yes" to both of those questions will leave the committee members wondering if I am finally too old to keep doing this. The legislature will never make a property owner confront an armed person to make them leave the property. I don't even support that concept, but as a trial attorney, I've had to advocate positions I don't like. It would be much easier to pass a bill preventing business property to be posed with 30.06 signs, and that is impossible.

Chas.

Embalmo wrote:Based on that logic, minorities and the handicapped have the right to choose not to shop in a place where there are anti signs posted. I see it as a safety issue. I consider my daily carry the same as any other tool that maintains my health and safety like my asthma rescue inhaler.

M. Ball Moe

Not exactly, a person cannot do anything about the color of their skin and neither can the handicapped do anything about their condition. We, on the other hand, have a choice regarding ours.

Vol Texan wrote:
I understand your position completely, and as a business owner, I do feel the same way. But relating back to the OP's comments, I'm repeating the idea that there is a difference between 'private property' such as your home versus 'private property' such as a business that you've decided to open up to the public, such as a retail store.

The courts have, in recent years, heightened this distinction. They've been requiring businesses to do things they have not otherwise wanted to do, in the name of civil rights. Given that, it's not a big extrapolation to include the 2nd Amendment within those same civil rights.

Exactly my point. I myself am in favor of incorporating my RTBA within my freedom of religion. I am an ordained minister. Anyone want to join my church? We handle firearms as part of our communing. And we carry wherever we go as part of our beliefs. And we just want to exercise our religious freedoms in carrying past 30.06 signs as a showing of faith.

Winchster wrote:

Embalmo wrote:Based on that logic, minorities and the handicapped have the right to choose not to shop in a place where there are anti signs posted. I see it as a safety issue. I consider my daily carry the same as any other tool that maintains my health and safety like my asthma rescue inhaler.

M. Ball Moe

Not exactly, a person cannot do anything about the color of their skin and neither can the handicapped do anything about their condition. We, on the other hand, have a choice regarding ours.

And I can't do anything about the potential dangers of a place that invites the general public when doing a constitutionally legal act necessary for self preservation. Sounds a little like the beast feeding in public argument to me. Guns are for self defense. It is legal for me to carry a gun. There is inherent danger in visiting a place that exchanges goods and services for cash and invites the public.

It really just boils down to wether or not you believe you have a right to be on someone else's property or not. I don't believe you have that right. Therefore, my right to carry isn't impeded at all unless I choose it to be.

Now, if you want to get into where your right is violated we can discuss places you are required to go that you are prohibited but that is another thread.

I'm all for lowering the penalty for 30.06. I do think it's to high now and way to easy to just not notice and then find you have committed what ends up being a pretty major crime. That being said I am a strong advocate of private property rights and think that 30.06 is a good balance between their rights and ours. It's a reasonable large and complicated sign that if the business owners put up correctly then I think it makes clear there desires and it shouldn't take anymore than that to keep firearms out. Heck you can paint a purple stripe and that works for trespassing but for guns you you have to confront someone? I would very much like a lessening of the penalty but would be against any additional requirements for 30.06

OK, I'm seeing a problem here....

On the one hand, most of you sided with the baker felt he shouldn't HAVE to bake a cake for a gay couple. whether or not he wanted to, it was that he HAD to or close down, couldn't choose. And most of you said he should be able to choose.

And now here you are saying that a business shouldn't get to choose who they do business with, ie, if the customer has a gun.

y'all are confusing me.

Outnumbered wrote:As others have said, it doesn't seem right to me that a sign on a business (which I might not even see as I am chatting with my family when I enter) can turn me into a criminal and make me lose my CHL. I would rather see no penalty, but if that is not palatable, how about lowering it to class C for walking past a sign and keeping the higher penalty for those who are confronted and refuse to leave?

Call me paranoid, but I am hyper-vigilant as I approach the entrance to a business with the intent of identifying a 30.06 sign. I do this for two reasons. #1 If I have no choice but to enter the business, ie: a medical facility where I am seeking treatment, I want to be certain not to carry. #2 If I have a choice, ie: restaurant, retail business, etc I make sure to take my business elsewhere and make it a point to call the company and tell them that they lost my business as a result of the 30.06 sign.

Just my 2 cents.

SewTexas wrote:OK, I'm seeing a problem here....

On the one hand, most of you sided with the baker felt he shouldn't HAVE to bake a cake for a gay couple. whether or not he wanted to, it was that he HAD to or close down, couldn't choose. And most of you said he should be able to choose.

And now here you are saying that a business shouldn't get to choose who they do business with, ie, if the customer has a gun.

y'all are confusing me.

Of the two scenarios you mention, only one of them deals with a constitutionally protected right.
I hope that clears up the confusion.

SewTexas wrote:OK, I'm seeing a problem here....

On the one hand, most of you sided with the baker felt he shouldn't HAVE to bake a cake for a gay couple. whether or not he wanted to, it was that he HAD to or close down, couldn't choose. And most of you said he should be able to choose.

And now here you are saying that a business shouldn't get to choose who they do business with, ie, if the customer has a gun.

y'all are confusing me.

The point is not whether any of us believe the baker should be forced to bake that cake (that's a separate discussion which would not be allowed on this board ). The point here is that the government already forces the baker to bake that cake, among many many other things, and unless you think that train can be turned around any time soon, we gun owners are - to our detriment I believe - clinging to a notion of private property rights that simply doesn't exist anymore and probably never will again, if it ever did to begin with.

As far as I can tell, nobody but us (gun owners) even bothers to consider the rights of private property owners in the equation. The gay rights groups certainly don't care about the baker's right to refuse service to anyone - they go to the cities and states and demand anti-discrimination laws that favor their position and then they go to the courts and demand those laws be interpreted and enforced in their favor, and they win. The environmental groups don't try to balance their belief that plastic bags are evil with HEB's right to package its groceries how it sees fit - they go to city councils and demand ordinances forbidding any store from using plastic bags, and they win.

These are just two examples, but as I said before, there are hundreds if not thousands of others we could list. The point is that private businesses that open their doors to the public already don't have the absolute right to control what happens on their private property. I wish they did and if I were king they would, but they don't. In light of that, I am having an increasingly difficult time understanding why gun owners, in particular licensed concealed carriers, allow businesses to discriminate against us in the name of a property right that nobody else even acknowledges anymore, to say nothing of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms we're allowing those property rights to trump.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Tex. Penal Code §30.06 was not part of the original CHL bill (SB60 in 1995). It was added by HB2909 in 1997.

Prior to the creation of TPC §30.06 in 1997, TPC §30.05 applied to everyone including CHLs and any generic "no guns" sign or small decals were enforceable. That's precisely why §30.06 was created. We didn't go out of our way to make it easier to exclude armed CHLs, we made it much harder. The goal was to make very sure that a CHL didn't inadvertently enter a store and face a Class A misdemeanor charge because they missed a small decal.

As for other groups, I can prohibit anyone other than a CHL from entering my property by using small §30.05 sign or decal, so long as I'm not trying to exclude them because they are in a protected class.

Many people who were not here in 1995 - 1997 are not fully aware why and how TPC §30.06 is so critically important to CHLs. That's why I always tell the history of §30.06 in all of my CHL classes.


Chas.

Thank you, that is very helpful. I see where you're coming from.

Let me ask this for clarification. Say I didn't want people with tattoos in my store. I post a "No Tattoos" sign on the door. Somebody in a long sleeve shirt comes in and as he's reaching for a can of tuna, his sleeve rises up to reveal a tattoo. What are the legal implications? I can theoretically call the police and have that person arrested for trespassing, and potentially subject to the same penalties as crossing a 30.06 sign?

I guess I'm trying to confirm that 30.06 deals with trespassing, not necessarily carry. Which means if we were to try to attack this legislatively, we'd have to approach it more from that angle and that's why you get the resistance you do?

If my understanding then is correct, I'd have to say that the trespassing laws themselves seem particularly harsh, not just for CHL but for everything. It seems more reasonable to me to first require a verbal request to leave with a kind of "no harm, no foul" out, then impose the penalties if the person refuses.

Anyway, very interesting discussion and I'm learning a lot. Thank you for allowing it.