You are trying to compare two totally different issues; 1) carrying a handgun on your person; and 2) having a handgun in your car in a parking lot.tacticool wrote:How is this different than the argument about needing two signs if open carry is decriminalized? If a 30.06 sign is sufficient for MPA, why wouldn't it be sufficient for OC handguns? And vice versa.Charles L. Cotton wrote:That would certainly be my argument if I were defending a criminal trespass charge under those circumstances, however, it's not that clear. Remember, TPC §30.05 is the code section that applies to trespass for everyone for every reason, other than a CHL carrying a handgun. Remember too that TPC §30.05 does not require any specific language like that required by TPC §30.06. It would be hard to argue that a 30.06 sign didn't get the message across (for purposes of TPC §30.05) that the property owner didn't want guns on the property.sjfcontrol wrote:I think the point is that 30.06 only applies to CHL holders. Carrying in a car is legal for EVERYBODY (with certain restrictions) thanks to the Motorist Protection Act. Therefore leaving a firearm in your car would NOT be illegal even in a 30.06-posted lot.
Chas.
Then there's long guns. I always have at least one in my vehicle and like I said in the PCC thread, I've carried a concealed Kel-Tec carbine where it's legal but CHL handguns are prohibited.
Note that I said "it's not that clear" that a 30.06 sign will or will not suffice as notice under TPC §30.05. If open-carry were to pass, the legislature will not leave property owners in a quandary as to what they need to do to prohibit open and concealed carry. TPC §30.06 will be amended to cover any licensed carrying of handguns. (This presumes any OC bill will be licensed OC.) Suggestions by OC supporters that the legislature require a 30.06 sign for concealed-carry and something else that applies only to open-carry will never pass; it's too burdensome on business owners.
It is generally illegal to carry a handgun without a CHL, so you won't be walking into Home Depot with an openly-carried handgun without going to jail. TPC §30.05 isn't needed to cover OC since it's already illegal.
The parking lot is a different issue. The only thing the MPA protects is having a handgun on or about your person while you are in your car. Businesses don't seem to care about keeping guns out of parking lots, except for employees. I've only seen one parking lot with a 30.06 sign and it was ineffective because it was a school. When you first argued that we currently have a two-sign requirement, it was in the context of prohibiting open-carry in buildings, not having guns in a locked, parked car.
Here is an interesting side note. If the courts were to hold that, under current law, a 30.06 sign is sufficient notice under TPC §30.05, then that's precisely what business owners would post to prohibit open-carry and people wanting to carry concealed would be prejudiced.
Chas.
Risking that now, I'd like to renew a question: what is the core of the right protected by the 2A that is beyond government regulation? The whole point of a Bill of Rights was to take certain pre-existing things and shield them from government interference/regulation/infringement. The case law has already been developed for many amendments and will be for the 2A over the next many years. Given that the McDonald decision said that the Court declines to have one set of rules for the 2A and another for the other parts of the Bill of Rights, I think we can look to the 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A decisions for some guidance.