An argument against 30.06

[A-R]

I liked Purplehood's argument in another thread against even having a 30.06 sign at all so much that I'm reposting it here as a new thread ....

If it comes right down to it we shouldn't even have 30.06 signs. We carry concealed, we keep them concealed. If for some reason an owner of private property becomes aware that someone is carrying, then they can give that someone verbal notice. Otherwise, they don't need to know.

I REALLY like this argument. What the business owner doesn't know won't hurt him. Some business owners may have a problem (moral, religious, whatever) with other things about a customer or that a customer carries on or attached to their body (I'm going stop RIGHT HERE before I break forum rules with any detailed descriptions), but that owner has no right to prohibit a person from having that legal item on them while on their property. So why are guns any different (I know why - politics - but I'm talking about what the law SHOULD BE).

Anyway, I yield the floor ...

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Very well said by both.

[Mike1951]

I don't advocate 30.06 signs, but I suspect some of you are too new to Texas concealed carry to remember that during 1996 and most of 1997 any type of no guns or gunbuster sign served as legal notice.

Creating a standard for a huge, ugly sign in 1997 was a great step forward.

[frazzled]

It has been a time honored historical tradition that property owners could restrict firearms via signs. COuld 500 westerns be wrong?

[Purplehood]

I have a knee-jerk reaction to tradition...but no need to go into that.
My feelings would be as follows:
If you OC, you honor any sign you see on private property (not public).
If you CC, you CC until and unless given verbal notice on private property.
In my perfect world there would be very few places that carry would be restricted.

[frazzled]

I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

[Dragonfighter]

I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

My argument is, and always has been this. There is a difference with private property domicile, private property with restricted access (individual ID, key card or other security) and private property open to the public. Exclusive vs. inclusive as it were.

In the latter case, a store or restaurant for example, anyone can enter and shop. There are not security checks or handbag searches to gain entry so any person regardless of appearance, race, sex or even criminal history can come and go as they please...during business hours. In THIS case I think we can and should tell a business owner that if you allow unfettered access to the general public then you can not restrict persons who are exercising other legal rights, especially those that are non invasive like concealed carry.

In the meantime, education and boycott are our only viable alternatives.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I wish we could prevent any business owner from making their commercial property off-limits to armed CHL's, but we can't.

As already mentioned, TPC §30.06 and the famous/infamous big, ugly 30.06 sign was created to deter property owners from prohibiting armed CHL's from coming on their property. If there were a way to make it unlawful for a business owner to prohibit armed CHL's from coming on their property we would have done so. That's absolutely impossible; even our friends are divided when we start talking about private property rights, even commercial property.

It would also be impossible to amend TPC §30.06 to require/allow only verbal notice. We couldn't even get a hearing on such a bill. So the big, ugly sign is still the best deterrent we have to the posting of private property.

As an aside, as a private property owner, I most certainly can limit access to my property for any reason whatsoever, so long as it doesn't violate federal law (law, not the Constitution). I can't exclude people based upon raced, gender, age, etc., but that's because of the civil rights act, not the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution protects our right to worship, but I could prohibit entry onto my property by anyone carrying a Bible, or a cross or who is praying; the Constitution protects the right of fee speech, but I can have a rule that "anyone who talks can't stay on my property." Just because an act is lawful doesn't mean you have an unfettered right to do it on private property.

Chas.

[A-R]

I don't advocate 30.06 signs, but I suspect some of you are too new to Texas concealed carry to remember that during 1996 and most of 1997 any type of no guns or gunbuster sign served as legal notice.

Creating a standard for a huge, ugly sign in 1997 was a great step forward.

Been CHL for 12 years now, but I agree with your statement above. 30.06 is a HUGE improvement over what was considered an off-limits sign in the beginning (and what still makes buildings off limits in other states). But why stop there?

I don't foresee 30.06 going away any time soon, I just REALLY liked Purplehood's thought process on this matter. Really makes a lot of rational sense to me (which is why government will never implement it )

[A-R]

I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

My argument is, and always has been this. There is a difference with private property domicile, private property with restricted access (individual ID, key card or other security) and private property open to the public. Exclusive vs. inclusive as it were.

In the latter case, a store or restaurant for example, anyone can enter and shop. There are not security checks or handbag searches to gain entry so any person regardless of appearance, race, sex or even criminal history can come and go as they please...during business hours. In THIS case I think we can and should tell a business owner that if you allow unfettered access to the general public then you can not restrict persons who are exercising other legal rights, especially those that are non invasive like concealed carry.

In the meantime, education and boycott are our only viable alternatives.

I can also see an invasion of privacy argument with 30.06 (a stretch I know, but bear with me) ... name another item that is legal to possess outside a typical private business that is open to the general public but then becomes not only against the "rules" or "company policy" but becomes a CRIME if that legally possessed item is carried into the open-to-the-public business?

I strongly agree with Dragonfighter's division of types of private property. And if a private business open to the public wants to prohibit something that I have hidden privately on my person, then they need to search EVERYONE who enters the facility (in the interest of fairness and not profiling of course ). If you post 30.06, then you must also install metal detectors and search handbags to ensure the safety of your customers. This way the entire public is subject to the same level of invasion of privacy in order to enter the business. You're not singling out a particular group of people who live a particular lifestyle which they keep PRIVATE (concealed means concealed). And if anyone does not agree to this invasion of their privacy, then they are free to shop elsewhere.

[A-R]

I wish we could prevent any business owner from making their commercial property off-limits to armed CHL's, but we can't.

As already mentioned, TPC §30.06 and the famous/infamous big, ugly 30.06 sign was created to deter property owners from prohibiting armed CHL's from coming on their property. If there were a way to make it unlawful for a business owner to prohibit armed CHL's from coming on their property we would have done so. That's absolutely impossible; even our friends are divided when we start talking about private property rights, even commercial property.

It would also be impossible to amend TPC §30.06 to require/allow only verbal notice. We couldn't even get a hearing on such a bill. So the big, ugly sign is still the best deterrent we have to the posting of private property.

As an aside, as a private property owner, I most certainly can limit access to my property for any reason whatsoever, so long as it doesn't violate federal law (law, not the Constitution). I can't exclude people based upon raced, gender, age, etc., but that's because of the civil rights act, not the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution protects our right to worship, but I could prohibit entry onto my property by anyone carrying a Bible, or a cross or who is praying; the Constitution protects the right of fee speech, but I can have a rule that "anyone who talks can't stay on my property." Just because an act is lawful doesn't mean you have an unfettered right to do it on private property.

Chas.

Charles, I greatly respect all you've done for CHL in this state and agree 30.06 is probably the best we can hope for. This whole thread is sort of a pie in the sky academic exercise in a way. But - and I'm setting myself up for a whuppin by arguing the law with an attorney, I realize - it seems to me that 30.06 singles out CHLees for CRIMINAL TRESPASS in a way that no other statute does (my knowledge on such things being miniscule at best). Let me throw out some examples and get your input:

If I post "No solicting" on my front door and someone comes up and knocks on my door selling the latest widget, can they be prosecuted for trespassing? I have a no solicting and no trespassing notce on my door and get door hangers, business cards, and occasional knocks anyway (usally from non-English speaking rent-a-worker types)

If I post "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and someone enters without shoes or shirt, they won't get served, but can they be prosecuted?

If I walk past a 30.06 while carrying, I've automatically broken the law, right? In what other instance (other than an actual 30.05 TRESPASSING notice) does this happen? In what other instance can some particular thing about ME (and not merely the fact that I'm on your property at all) cause me to be immediately in breach of the law?

This is what I like so much about Purplehood's idea on the subject. If I am on your property doing that which you do not condone and you tell me to leave, then yes I must immediately turn around 180 degrees and vacate the property. And if I am on any private property at all with a 30.05 NO TRESPASSING notice (regardless of my dress or items I have with me), then I have already violated the law.

But for anything other than 30.06 or 30.05, can crossing a mere sign that says "NO ________" (with the blank being a tangible otherwise legal object) be an automatic violation of the law? This is the problem with this law that Purplehood's idea so eloquently fixes, IMHO.

If open carry were to some day be legal, then any "no guns" sign would be equivalent to a "no trespassing" sign for open carriers. But as long as a gun remains concealed (with obvious exceptions for acceptable unconcealment for self-defense as defined by relevant penal codes) then what they don't know can't hurt them or me.

Again, academic exercise. But from such discussions new bright ideas are often formed.

[TLE2]

My problem with 30.06 is that, to me, is wrong-ended.

I much prefer the non-30.06 signs that say the unlicensed possession of a firearm is prohibited. I see those most often in my area.

Of course, if you're carrying a weapon for nefarious purposes, you'd ignore either sign.

So in the end, the only thing a 30.06 sign does is keep law abiding citizens from carrying.

I would make a distinction between private property on to which the public has a reasonable expectation of an open invitation, by its purpose (bar, restaurant, store) vs private property on to which the public has no reasonable expectation of an open invitation (house, private club, etc.). IANAL, of course.

I would disallow a weapons prohibition for the first, but allow such prohibition on the second, with posting. But I've never been elected, so it's just my opinion.

[boomerang]

I would make a distinction between private property on to which the public has a reasonable expectation of an open invitation, by its purpose (bar, restaurant, store) vs private property on to which the public has no reasonable expectation of an open invitation (house, private club, etc.). IANAL, of course.

I would disallow a weapons prohibition for the first, but allow such prohibition on the second, with posting. But I've never been elected, so it's just my opinion.

I think property owners should be allowed to ban handguns the same types of places property owners can ban Korans, thong underwear, Obama bumper stickers, and piercings. With the same penalty for violators.

Some people will say Korans and Obama bumper stickers are protected by the First Amendment, just like firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, so... what was the point again?

[Embalmo]

I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

If I understand you correctly, that is a false analogy. Shoes are designed to protect one's feet. Not allowing someone to carry concealed is like forcing people to go into your hardware store with no shoes and assume no responsibility when they step on a nail. I cannot understand how it can be someone else's right to decide if I can protect myself or family.

I'm sure we all of understand that 30.06 mean "criminals welcome to carry weapons without fear of retribution".

Embalmo

[The Annoyed Man]

I have mixed feelings about the 30.06 signs. Make no mistake... I hate seeing them, and I will NOT patronize any business that posts one, whether or not I am carrying at the time I see the sign. That is my means of protesting a situation about which I can do nothing else.

I am pretty big on property rights, most particularly for home owners, but also for business owners. In fact, I am a business owner whose business is located in his home, so the idea of property rights in the home and in a business is a two-fer for me. That said, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of a CHL holder entering my home armed. I did not used to feel that way. In fact, I remember arguing forcefully, back in January of '08 when I first joined this board, that I felt I had a right to know if an armed person was entering my home.

Since then, I've "matured" in my CHL outlook, and I've realized a few things: 1) short of patting everyone down who enters, which would probably put a cramp in my social life, there isn't any way I can know if someone entering my home is armed; 2) the more law-abiding armed citizens in my home at any one time, the safer my home is; and 3) the only way to keep an armed criminal out of my home is to not allow entry to anyone I don't know — whatever form that takes.

The problem is that, because of the political makeup of the state, I don't foresee the Texas legislature ever passing any enhancements to the CHL laws, or an open carry law for that matter, which does not include some kind of signage requirement to alleviate the concerns of hoplophobes. I wish it weren't so, but I just don't see it happening any other way. So, if that is going to be the reality, then I am happier with the "Big Ugly Sign" — as Charles called it — which is at least easy to see and understand, than with having to figure out what every little decal or postcard sized sign in a window actually says. I made a bunch of trips to Oklahoma over the past year and half, and they don't have standardized signage for denying entry to CCW up there. It is a pain in the butt, because a lot of signs are nothing more than a 4"x4" "gunbusters" image, which is not necessarily placed where it is immediately noticeable. It would drive me nuts if that's how it were here in Texas.

So, until the whole idea of signage which bars entry to people who are carrying a firearm gets trashed in its entirety, I prefer having 30.06 signs with a set of fairly strict standards which hoplophobes have to comply with if they are going to step on my 2nd Amendment toes, rather than having to do it Oklahoma style and risk breaking the laws unknowingly.