Poll, PC 30.06 in "Private Businesses"

[jnichols2]

My right to carry doesn't trump a property owner's right to set standards for anyone entering his property.

Opening a business doesn't require the business owner to abdicate his right to set standards, and let the government and/or public set those standards for him/her. That would make the government and/or public the defacto owners. Yes, the government does set health standards for him to keep the business open, but that doesn't stop him from setting behavior and demeanor standards.

A business owner still retains the right to decide whether to allow customers who are shirtless, who get loud and rowdy, or who carry weapons, irregardless of the 30.06 statute. If he doesn't want guns on his property, he can post that, even if he posts it incorrectly.

Many folks misunderstand the 30.06 statute. If the business owner uses the wrong type of sign, he still has a right to bar weapons from his property. If he posts the correct 30.06 sign, anyone carrying will also be guilty of violating the 30.06 statute, and can be prosecuted under such. If he posts another type of sign, he still has the right to evict anyone carrying, but the Great State of Texas won't prosecute them for violating 30.06. He also has the right to use a metal detector as a requirement of entrance. (as several bars in Austin do) Many folks on this forum believe they can legally bring weapons onto his property just because he used the wrong type sign. That will only protect them from losing their license under 30.06.

To take it a step further, he has the right to forcibly evict offenders.

The public park is public property because we all pay for it with our taxes. The government sets standards in our behalf. Joe's bakery is private property. Joe paid for it, and Joe sets standards.

My god people, this is Texas, not the Soviet Union.

[JP171]

I think we need to compare prohibiting guns to other prohibitions. If I have a "No hoodies" sign at the entrance to my business, is it illegal to enter? If so, then 30.06 is no different. But if I have to tell the hoodie wearer to leave in order for him to be charged with trespass, then 30.06 would go beyond just allowing the owner to deny service.
I think Florida got this right. Signs alone do not create trespass; you must be told to leave before you can be trespassing simply for carrying.

you don't a LEO has to tell the person they are trespassing, you can tell them till your blue in the face and the DA won't even touch it and most LEO's won't do a thing, so the 2 are not in any way shape or form similar, the 30.05 has to be given by a LEO the 30.06 is an automatic arrest and jail sentence. I would like to see 30.06 go away and be replaced by nothing, nada. I do not believe that a business owner should have the right to disallow a person with a CHL, and no its not property owners rights most businesses don't own the property the rent it, no matter that the law does allow some things. to me a public business is just that PUBLIC. now for the no shoes no shirt no service and 30.06 the 3 no's don't carry automatic jail time and you can just call a cop to get me to leave

[Oldgringo]

Anybody here old enough to remember these old signs:

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT
TO REFUSE SERVICE
TO ANYONE

What's the difference between these signs and a 30.06 sign? (I know the answer)

One 'mo tahm, what's the difference between the above signs of yore and a 30.06 sign of today?

[txglock21]

First of all, the title and some of the comments are a little misleading. A "private business" in my mind means a business NOT open to the general public such as Kraft Foods, Ratheon, General Dynamics, etc.. A "public" business is any business open to general public such as Kroger stores, Walmart stores, Stop-N-Go, etc.. In my personal opinion, a private business HAS the right to prohibit someone from entering, but a public business DOES NOT. To me, when you open your business to general public, you give up your right to say who can and can't enter. Now once someone inside your business does something illegal, you have every right to call the police to have them removed if they won't leave or stop doing whatever it was. Again, this is MY opinion and until laws change concerning CHL carry I will continue to carry where I can and will not where I can't. I was asked my opinion and I gave it and it ain't gonna change.

[steveincowtown]

#1> Private property rights are not absolute. In both our home and our business we must maintain certain standards that we as the public have decided are needed.

#2> I think a private property owner should be able to ASK anyone, at anytime, to leave their property for any reason.


#3> I don't think that it should be an offense to just enter any ones business, doing anything, without first being asked to leave. In other words, why do we have a sign that criminalizes trespass by a CHL with no other notice than just that sign? Think about how ridiculous it would seem if we attached the same standards to any other activity?

"Is this 911"

"Yes, it is."

" I need to report a gentleman who walked right passed by no shirt, no shoes sign."

"We are on our way."

[anygunanywhere]

What is in my pocket or on my person concealed is no one else's business, and if I conduct myself in a civil respectable manner they should not care.

Anygunanywhere

[jnichols2]

#1> Private property rights are not absolute. In both our home and our business we must maintain certain standards that we as the public have decided are needed.

#2> I think a private property owner should be able to ASK anyone, at anytime, to leave their property for any reason.


#3> I don't think that it should be an offense to just enter any ones business, doing anything, without first being asked to leave. In other words, why do we have a sign that criminalizes trespass by a CHL with no other notice than just that sign? Think about how ridiculous it would seem if we attached the same standards to any other activity?

"Is this 911"

"Yes, it is."

" I need to report a gentleman who walked right passed by no shirt, no shoes sign."

"We are on our way."

I'm a "property rights" kind of guy.

If I start a business, on the property I own, I HAVE NOT given up the right to TELL anyone to leave my property.

Certainly, the state may have the right to pull my business license. And the public has the right to boycott my business. But they DO NOT have the right to force themselves onto my property against my will -- that's called trespassing.

Starting a business DOES NOT automatically convert private property to public property. It may in the Soviet Union or North Korea.

A public business has, by it's nature, extended an open invitation to the public. However; they can quickly revoke that information for a customer that misbehaves. An invited guest that mistreats my home or family will quickly find himself out on the sidewalk. That is the property owner's right.

City parks, schools, libraries, etc are all considered public property, paid for by public funds. Microsoft and General Motors are still PRIVATE property, and both have armed security guards to forcibly evict unwanted clients. Walmart is also private property, they are just to cheap to hire security. But many other stores do have security staff.

Bars and nightclubs are "open to the public", but just make a nuisance of yourself in one that has a mean bouncer. You may be trying to explain your "public" right to his bar to Mr. T. They don't have to call a LEO to tell the customer to leave, Mr. T will take care of that task.

[A-R]

it boils down to this....

either you believe in private property rights, or you don't. either you believe in the right to conduct private business as one sees fit, or you don't.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... se-dilemma" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SewTexas]

it boils down to this....

either you believe in private property rights, or you don't. either you believe in the right to conduct private business as one sees fit, or you don't.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... se-dilemma" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and.......

[A-R]

Obviously, I"m no lawyer ...

Seems to me there are two avenues leading to the idea that a business open to the public cannot/should not be able to ban CHL via 30.06:

1. Protected class: like race, color, sex, religion, handicap, national origin, age. Generally speaking, businesses open to the general public may not deny public accommodation to anyone based on inclusion in one of these classes. The attempt here seems to be to add CHL to this list of protected classes. While I applaud the effort, logically you can't get there. CHL, even as an extension of RKBA, is a "right" not a "class".

2. Rights and freedoms: this avenue attempts use the RKBA as a trump card over being arrested for trespassing if the only reason for the trespass arrest is CHL/RKBA. The argument typically goes like this: You can't be arrested for speaking or preaching or assembling in a public accommodation unless you're asked to leave and refuse. Why can you "automatically" be arrested for exercising RKBA rights by carrying in a business open to the general public? I feel there is a bit more legitimacy to this argument, as the 1A examples above would likely only lead to arrest if they involved going "too far" in exercise of those rights to the point of breach of the peace/disorderly conduct OR subsequent refusal to leave.

BUT, playing devil's advocate, is it requiring too much of a business owner/store manager to be required to confront (or call LEO to confront) a MWAG? And, perhaps more importantly legally, CHL in Texas (like it or not) is a "privilege" not a right. Perhaps this also should change, but that's a different discussion.

Also, just as an aside, even 30.06 does not equal an "automatic" arrest. There is still LEO discretion. Even a "no shirt no shoes no service" sign CAN lead to an arrest without first being asked to leave (under a strict reading of 30.05). In practice, this does not happen as typically LEO gives the offending party a chance to leave and a legal warning not to return before an arrest. But if you read 30.05 and 30.06 you'll see they are written in nearly identical form. A mere sign CAN be all that is needed to create an offense under 30.05 (for violating posted rules other than CHL) or 30.06 (CHL only). As another theoretical example, what do you think would happen if you open carried a long gun into a business with a sign clearly posted out front saying NO GUNS ALLOWED?

That said, I do like the Florida way of things as described above (assuming the accuracy of the description). Businesses can post whatever sign they want, but the sign alone does not have the "force of law" unless accompanied by oral notice/request to leave.

[A-R]

it boils down to this....

either you believe in private property rights, or you don't. either you believe in the right to conduct private business as one sees fit, or you don't.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... se-dilemma" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and.......

My point was simply that you presented a false choice. There are plenty of us who believe in multiple varying shades of gray on this issue. In fact, unless you believe it is OK to deny access to an open-to-the-general-public business to black female Christians over the age of 50 then you also believe in a grey area between "either you believe in private property rights or you don't ... "

[android]

My point was simply that you presented a false choice. There are plenty of us who believe in multiple varying shades of gray on this issue. In fact, unless you believe it is OK to deny access to an open-to-the-general-public business to black female Christians over the age of 50 then you also believe in a grey area between "either you believe in private property rights or you don't ... "

You provide a perfect example here...

Black: not a choice
Female: not a choice
Over 50: not a choice
Christian: Religion is a choice*, yet protected like inherent traits that cannot be changed and everyone here seems to be quite fine with that protection.

Religion is "concealed" unless the person chooses to reveal their beliefs. A concealed weapon is concealed unless a person chooses to expose it. I see no difference between the two and they should be treated equally.


* if it were not, then Christians would not spend such a great deal of time trying to convince you to convert.

[txglock21]

I'm not going to argue about private vs. public, owner's rights vs. CHL rights, etc.. You all can read how I feel about this in my previous post. The OP started with SHOULD. This is asking for an opinion, not what is current law or the way it is. If you want to feel one way or the another, that's great. It just sounds like some are trying to change other's minds. You can type all day and not change my opinion on this. You know the old saying, "Opinions are like @*%$!*^, we all have them and most of them stink!" Have a Blessed day.

[A-R]

My point was simply that you presented a false choice. There are plenty of us who believe in multiple varying shades of gray on this issue. In fact, unless you believe it is OK to deny access to an open-to-the-general-public business to black female Christians over the age of 50 then you also believe in a grey area between "either you believe in private property rights or you don't ... "

You provide a perfect example here...

Black: not a choice
Female: not a choice
Over 50: not a choice
Christian: Religion is a choice*, yet protected like inherent traits that cannot be changed and everyone here seems to be quite fine with that protection.

Religion is "concealed" unless the person chooses to reveal their beliefs. A concealed weapon is concealed unless a person chooses to expose it. I see no difference between the two and they should be treated equally.


* if it were not, then Christians would not spend such a great deal of time trying to convince you to convert.

This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

[Keith B]

This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

Unfortunately still invalid as the turban is part of their religious clothing and would be protected.

I would liken the example to the 1st amendment. You have the right to free speech, and without previous reason I can't ban you physically from my store. However, I can prohibit what you say in my store and have the right to ban profanity if I so choose.