Poll, PC 30.06 in "Private Businesses"

[WildBill]

<SNIP>
You tell me. They're your rules.

Indeed, but the question is not what I should or necessarily do; rather is there a fundamental or substantive difference between the two sets of parameters.

I.E. I am posting my store, accessible to the public, in accordance with PC 30.06, regulating what you ARE wearing under your clothes that is otherwise legal and not detectable by ordinary observation. If I discover you then you are automatically guilty of a criminal offense.

OR

I post a sign on my store, accessible to the public , that demands you be a CHL holder in possession of your weapon to enter, regulating what you are NOT wearing under your clothes that is otherwise legal and not detectable by ordinary observation. If I discover you are not compliant, you are not automatically guilty of a criminal offense until I ask you to leave and you refuse.

The same? Different? Why?

The first follows the law, the second does not. However, if you wish to put a CHL Only sign in your store, I do not care.

[rotor]

I voted yes you should be able to manage the store the way you want to. As a business owner, I have enough restrictions on what I can and can't do without someone telling me I have to be able to allow CHL's (although I do and have a sign posted that they are welcome) but it is my choice.

With that said, if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

Just my .02

Your .02 means a lot and I agree. We don't have a chl to be macho ( I hope) but to protect ourselves in the event that force is needed. When I go into a place that forbids me to protect myself with a firearm I expect them to provide some kind of protection either a security guard or whatever. A 30.06 sign takes away my ability to self defend and at my age that does not mean my fists. You post a 30.06 then you should have the obligation to defend me if need be. I own a business and I don't care if you open or conceal. I also own the real estate and the business which is mre than most "business" do. Even your post offices, most are leased and not actually owned by the feds.

[WildBill]

if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

I have seen this statement posted numerous times on this forum. This is not practical or legally possible.
A law that prevents access to the court system is not constitutional.
Even if it were possible to pass such a law, many CHL holders would still object to 30.06 posting.
Their reasoning being that it's still an infringement and they are better able and qualified to defend themselves than any type of security that could be provided by a business.

“The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force.
In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights,
and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest
and most essential privileges of citizenship . . . .”
Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.,
207U.S. 142, 148(1907).

[TexasCajun]

I voted yes you should be able to manage the store the way you want to. As a business owner, I have enough restrictions on what I can and can't do without someone telling me I have to be able to allow CHL's (although I do and have a sign posted that they are welcome) but it is my choice.

With that said, if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

Just my .02

Your .02 means a lot and I agree. We don't have a chl to be macho ( I hope) but to protect ourselves in the event that force is needed. When I go into a place that forbids me to protect myself with a firearm I expect them to provide some kind of protection either a security guard or whatever. A 30.06 sign takes away my ability to self defend and at my age that does not mean my fists. You post a 30.06 then you should have the obligation to defend me if need be. I own a business and I don't care if you open or conceal. I also own the real estate and the business which is mre than most "business" do. Even your post offices, most are leased and not actually owned by the feds.

Wrong. The business owner has the right to post 30.06 or not to. You have the right to patronize that business or not in response. The posting of 30.06 does not obligate the owner to provide extra security any more than not posting 30.06 obligate you to carry when you do patronize. Nor should it.

[rotor]

I voted yes you should be able to manage the store the way you want to. As a business owner, I have enough restrictions on what I can and can't do without someone telling me I have to be able to allow CHL's (although I do and have a sign posted that they are welcome) but it is my choice.

With that said, if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

Just my .02

Your .02 means a lot and I agree. We don't have a chl to be macho ( I hope) but to protect ourselves in the event that force is needed. When I go into a place that forbids me to protect myself with a firearm I expect them to provide some kind of protection either a security guard or whatever. A 30.06 sign takes away my ability to self defend and at my age that does not mean my fists. You post a 30.06 then you should have the obligation to defend me if need be. I own a business and I don't care if you open or conceal. I also own the real estate and the business which is mre than most "business" do. Even your post offices, most are leased and not actually owned by the feds.

Wrong. The business owner has the right to post 30.06 or not to. You have the right to patronize that business or not in response. The posting of 30.06 does not obligate the owner to provide extra security any more than not posting 30.06 obligate you to carry when you do patronize. Nor should it.

So the answer is "Wrong" you say. I know what the business owner can and can't do. I know I have the right to go in or not. But if a business owner knowingly increases the risk of my being harmed by his actions I would think that a lawyer could use that as means for a successful case. I am not a lawyer and anyone can sue for anything but if I go into a store with a 30.06 and am harmed by a BG because I have left my weapon in my car.... gee whiz- isn't that how we got to have concealed carry in Texas in the first place- Luby's cafeteria. It was illegal to carry that gun into Luby's, not by a 30.06 but by state law. So, there is always the potential that a store that outlaws you from defending yourself might some day be involved with a negligence suit. Time will tell. If you are on someones private property, even illegally, and you injure yourself there have been succesful lawsuits against the property owners in civil courts.

[jbarn]

I voted yes you should be able to manage the store the way you want to. As a business owner, I have enough restrictions on what I can and can't do without someone telling me I have to be able to allow CHL's (although I do and have a sign posted that they are welcome) but it is my choice.

With that said, if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

Just my .02

Your .02 means a lot and I agree. We don't have a chl to be macho ( I hope) but to protect ourselves in the event that force is needed. When I go into a place that forbids me to protect myself with a firearm I expect them to provide some kind of protection either a security guard or whatever. A 30.06 sign takes away my ability to self defend and at my age that does not mean my fists. You post a 30.06 then you should have the obligation to defend me if need be. I own a business and I don't care if you open or conceal. I also own the real estate and the business which is mre than most "business" do. Even your post offices, most are leased and not actually owned by the feds.

Wrong. The business owner has the right to post 30.06 or not to. You have the right to patronize that business or not in response. The posting of 30.06 does not obligate the owner to provide extra security any more than not posting 30.06 obligate you to carry when you do patronize. Nor should it.

So the answer is "Wrong" you say. I know what the business owner can and can't do. I know I have the right to go in or not. But if a business owner knowingly increases the risk of my being harmed by his actions I would think that a lawyer could use that as means for a successful case. I am not a lawyer and anyone can sue for anything but if I go into a store with a 30.06 and am harmed by a BG because I have left my weapon in my car.... gee whiz- isn't that how we got to have concealed carry in Texas in the first place- Luby's cafeteria. It was illegal to carry that gun into Luby's, not by a 30.06 but by state law. So, there is always the potential that a store that outlaws you from defending yourself might some day be involved with a negligence suit. Time will tell. If you are on someones private property, even illegally, and you injure yourself there have been succesful lawsuits against the property owners in civil courts.

I am not a lawyer, but one word comes to mind; forseeability.

Also, your case is weak from the outset. How do you prove you would have had your gun but not for the 30.06 sign, and that had you had it you even would have done anything. The business owner only has a duty to act reasonably.

[nightmare]

A business should have the same legal right to ban a citizen carrying a handgun as they do to ban police carrying a handgun, assuming the police don't have a warrant, exigent circumstances, etc.

A business should have the same legal right to ban a concealed handgun as they do to ban a concealed bible, a concealed cell phone, concealed body jewelry, or a concealed brassiere.

I know they don't but they should.

[MasterOfNone]

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.

[TexasCajun]

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.

That's exactly what 30.06 does. If someone walks past an enforceable sign & concealment fails, the person in charge can call the cops without having to confront them. Same with any other manner of dress that a business owner finds objectionable. However, a practical aspect would also most likely come into play. Police would probably not respond as quickly to a 'teens with saggy pants' call as they would for a MWAG call.

[TexasCajun]

I voted yes you should be able to manage the store the way you want to. As a business owner, I have enough restrictions on what I can and can't do without someone telling me I have to be able to allow CHL's (although I do and have a sign posted that they are welcome) but it is my choice.

With that said, if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

Just my .02

Your .02 means a lot and I agree. We don't have a chl to be macho ( I hope) but to protect ourselves in the event that force is needed. When I go into a place that forbids me to protect myself with a firearm I expect them to provide some kind of protection either a security guard or whatever. A 30.06 sign takes away my ability to self defend and at my age that does not mean my fists. You post a 30.06 then you should have the obligation to defend me if need be. I own a business and I don't care if you open or conceal. I also own the real estate and the business which is mre than most "business" do. Even your post offices, most are leased and not actually owned by the feds.

Wrong. The business owner has the right to post 30.06 or not to. You have the right to patronize that business or not in response. The posting of 30.06 does not obligate the owner to provide extra security any more than not posting 30.06 obligate you to carry when you do patronize. Nor should it.

So the answer is "Wrong" you say. I know what the business owner can and can't do. I know I have the right to go in or not. But if a business owner knowingly increases the risk of my being harmed by his actions I would think that a lawyer could use that as means for a successful case. I am not a lawyer and anyone can sue for anything but if I go into a store with a 30.06 and am harmed by a BG because I have left my weapon in my car.... gee whiz- isn't that how we got to have concealed carry in Texas in the first place- Luby's cafeteria. It was illegal to carry that gun into Luby's, not by a 30.06 but by state law. So, there is always the potential that a store that outlaws you from defending yourself might some day be involved with a negligence suit. Time will tell. If you are on someones private property, even illegally, and you injure yourself there have been succesful lawsuits against the property owners in civil courts.

Posting an enforceable 30.06 sign wouldn't be ground for negligence since the current chl law contains the provision. Yes you can file suit for anything, but most lawyers don't like to work for free. So you'd most likely go it alone. And the case would probably be immediately dismissed because of the legal provision for disallowing concealed carry.

[Abraham]

Back to the wedding cake for a moment.

Would you knowingly eat something the baker was forced to bake and vehemently didn't want to?

I sure as heck wouldn't...

[Abraham]

I forgot to add: "Private Businesses" have the right to post 30.06 signs and I have the right not to do business with them.

Simple.

[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.

[WildBill]

Back to the wedding cake for a moment.

Would you knowingly eat something the baker was forced to bake and vehemently didn't want to?

I sure as heck wouldn't...

Yum!

[snorri]

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.

However, for better or worse, the Federal government has decided that we don't have those rights any longer.