Repeal the 30.06 law

[poppo]

I would love to see it changed from a criminal penalty to a civil penalty. Carry past a 30.06 sign subject to a $200 fine.

While I am all for property rights, I would also like to see the penalty changed. IMO it's too harsh for what could have been a simple mistake of not seeing the sign etc. While this one is not the correct size and is not valid, who would think about looking way down there even if it was the correct size?

[jmra]

No bill repealing TPC §30.06 will ever pass. The NRA and TSRA will kill it easily and rightfully so. You may not know the history behind HB2909 in 1997, so I understand that you may not appreciate the fact that TPC §30.06 saved CHL in Texas.

Private property rights are treasured in Texas and this is good. The legislature will never pass a law that strips a private property owner's ability to bar armed CHLs from entering their property. That concept doesn't even have widespread support among gun owners or even CHLs. I floated the idea of prohibiting owners of commercial property open to the public from barring armed CHLs and that didn't get anywhere; there simply is no support for the concept even with business property.

I do think there is at least a chance to lower the penalty to a Class C misdemeanor.

Chas.

Having very little experience dealing with these matters I had to google the penalty for a Class C misdemeanor in Texas. This is what I came up with:
"Class C misdemeanors in Texas are punishable by a fine of up to $500. There is no jail time for a class C misdemeanor."

If this is accurate this would seem to be a great "next step".

[carlson1]

No bill repealing TPC §30.06 will ever pass. The NRA and TSRA will kill it easily and rightfully so. You may not know the history behind HB2909 in 1997, so I understand that you may not appreciate the fact that TPC §30.06 saved CHL in Texas.

Private property rights are treasured in Texas and this is good. The legislature will never pass a law that strips a private property owner's ability to bar armed CHLs from entering their property. That concept doesn't even have widespread support among gun owners or even CHLs. I floated the idea of prohibiting owners of commercial property open to the public from barring armed CHLs and that didn't get anywhere; there simply is no support for the concept even with business property.

I do think there is at least a chance to lower the penalty to a Class C misdemeanor.

Chas.

Having very little experience dealing with these matters I had to google the penalty for a Class C misdemeanor in Texas. This is what I came up with:
"Class C misdemeanors in Texas are punishable by a fine of up to $500. There is no jail time for a class C misdemeanor."

If this is accurate this would seem to be a great "next step".

This would be a giant step in the right direction.

[Wes]

No bill repealing TPC §30.06 will ever pass. The NRA and TSRA will kill it easily and rightfully so. You may not know the history behind HB2909 in 1997, so I understand that you may not appreciate the fact that TPC §30.06 saved CHL in Texas.

Private property rights are treasured in Texas and this is good. The legislature will never pass a law that strips a private property owner's ability to bar armed CHLs from entering their property. That concept doesn't even have widespread support among gun owners or even CHLs. I floated the idea of prohibiting owners of commercial property open to the public from barring armed CHLs and that didn't get anywhere; there simply is no support for the concept even with business property.

I do think there is at least a chance to lower the penalty to a Class C misdemeanor.

Chas.

Having very little experience dealing with these matters I had to google the penalty for a Class C misdemeanor in Texas. This is what I came up with:
"Class C misdemeanors in Texas are punishable by a fine of up to $500. There is no jail time for a class C misdemeanor."

If this is accurate this would seem to be a great "next step".

Don't forget the most important part, a class C doesn't exclude you from having a CHL. This is an email/phone campaign I would definitely support.

See, and I bet everyone thought nothing good would come of this thread, lol.

[TexasGal]

This is a good idea to reduce the charge.

[rtschl]

I am a strong advocate of private property rights and do not want to do anything that would weaken those rights. Though it's not my first choice, I would back changing the penalty to a Class C as a first step with the hope that 30.06 eventually would be a civil violation like Red Light Cameras. But I am one of those in the minority that believes if your commercial property is open to the public, the state should not be involved in criminalizing someone else's constitutional right unless you refused to leave their property upon request. In other words, trespass only occurs if you refuse to leave when asked.

I will admit though, the antics of OCT has made me wonder if they haven't destroyed any possibility of making meaningful progress in reducing the places where CHL is off limits by statute and fixing things like 51% signs in a venue where clearly they don't meet 51% of their sales in alcohol, but a vendor they hired does.

Ron

[Wes]

fixing things like 51% signs in a venue where clearly they don't meet 51% of their sales in alcohol, but a vendor they hired does.

Ron

Better yet. Let's get rid of the 51% business altogether.

[rogersinsel]

Decriminalize it and give businesses an immunity clause from civil lawsuits should a justified shoot take place.

[chamberc]

I wrote the following to Representative Taylor today. I'm interested in feedback and also in lobbying to get the 30.06 law repealed.

Dear Representative Taylor,

I urge you to introduce legislation repealing the 30.06 regulation prohibiting concealed carry permit holders from entering premises with the signs posted.

A restaurant in Durham, NC posted 'no guns allowed' signs and was robbed by three armed men. (http://abc11.com/news/durham-police-inv ... ant/66643/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). The patrons and employees of the restaurant were left defenseless because they obeyed the signs. Criminals, however, will never obey 'no guns' signs, and, in fact, become emboldened knowing that law-abiding citizens will comply with the signs.

This satirical video says it all about 'gun-free' zones: Gun Free Zone video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozJTenNzUKM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is an easy solution that will appeal to people who want the comfort of a sign and also to the law-abiding concealed carriers of Texas. Repeal the 30.06 law and do not give any 'no-guns' sign the force of law. At the same time, allow businesses and stores to post a Weapons Warning Sign: "It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law." This would give notice to criminals and also allow permit holders to carry on the premises. In addition, the business or establishment could post the standard 'no-guns allowed' sign (a picture of a handgun, surrounded by a red circle with a diagonal red bar in the circle). Permit holders could still carry on the premises but would know how the establishment feels about guns and could decide whether to enter or not..

The vast, vast majority of concealed handgun permit holders are responsible, law-abiding citizens, who have met rigorous requirements, been fingerprinted, and undergone an FBI background check. But 30.06 signs put everyone at risk - the establishments that post them and the people who patronize those establishments. At the time of the tragic Luby's Cafeteria massacre, Suzanna Hupp disarmed prior to entering the restaurant to be in compliance with Texas law that didn't allow concealed carry. In response to the massacre, the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. The 30.06 signs gut that law and give the locations that post them the personal discretion to deny permit holders from entering those locations.

Let's punish the criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding citizens who have complied with all the requirements to obtain their permit.

Sincerely,

Ben...
address...

So basically you oppose property owner rights when they trump yours as a non-property owner? I'm assuming this extends to not being able to ask me to leave your property if I so desire to sit down and take a poop on your front yard?

[mojo84]

I like jmra's idea of a fine.

[ShootDontTalk]

I like jmra's idea of a fine.

I like that idea as well. I would certainly support such a campaign.

Interesting that here in Houston businesses open to the public are being forced to serve a class of people whose lifestyle the owner disagrees with. Civil rights are trumping property rights. I think there is a vast difference between the property rights I enjoy on my homestead as compared to the property rights of, say, McDonalds. My home is my castle. If I open a business to the general public, I must comply with a whole host of property-right infringing concepts. Not too hard to understand.

[Jaguar]

Keep 30.06, just strike sections (d) and (e).

Problem solved.

[VMI77]

Why should gun rights trump private property rights?

Your home is private property. If a business open to the public was really private property the owners could discriminate against all kinds of customers, including racial discrimination. So really, the government has granted only limited private property rights to the owners of businesses open to the public. Why should it be legal for a business to discriminate against someone exercising the right of self-defense when the government can force a Christian bakery to bake cakes for a homosexual marriage? When a Christian photographer or baker can refuse services for homosexual marriages, and business owners have full private property rights, I'll concede they have the right to refuse CHLs.

[mojo84]

Why should gun rights trump private property rights?

Your home is private property. If a business open to the public was really private property the owners could discriminate against all kinds of customers, including racial discrimination. So really, the government has granted only limited private property rights to the owners of businesses open to the public. Why should it be legal for a business to discriminate against someone exercising the right of self-defense when the government can force a Christian bakery to bake cakes for a homosexual marriage? When a Christian photographer or baker can refuse services for homosexual marriages, and business owners have full private property rights, I'll concede they have the right to refuse CHLs.

The business owner has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason as long as they are not part of "protected class". The government is wrong in forcing the Christian bakery to bake a cake for homosexuals. Because they are wrong there doesn't mean they are wrong in protecting personal property rights. Now, if you think having a CHL should qualify someone to be considered part of a protected class, that is a completely different argument. Two wrongs do not make something right.

Here's an interesting article for those that want to equate lgbt rights with chl rights. That comparison can prove counterproductive. http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterpris ... -gays.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;