TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote: I guess I am playing devil's advocate here as I wish that a business open to the public could not post 30.06 or 30.07. On the other hand I own property that is posted properly with no trespassing signs and if you do trespass I have the right to tell you to leave and if you don't leave I have the right to call law enforcement to have them make you leave or arrest you. I believe we recently had a gunbuster (no weapons) sign argument and the carry of rifles past that sign as being a trespass violation.

I think the law oversteps what is reasonable with regards to CONCEALED carry at this time. I have often give the "purple satin underwear" example.

Posting 30.06 is the equivalent of posting "No Purple Satin underwear"

First, it's nobody's business what going on UNDER my clothes. If I am not causing a distraction, then it should not matter, period.
Secondly, it makes just as much sense. Only those who want to comply actually know they are wearing purple satin underwear and if they want to proceed into the store or not. I guess you could search people or put up a purple underwear detector, but that is certainly excessive.

So, let me get this correct here: property rights in Texas are important, and folks who own property should be able to ask others to leave if the conduct of the other individual bothers the property owner? So, if I own a store, and a guy comes in sagging his pants down past his underwear, it's okay for me to ask him to leave? And if he refuses, it's okay for me to call the police and they will aid me in getting the sag pants guy to leave? Or am I suddenly going to find myself "violating someone's civil rights" because I really don't want to see their underwear?

The reason I bring this example up is that it seems easier to exclude someone for something that cannot be seen and is bothering no one (a properly concealed handgun carried by a license holder) than it is to exclude something that can be seen and bothers others (some grown man's underwear).

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, let me get this correct here: property rights in Texas are important, and folks who own property should be able to ask others to leave if the conduct of the other individual bothers the property owner? So, if I own a store, and a guy comes in sagging his pants down past his underwear, it's okay for me to ask him to leave? And if he refuses, it's okay for me to call the police and they will aid me in getting the sag pants guy to leave?

To the very best of my understanding, yes. You can refuse service to anyone, and you can request that anyone leave your property for just about any reason you see fit. There are exceptions, but dress code is not one of them. If they refuse to leave when told to, they are trespassing. If I'm wrong or missing something, I'm sure someone will correct me here in a minute.

LucasMcCain wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, let me get this correct here: property rights in Texas are important, and folks who own property should be able to ask others to leave if the conduct of the other individual bothers the property owner? So, if I own a store, and a guy comes in sagging his pants down past his underwear, it's okay for me to ask him to leave? And if he refuses, it's okay for me to call the police and they will aid me in getting the sag pants guy to leave?

To the very best of my understanding, yes. You can refuse service to anyone, and you can request that anyone leave your property for just about any reason you see fit. There are exceptions, but dress code is not one of them. If they refuse to leave when told to, they are trespassing. If I'm wrong or missing something, I'm sure someone will correct me here in a minute.

. IANAL, but I think you can ask anyone to leave and if they refuse, then you can call the police and have them charged with trespassing. There may be an exception of you are using this as a thinly veiled means of discriminating against a protected class at your business that is open to the public.

LucasMcCain wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, let me get this correct here: property rights in Texas are important, and folks who own property should be able to ask others to leave if the conduct of the other individual bothers the property owner? So, if I own a store, and a guy comes in sagging his pants down past his underwear, it's okay for me to ask him to leave? And if he refuses, it's okay for me to call the police and they will aid me in getting the sag pants guy to leave?

To the very best of my understanding, yes. You can refuse service to anyone, and you can request that anyone leave your property for just about any reason you see fit. There are exceptions, but dress code is not one of them. If they refuse to leave when told to, they are trespassing. If I'm wrong or missing something, I'm sure someone will correct me here in a minute.

Alright, I can ASK them to leave for something like that. Can I post an enforceable sign stating something like "No Sagging of pants/no visible underwear"? By enforceable, I mean, can I immediately call police if someone in comes with their underwear showing, after passing the sign, and that person will get in trouble for it? I'm trying to make a point here, nothing personal intended toward anyone in the least.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, let me get this correct here: property rights in Texas are important, and folks who own property should be able to ask others to leave if the conduct of the other individual bothers the property owner? So, if I own a store, and a guy comes in sagging his pants down past his underwear, it's okay for me to ask him to leave? And if he refuses, it's okay for me to call the police and they will aid me in getting the sag pants guy to leave?

To the very best of my understanding, yes. You can refuse service to anyone, and you can request that anyone leave your property for just about any reason you see fit. There are exceptions, but dress code is not one of them. If they refuse to leave when told to, they are trespassing. If I'm wrong or missing something, I'm sure someone will correct me here in a minute.

Alright, I can ASK them to leave for something like that. Can I post an enforceable sign stating something like "No Sagging of pants/no visible underwear"? By enforceable, I mean, can I immediately call police if someone in comes with their underwear showing, after passing the sign, and that person will get in trouble for it? I'm trying to make a point here, nothing personal intended toward anyone in the least.

Maybe, but based on previous reaction of police to trespassers, you're not likely to get them arrested for saggy pants the first time. And there's the matter of whether the sign properly conveys that you are actually trespassing if you ignore it. That's why for something discernible the usual way of preventing it is by telling the person to get out.

EDITED (BECAUSE I HIT THE SUBMIT INSTEAD OF PREVIEW):

Just to re-clarify, the sagging pants/showing underwear thing is merely an example to further my line of thinking. Based on statistics for how few LTC holders commit crimes, I almost guarantee that someone sagging their pants (or wearing sports team gear, whatever) is more likely to commit a crime (unless somehow they are also an LTC holder). Yet, the LTC holder may be barred from entering a business by an enforceable sign, but someone doing something such as showing their underwear cannot be barred without saying something to them. IF it's really only about property rights versus for some other reason, then other individuals should also be able to be barred due to specific transgressions against the rights of the property owner by enforceable signage, OR LTC holders should NOT be able to be barred by enforceable signage. At minimum, 30.06 signage should go away, since no one should know that a person is carrying concealed IF it is done properly, and therefore cannot cause an issue unless the firearm is removed from concealment, which would be a different ballgame.

Dreamer42 wrote:After all these years as a CHL holder I don't know why this never occurred to me. I see numerous posts about old and/or non compliant signs and how we are advised to "carry away". However, in the absence of signage of any kind, if someone gives verbal notice "Hey, sir, you can't carry here" that is is good as gold. Just for discussion sake, and being devil's advocate, shouldn't the verbal notice at least be a certain phrase or collection of specific words so as to be "compliant?" Seems like a double standard in semantics to me.

If I own a pizza shop and I ask you to leave you should leave. If I say I don't want you with a gun you should do it. IT's my business and in a true free market and free America, I should have the right to kick whoever I want out. If I don't like green people then so be it.

Soap wrote:IT's my business and in a true free market and free America, I should have the right to kick whoever I want out. If I don't like green people then so be it.

That may be how it should be, but let me know how that works out for you.

TPC 30.06 was created so that business owners could give licensees EFFECTIVE NOTICE that handguns are prohibited, not to force business owners to jump through additional hoops. The signage requirement was created so that licensees would be able to see the signs from the parking lot, allowing them to either decide to go somewhere else or disarm in the car without having to walk up to the door then go back to the car. Verbal/oral notice can clearly convey the business owner's wishes without having to consider visibility issues.

I believe a business owner can exclude people from their business and even post a sign giving notice about that exclusion. But I don't believe you can exclude people based on race, religion, sex, etc. When you start throwing people out for wearing saggy pants, I don't think that is an issue. If it can be shown that you aren't throwing out all people with saggy pants, I think you will have a problem.

Typically, Criminal Trespass warnings need to be given in front of a peace officer. You don't have to warn the person in advance. You can call the police and then give the warning to the person with the officer present. If the person will not leave at that point or returns, they can be arrested. Hopefully, the agency has a means to record when, where and to whom a warning is given and then be able to retrieve that information.

Carrying concealed past a 30.06 sign is a gamble, just like driving 50 in a 30 mile per hour posted zone. You could be detected by electronic means or someone with a sharp eye. Your weapon could fall out on the floor. You might be faced with a situation where you need to display the weapon, then what? It's a Class "C", same as a speeding citation. But how much damage would a situation like that do in respect to how the people that are present views those licensed to conceal carry?

I am not going into a business with a 30.06 sign, whether I am carrying or not. I don't even go into businesses with invalid "no guns" signs. They have made their point with me. So far, my life has not been altered in any meaningful way.

All of the above is just my opinion, not legal advice.

K.Mooneyham wrote:. . . At minimum, 30.06 signage should go away, since no one should know that a person is carrying concealed IF it is done properly, and therefore cannot cause an issue unless the firearm is removed from concealment, which would be a different ballgame.

If you were in Texas in the period from 1995 until 9/1/1997, you wouldn't say that, unless you want Licensees to be unable to carry in some/many locations. You seem to believe that the generic "no guns" sign or decal was unenforceable prior to 9/1/97, but you would be mistaken.

I understand your position on 30.06 signs v. verbal order to leave. I simply disagree with you, as does the Legislature and most private property owners.

Chas.

One may claim, I did not see the sign. Sign cannot testify that he ignored me and passed by. However, the notifier of " no "OC/CC here" can do so in court of law.

I strongly support private property rights. But it does bother me that a property that is open to the general public has the force of law like this. I may be wrong, but most all other trespass issues are if you do not leave - then you face the long arm of the law.

It probably will not happen, but I would like to see the same trespass for LTC: if you refuse to leave a CT can be issued and I'm OK for that being a Class A since the person was armed and refused to leave.

rtschl wrote:I strongly support private property rights. But it does bother me that a property that is open to the general public has the force of law like this. I may be wrong, but most all other trespass issues are if you do not leave - then you face the long arm of the law.

It probably will not happen, but I would like to see the same trespass for LTC: if you refuse to leave a CT can be issued and I'm OK for that being a Class A since the person was armed and refused to leave.

That is the way it currently works for LTC. If you unknowingly enter a property posted with an enforceable sign and are discovered to be carrying a handgun, you can be charged and ticketed with a Class C misdemeanor (think simple traffic ticket). But if such is the case and you refuse to leave when asked to, you can then be arrested for a Class A misdemeanor (think carrying a handgun without a license). The penalty in TPC 30.06 was changed last session along with the creation of TPC 30.07 when licensed open carry passed.