TexasCHLforum.com

aero10 wrote:I recently went on a trip to Alabama and read up on their carry laws. They recently overhauled their laws and as they are written, there is NO sign that prohibits concealed carry within a business. Signs (which can be anything implying no guns) only apply to open carry. The only way a business can restrict your ability to concealed carry is to verbally tell you you're not allowed to carry and ask you to leave.

Why can't Texas do it like this?

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it.

Why not? If a manager at a Whataburger can tell an ON-duty LEO in uniform that they don't allow guns in their store and that they refuse them service, why can't you tell an off-duty one to leave?

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it.

Why not? If a manager at a Whataburger can tell an ON-duty LEO in uniform that they don't allow guns in their store and that they refuse them service, why can't you tell an off-duty one to leave?

TPC §30.05 was amended to exclude LEO's, if the basis for barring their entry is that they are carrying a handgun. This applies whether the LEO was on duty or off. It's absurd, but it's the law. While a burger joint can refuse service, there's no legal basis to order the officer off of the property.

Chas.

TPC §30.05(i) wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it.

Why not? If a manager at a Whataburger can tell an ON-duty LEO in uniform that they don't allow guns in their store and that they refuse them service, why can't you tell an off-duty one to leave?

TPC §30.05 was amended to exclude LEO's, if the basis for barring their entry is that they are carrying a handgun. This applies whether the LEO was on duty or off. It's absurd, but it's the law. While a burger joint can refuse service, there's no legal basis to order the officer off of the property.

Chas.

TPC §30.05(i) wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

But that only protects the LEO if the reason for asking them to leave is their weapon, correct? Someone could still order them off the property and just not give a reason, couldn't they?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it.

Why not? If a manager at a Whataburger can tell an ON-duty LEO in uniform that they don't allow guns in their store and that they refuse them service, why can't you tell an off-duty one to leave?

TPC §30.05 was amended to exclude LEO's, if the basis for barring their entry is that they are carrying a handgun. This applies whether the LEO was on duty or off. It's absurd, but it's the law. While a burger joint can refuse service, there's no legal basis to order the officer off of the property.

Chas.

TPC §30.05(i) wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

But that only protects the LEO if the reason for asking them to leave is their weapon, correct? Someone could still order them off the property and just not give a reason, couldn't they?

I think so, but probably not if there is some other legal legitimate reason why they are there. However, I've already been wrong once in this thread, so I'm not sure.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it.

Why not? If a manager at a Whataburger can tell an ON-duty LEO in uniform that they don't allow guns in their store and that they refuse them service, why can't you tell an off-duty one to leave?

TPC §30.05 was amended to exclude LEO's, if the basis for barring their entry is that they are carrying a handgun. This applies whether the LEO was on duty or off. It's absurd, but it's the law. While a burger joint can refuse service, there's no legal basis to order the officer off of the property.

Chas.

TPC §30.05(i) wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

But that only protects the LEO if the reason for asking them to leave is their weapon, correct? Someone could still order them off the property and just not give a reason, couldn't they?

Sure. Presumably a circle-slash-"cops" sign had the force of trespass law from 1995-96 and perhaps still today.

ScottDLS wrote:Sure. Presumably a circle-slash-"cops" sign had the force of trespass law from 1995-96 and perhaps still today.

It might still today, but who would you get to enforce it?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:Don't you want the legal right to tell anyone to "get off my property"?

I want the legal right to tell an off duty cop to get off my property for carrying, but I don't have it.

Why not? If a manager at a Whataburger can tell an ON-duty LEO in uniform that they don't allow guns in their store and that they refuse them service, why can't you tell an off-duty one to leave?

TPC §30.05 was amended to exclude LEO's, if the basis for barring their entry is that they are carrying a handgun. This applies whether the LEO was on duty or off. It's absurd, but it's the law. While a burger joint can refuse service, there's no legal basis to order the officer off of the property.

Chas.

TPC §30.05(i) wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

But that only protects the LEO if the reason for asking them to leave is their weapon, correct? Someone could still order them off the property and just not give a reason, couldn't they?

Yes, the Code section I posted is related to trying to exclude an armed LEO, whether they are on duty or off duty.

Chas.

mayor wrote:

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.

IT works out well in most places. Truth is most people care more about money than say green people. So they will always side with money. IT works all the time. Remember the gun store that refuses to sell to Muslims?

Soap wrote:If I own a pizza shop and I ask you to leave you should leave.

I agree.

Soap wrote:If I say I don't want you with a gun you should do it.

Disagree. What else do you want to order me to do? Not vote Republican? Not think about Kate Upton? Sorry, but you don't get to control everything your customers do or think just because they are in your pizza shop. The world does not revolve around you, and other people have rights as well.

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.

I agree. I also think you should have the right to kick out whoever you want. If they refuse to leave after being told, then you should be able to get the assistance of law enforcement to arrest them.

You don't just want property rights. You want the right to control every aspect of the people who visit your business. There is a difference.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Soap wrote:If I own a pizza shop and I ask you to leave you should leave.

I agree.

Soap wrote:If I say I don't want you with a gun you should do it.

Disagree. What else do you want to order me to do? Not vote Republican? Not think about Kate Upton? Sorry, but you don't get to control everything your customers do or think just because they are in your pizza shop. The world does not revolve around you, and other people have rights as well.

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.

I agree. I also think you should have the right to kick out whoever you want. If they refuse to leave after being told, then you should be able to get the assistance of law enforcement to arrest them.

You don't just want property rights. You want the right to control every aspect of the people who visit your business. There is a difference.

It's my business, if you don't like it then don't give me yours or make your own. THIS IS AMERICA! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP YOU FROM MY OWNED BUSINESS. Do you go in people house wearing shoes if they tell you to take them off? There is no disagreement, it's a fact. It's already been won in court cases.

Soap wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Soap wrote:If I own a pizza shop and I ask you to leave you should leave.

I agree.

Soap wrote:If I say I don't want you with a gun you should do it.

Disagree. What else do you want to order me to do? Not vote Republican? Not think about Kate Upton? Sorry, but you don't get to control everything your customers do or think just because they are in your pizza shop. The world does not revolve around you, and other people have rights as well.

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.

I agree. I also think you should have the right to kick out whoever you want. If they refuse to leave after being told, then you should be able to get the assistance of law enforcement to arrest them.

You don't just want property rights. You want the right to control every aspect of the people who visit your business. There is a difference.

It's my business, if you don't like it then don't give me yours or make your own. THIS IS AMERICA! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP YOU FROM MY OWNED BUSINESS. Do you go in people house wearing shoes if they tell you to take them off? There is no disagreement, it's a fact. It's already been won in court cases.

The court cases you speak of have made it clear that we do not have the ability to exclude anyone and everyone for any reason or no reason when we are talking about businesses open to the public. No, you do not have a "right" to exclude anyone you wish for any reason you wish. That's the way you want the law to be, but it simply is not.

Government has more authority to control commercial property open to the public, than it has over private property not open to the public. Like it or not, that's the law. I think property is over-regulated, but my feelings on the issue do not rise to the level of a "right." The free market argument is a red herring. Fire codes, electric codes, plumbing codes, elevator codes all came into being because greedy people cared about nothing but profits and didn't want to spend money to create a reasonably safe environment.

Chas.

Well, if i take off my shoes in someones house,they'll be begging me to put them on again in seconds.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Soap wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Soap wrote:If I own a pizza shop and I ask you to leave you should leave.

I agree.

Soap wrote:If I say I don't want you with a gun you should do it.

Disagree. What else do you want to order me to do? Not vote Republican? Not think about Kate Upton? Sorry, but you don't get to control everything your customers do or think just because they are in your pizza shop. The world does not revolve around you, and other people have rights as well.

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.

I agree. I also think you should have the right to kick out whoever you want. If they refuse to leave after being told, then you should be able to get the assistance of law enforcement to arrest them.

You don't just want property rights. You want the right to control every aspect of the people who visit your business. There is a difference.

It's my business, if you don't like it then don't give me yours or make your own. THIS IS AMERICA! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP YOU FROM MY OWNED BUSINESS. Do you go in people house wearing shoes if they tell you to take them off? There is no disagreement, it's a fact. It's already been won in court cases.

The court cases you speak of have made it clear that we do not have the ability to exclude anyone and everyone for any reason or no reason when we are talking about businesses open to the public. No, you do not have a "right" to exclude anyone you wish for any reason you wish. That's the way you want the law to be, but it simply is not.

Government has more authority to control commercial property open to the public, than it has over private property not open to the public. Like it or not, that's the law. I think property is over-regulated, but my feelings on the issue do not rise to the level of a "right." The free market argument is a red herring. Fire codes, electric codes, plumbing codes, elevator codes all came into being because greedy people cared about nothing but profits and didn't want to spend money to create a reasonably safe environment.

Chas.

We need a balance between the rights of a business owner and the rights of people who visit that business. It is factually incorrect to say that a business owner has an absolute legal right to stop their customers from bringing a legal, unseen, item on the premises, under penalty of law. In Texas at least, guns are about the only example I can think of where business owners are given this right. I think this goes beyond "property rights" and gets into the area of controlling other people. It is pretty clear that Soap sees this much differently than I do.

Soap wrote:Do you go in people house wearing shoes if they tell you to take them off?

Personally, no I don't. And I think that a home owner should be able to call the police for assistance if someone refuses to either remove their shoes or leave after being so told by the home owner. Again - I think that a property owner should be able to tell anyone to leave, for any reason, and if that person refuses, the police should assist. This would give property owners much greater rights than they have today.

Where we disagree is that you believe property owners should be allowed to use the arrest powers of the state to enforce their own personal prejudices against the unseen behavior of others with which they disagree. I believe that is wrong because it means we are allowing the property owner to infringe on the basic fundamental rights of other people.