TexasCHLforum.com

I was driving my daughters to a birthday party at Chuck-E-Cheese on Saturday and I mentioned to them that I hated that place. My 11 year old asked why, and I explained that they don't allow CHL hokders to carry guns. She asked how I knew this, and I told her about 30.06 signs, etc. When I explained that any business in Texas can decide to prohibit guns, she asked me "Isn't that illegal? The constitution gives people the right to keep and bear arms".

I explained to her that yes, the law is illegal in my opinion since it violates the constitution, but that it would still create an unwanted hassle if I was to be arrested, etc.

I didn't get into the specifics that the sign in question is too small, etc.

The bill of rights makes it illegal for the federal government to infringe on your right of gun ownership. Chuckie Cheese is a private business and can discriminate against you, they have the right to refuse service for any reason. Also individuals can say. You can't come into my house with a gun and they would not be in violation of the 2nd

psijac wrote:The bill of rights makes it illegal for the federal government to infringe on your right of gun ownership. Chuckie Cheese is a private business and can discriminate against you, they have the right to refuse service for any reason. Also individuals can say. You can't come into my house with a gun and they would not be in violation of the 2nd

I agree with you that a business should be able to ask someone to leave if they are doing something the business disagrees with. In other words, the business should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Where we disagree is whether the government (state or Federal) should be able to incarcerate someone for exercising a fundamental individual right that is guaranteed by the US constitution, just because a business (or an individual in your second example) doesn't like it. It doesn't matter whether that right is free speech, RKBA, etc. If I say something objectionable, say that I loudly tell prospective customers that a competitor's product is better, then a business should be able to tell me to leave, but they should not be able to have me arrested as long as I actually leave when asked.

I'm not saying that a business can't tell people to leave if they think that person has a gun, is a liberal/conservative, or anything else. I'm saying that the government should not be able to arrest someone just because the business doesn't like who they are or what they are doing.

Assuming that the law was as you suggest, that a business could only ask you to leave.....
What then is the penalty when you (not YOU, but rather a fictitious "you") refuse to leave?
Who enforces that and under what code? Trespass? Then "you'd" (the fictional you again) fight the business owner in court because (s)he violated your 2A rights..

Messy... legally and in implementation.

Private businesses have a right (within some limits) to decline service for whatever reason, IMO.
30.06 does an excellent job of clearly describing how they should go about that re: Concealed Carry.
30.06 is one of the best parts of TX CHL law, IMO. Least ambiguous of any other State that I'm familiar with AND...

It leaves merchants with the ability to post a gunbuster sign to satisfy those customers that might be inclined to feel falsely comforted by such a sign, without actually sending you and me off the premises.

It leaves merchants with the ability to post a gunbuster sign to show they're both anti gun and stupid.

Katygunnut wrote:When I explained that any business in Texas can decide to prohibit guns, she asked me "Isn't that illegal? The constitution gives people the right to keep and bear arms".

Out of the mouth of babes.

Katygunnut wrote:I agree with you that a business should be able to ask someone to leave if they are doing something the business disagrees with. In other words, the business should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Where we disagree is whether the government (state or Federal) should be able to incarcerate someone for exercising a fundamental individual right that is guaranteed by the US constitution, just because a business (or an individual in your second example) doesn't like it.

I think you might have a slight misconception of what is going on. The business is refusing service because they do not like your apparel. You are refusing to leave. The police are not arresting you because of your apparel, but because of your refusal to leave the business when asked. This is why the required sign and legal section is in Chapter 30 with the other criminal trespass laws and not in Chapter 46 with the weapons laws.

I'm always ignoring the gun buster signs but will not quibble over the letter size of a proper sign. A proper worded sign proves to me the owner has concerns and advising me of his intentions. I can respect that he neither wants my services, money or business. There are other places to support.

srothstein wrote:

Katygunnut wrote:I agree with you that a business should be able to ask someone to leave if they are doing something the business disagrees with. In other words, the business should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Where we disagree is whether the government (state or Federal) should be able to incarcerate someone for exercising a fundamental individual right that is guaranteed by the US constitution, just because a business (or an individual in your second example) doesn't like it.

I think you might have a slight misconception of what is going on. The business is refusing service because they do not like your apparel. You are refusing to leave. The police are not arresting you because of your apparel, but because of your refusal to leave the business when asked. This is why the required sign and legal section is in Chapter 30 with the other criminal trespass laws and not in Chapter 46 with the weapons laws.

However, if a business put up a sign that said "Warning, no visitors or customers will be allowed on premises with pink underwear", then spotted someone bending over who obviously had on pink underwear - were they to call the police, I suspect they'd be told to simply ask the person to leave, not that the person would immediately be arrested for criminal trespass.

The law targeting one specific type of "apparel", I think, was the point.

ScooterSissy wrote:However, if a business put up a sign that said "Warning, no visitors or customers will be allowed on premises with pink underwear", then spotted someone bending over who obviously had on pink underwear - were they to call the police, I suspect they'd be told to simply ask the person to leave, not that the person would immediately be arrested for criminal trespass.

The law targeting one specific type of "apparel", I think, was the point.

I think in most cases, showing either the gun or the pink underwear would result in the police asking the person to leave and only arresting them if they did not. That is the general real world way things work. But in both cases, the law does allow for the immediate arrest. And in this case, the gun owner has the advantage of the law requiring the notice to be very specific. The sign for the underwear could be half inch letters or just a picture in a red circle with a slash.

I have not seen too many of the pink underwear signs yet, but I have seen quite a few signs based on apparel. Most are pretty vague, such as "No biker gear" or "No gang apparel". Both of these are applicable signs and entering in violation constitutes a crime. You could be prosecuted though you will probably be asked to leave.

I agree that the chances of being arrested are slightly higher for the gun carrier since there are more anti-gun people out there than anti-specific clothing. But it is still an arrest for entering/not leaving the property based on the owner's wishes and not an arrest for carrying the gun.

Given the requirement for the anti-gun sign to be very specific to stand up in court, as opposed to a generic sign for any other owner's desire, I think it is a fair trade-off. Obviously, you are free to disagree with me on that part.

...been seeing "No shirt, no shoes, no service"-type signs since I was a kid...I respect the business' right to decide that...whether they post a sign or just ask me to leave and put on some shoes...it's their business...
...the state decided that there was a very specific way that they were to post the request that I not excercise my legal right to carry a handgun with a CHL into their business...when they follow the specifics, I honor their request and the law...when they don't...for whatever reason...follow those specifics...I carry...within the law...and, since I conceal properly, it never has become a point of contention...
...I also do not take it upon myself to discuss it with them/correct them...thus giving them the opportunity to give me oral or written communication of their wishes...

...I'm also proud of Katygunnut's daughter...kids hear/absorb/understand far more than we give them credit for...and have an uncanny way of just saying things out clear and true...unless they're in trouble...then they become lawyers...

RoyGBiv wrote:30.06 is one of the best parts of TX CHL law, IMO... It leaves merchants with the ability to post a gunbuster sign to satisfy those customers that might be inclined to feel falsely comforted by such a sign, without actually sending you and me off the premises.

Interesting... I never thought of it that way before.

RoyGBiv wrote:Assuming that the law was as you suggest, that a business could only ask you to leave.....
What then is the penalty when you (not YOU, but rather a fictitious "you") refuse to leave?
Who enforces that and under what code? Trespass? Then "you'd" (the fictional you again) fight the business owner in court because (s)he violated your 2A rights..

Messy... legally and in implementation.

Private businesses have a right (within some limits) to decline service for whatever reason, IMO.
30.06 does an excellent job of clearly describing how they should go about that re: Concealed Carry.
30.06 is one of the best parts of TX CHL law, IMO. Least ambiguous of any other State that I'm familiar with AND...

It leaves merchants with the ability to post a gunbuster sign to satisfy those customers that might be inclined to feel falsely comforted by such a sign, without actually sending you and me off the premises.

It would be the same penalty that applies anytime a business asks someone to leave and they refuse to do so. A business can ask me to leave because they don't like my statements on the current administration, for example. If I refuse to leave, they can have me arrested for trespassing. At no time during this exchange did they violate my first ammendment rights, in my opinion.

By contrast, if the business owner was able to have me arrested because they didn't like what I had to say about the President, even though I was more than willing to leave when asked, then the government would have violated my first ammendment rights by virtue of arresting me for what I had to say. Note that even in this case, the business owner did not violate any of my constitutional rights (assuming that they did not try to detain me, etc).

srothstein wrote:

Katygunnut wrote:I agree with you that a business should be able to ask someone to leave if they are doing something the business disagrees with. In other words, the business should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Where we disagree is whether the government (state or Federal) should be able to incarcerate someone for exercising a fundamental individual right that is guaranteed by the US constitution, just because a business (or an individual in your second example) doesn't like it.

I think you might have a slight misconception of what is going on. The business is refusing service because they do not like your apparel. You are refusing to leave. The police are not arresting you because of your apparel, but because of your refusal to leave the business when asked. This is why the required sign and legal section is in Chapter 30 with the other criminal trespass laws and not in Chapter 46 with the weapons laws.

I'm more than happy to leave when asked. Are you saying that they have asked me to leave before I even enter the premises based on the sign they posted which basically says that they don't want "my kind", meaning law abiding citizens who have been verified as non-criminals and proven proficiency with a firearm? That's a twist I hadn't thought of.

What if there is an employee standing outside the door who hands me a sale flyer and invites me to come in and shop? Does a personal invitation trump a sign that says a certain group of people are not welcome? And more importantly, should it?

The main problem I am having here is that the business in reality has not asked me to leave / not come in. In fact, they may have explicitly asked me to be there by mailing me a sale flyer, etc. The truth is that they would love for me to be there. They really only have a (misguided) problem with my gun being there, and they are trying to tell the gun to leave before it comes in the door.

From a practical perspective, I agree that the current situation is as good as we are likely to , but it just irks me that the government can arrest a citizen for exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right that someone else disagrees with.

Katygunnut wrote:<SNIP>
From a practical perspective, I agree that the current situation is as good as we are likely to , but it just irks me that the government can arrest a citizen for exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right that someone else disagrees with.

It has been my opinion that if a company is publicly accessible (as opposed to controlled entry) they should not be allowed to restrict entry by otherwise law abiding citizens. IOW a mall, Chuck E. Cheese or whatever allows anyone to enter their premise to spend money including what one might consider undesirable. But a CHL is now a criminal by simply entering the same premise?

In contrast, a home or private land is not typically accessible to the public. A business with selective entry (jewelry stores with physical access control, security measures, etc.) is in a different class. I may not "like" that properties such as those are restricted to me because of my CHL but IMO the selective nature of entry places it in a different category as a business that allows any and all to enter without precaution. Yes, we may chose to go elsewhere or risk being outed...in most cases. But what of the person who lives in an area where such alternatives are not practical or available?

Katygunnut, that your daughter was incensed should make you proud. God Bless you, her and the rest of your fine family.