CC just passed Senate. Almost law now!

[easy rider]

I just don't believe the intent of any place that would post 30.06/.07 would be thinking, but it's ok to bring in long guns concealed or not.

 

[Cob]

if a business posts that sign just don’t go there odds are you can get what you need someplace else and let them know why you will not be doing business with them but do it politely and constructively. It won’t take long for them to understand

 

[rotor]

As far as I know, a person with authority under 30.05 can ask you to leave because they don't like your smile, sign or no sign.

Correct, unless you are a protected class. But what has that got to do with the term firearm instead of handgun in 30.05 language? Reading your posts I think that my comments are flying over your head. I know that a store would not want me prancing around with my loaded AR15. It's not what the store wants, it's that now if they post 30.05 as written I can't carry my concealed long gun whereas today I can. CC was a handgun bill, not a long gun bill. We have actually lost some long gun carry freedom as written. I have a letter to Rep. Matt Schaefer asking about this. Maybe I will get a personal response, maybe not.

 

[easy rider]

if a business posts that sign just don’t go there odds are you can get what you need someplace else and let them know why you will not be doing business with them but do it politely and constructively. It won’t take long for them to understand

Exactly! I don't mind 30.07 signs much, but 30.06 signs just says "closed for business" to me.

 

[rotor]

I just don't believe the intent of any place that would post 30.06/.07 would be thinking, but it's ok to bring in long guns concealed or not.

But unless they are smart enough with signs right now I can carry my concealed long gun legally. After 9/1 if they 05 I can't. Is this too complicated for you to understand?

 

[Cob]

I really don’t want to start a shit storm but I probably will
Philosophical question if it is not right for someone to infringe upon your rights what makes right for you to infringe upon theirs
remember I’m all in favor of caring a gun regardless as long as it’s done safely But as a history teacher I had about 50 years ago said your rights end at
your nose

 

[CAtoDFW2021]

I think you're splitting hairs, but I don't believe we'll see any places putting up 30.05 that wanted your business in the first place.

You are missing the point.

Prior to 30.05, there was no specific firearm-related law to prohibit carrying of long guns.

Practically, this affects those of us who own and have carried concealable long guns such as Kel-Tec Sub2000 and various takedown rifles: https://www.fieldandstream.com/story/guns/takedown-camp-guns/

We could concealed carry these long guns in places and no one would be the wiser. If a property owner found out, he could ask us to leave, and no firearm-related law would be involved.

Now with 30.05, we would be directly violating the law just by carrying a concealed long gun even if the property owner doesn't know.

I don't know why anyone here wants to give people more legal rope to hang us with, even if it is still legitimate within the framework of property rights.

 

[oldag]

As devils advocate, why would a "store" want to exclude handguns, but turn around and be perfectly okay with long guns?

I would have to presume that if 30.05 hadn't been changed, the owners would give verbal notification as soon as they saw your long gun.

Only difference I see would be if you had a concealed long gun, then you could skate past it "legally", with no fear of notification.

I understand what you are saying.

But our 2A rights were not abridged with long guns and now they will be.

But then I am one who firmly believes that any business open to the public should not be allowed to forbid a right enshrined in the constitution. Others here feel differently.

 

[CAtoDFW2021]

I understand what you are saying.

But our 2A rights were not abridged with long guns and now they will be.

But then I am one who firmly believes that any business open to the public should not be allowed to forbid a right enshrined in the constitution. Others here feel differently.

Any law that specifically penalizes the carrying of firearms (regardless of property rights) is an overstep on our 2A rights.

For those of you who defend property owners' rights to exclude long guns: What was wrong with the status quo of constitutional carry long guns before? If a property owner found out, he could just ask you to leave, a matter that is handled by non-firearm-specific trespass law.

Furthermore, the direction that Texas law has taken in the past few years does not specifically favor property owners over gun owners. Look at the tenants' protection law that forbids landlords from excluding tenants from keeping and bearing arms on the rental property. That is why the "firearm" instead of "handgun" in 30.05 reeks of compromise rather than some possible good intent to protect property owners.

 

[rotor]

I really don’t want to start a shit storm but I probably will
Philosophical question if it is not right for someone to infringe upon your rights what makes right for you to infringe upon theirs
remember I’m all in favor of caring a gun regardless as long as it’s done safely But as a history teacher I had about 50 years ago said your rights end at
your nose

Why would I be infringing on anyone's rights if 30.05 proposed wording said handguns instead of firearms? Store doesn't want long guns they post "no firearms" sign. They can do that right now. They don't want LTC they can post 06/07 right now. I just don't see any reason to make things easier for them to exclude me. But they have the right to exclude me now if they post properly or verbally ask me to leave or hand me a written notice. But if they are too stupid to legally post I will carry as long as I am legal. The proposed 05 signage not only restricts the handgun but also the long gun entry. So, a store will be able with an 05 sign keep all constitutional carry handguns and long guns out.

 

[easy rider]

You are missing the point.

Prior to 30.05, there was no specific firearm-related law to prohibit carrying of long guns.

Practically, this affects those of us who own and have carried concealable long guns such as Kel-Tec Sub2000 and various takedown rifles: https://www.fieldandstream.com/story/guns/takedown-camp-guns/

We could concealed carry these long guns in places and no one would be the wiser. If a property owner found out, he could ask us to leave, and no firearm-related law would be involved.

Now with 30.05, we would be directly violating the law just by carrying a concealed long gun even if the property owner doesn't know.

I don't know why anyone here wants to give people more legal rope to hang us with, even if it is still legitimate within the framework of property rights.

If you don't believe they would want you there with a long gun in plain sight, means you believe they wouldn't want you there if they found out you had one concealed, therefore you are being deceitful to a place that doesn't want you there. I like to shop places that want my business, and actually prefer other businesses to openly state they don't.

 

[rotor]

Any law that specifically penalizes the carrying of firearms (regardless of property rights) is an overstep on our 2A rights.

For those of you who defend property owners' rights to exclude long guns: What was wrong with the status quo of constitutional carry long guns before? If a property owner found out, he could just ask you to leave, a matter that is handled by non-firearm-specific trespass law.

Furthermore, the direction that Texas law has taken in the past few years does not specifically favor property owners over gun owners. Look at the tenants' protection law that forbids landlords from excluding tenants from keeping and bearing arms on the rental property. That is why 30.05 reeks of compromise rather than some possible good intent to protect property owners.

Someone finally with the intelligence to see what the new law does. Technically I am surprised that it passed because as a handgun law it should not have been able to change long gun rules. Wasn't that the problem with amendments that caused a conference committee in the first place.

 

[CAtoDFW2021]

If you don't believe they would want you there with a long gun in plain sight, means you believe they wouldn't want you there if they found out you had one concealed, therefore you are being deceitful to a place that doesn't want you there. I like to shop places that want my business, and actually prefer other businesses to openly state they don't.

It's not deceitful if they don't even realize the possibility of concealed carry long guns exists, and only post no-handguns signs.

Now the law explicitly provides them with a sign to exclude both long guns and handguns. That is the definition of "rope to hang you with."

Why do you even care about me "deceiving" them if you don't care to give them your business?

Someone finally with the intelligence to see what the new law does. Technically I am surprised that it passed because as a handgun law it should not have been able to change long gun rules. Wasn't that the problem with amendments that caused a conference committee in the first place.

People may agree to disagree on this issue but I would like to point out the irony of a soon-to-be California transplant taking a stronger stance than all the TX residents here who don't see the problem with 30.05.

 

[rotor]

If you don't believe they would want you there with a long gun in plain sight, means you believe they wouldn't want you there if they found out you had one concealed, therefore you are being deceitful to a place that doesn't want you there. I like to shop places that want my business, and actually prefer other businesses to openly state they don't.

It is up to the business to post proper signage. It is not deceitful to enter into a store armed that has improper signage. We can get arrested on illegally entering a store with proper signage. The store has the responsibility to post the correct sign, tell me personally to leave or hand me a written notice with proper wording.

 

[easy rider]

Why would I be infringing on anyone's rights if 30.05 proposed wording said handguns instead of firearms? Store doesn't want long guns they post "no firearms" sign. They can do that right now. They don't want LTC they can post 06/07 right now. I just don't see any reason to make things easier for them to exclude me. But they have the right to exclude me now if they post properly or verbally ask me to leave or hand me a written notice. But if they are too stupid to legally post I will carry as long as I am legal. The proposed 05 signage not only restricts the handgun but also the long gun entry. So, a store will be able with an 05 sign keep all constitutional carry handguns and long guns out.

It's not an infringement of your 2A rights for any place to tell you you can't bring firearms on their property.

 

[MTA]

Did hot wheels sign it yet?

 

[rotor]

I understand what you are saying.

But our 2A rights were not abridged with long guns and now they will be.

But then I am one who firmly believes that any business open to the public should not be allowed to forbid a right enshrined in the constitution. Others here feel differently.

I so agree with you. My right to self defense is more important than a business right to keep a lawful citizen with a firearm out. They definitely will not keep a bad guy out with a sign.

 

[rotor]

Did hot wheels sign it yet?

Tuesday.

 

[rotor]

It's not an infringement of your 2A rights for any place to tell you you can't bring firearms on their property.

It is a waste of time trying to explain the not difficult to understand issue that this law changes. Perhaps the author of the bill will get back to me and explain why they used the wording they did. Think a little about what CAtoDFW2021 and I have commented on and let it soak in. It is really not a hard concept to understand.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

It is a waste of time trying to explain the not difficult to understand issue that this law changes. Perhaps the author of the bill will get back to me and explain why they used the wording they did. Think a little about what CAtoDFW2021 and I have commented on and let it soak in. It is really not a hard concept to understand.

Maybe it's to prevent people from "legally" concealing a break down long gun.