Guns International

51% and the TABC

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • busykngt

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 14, 2011
    4,730
    96
    McKinney
    Somebody please remind me: didn't the baker(s) who refused to bake the 'wedding cake' for gay couple ultimately loose that case? And they were forced (by the court) to make the cake or close their doors? (I don't recall what happened in the end....err, no pun intended).
    Capitol Armory ad
     

    A.Texas.Yankee

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 21, 2012
    3,628
    46
    NTX
    We shouldn't tolerate the increasing restrictions. We let the left get a foot hold and became complacent. Tolerance and giving in is what got us into this whole shit storm. Fight for what's right, not what we think we can win. We should never force any private entity, whether a person, home or business, to do anything.

    Sent from some where out there.
     

    SC-Texas

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 7, 2009
    6,040
    96
    Houston, TX
    If property owners care enough, they can simply ask an open carrier to leave.

    The fact is most won't bother because open carriers generally are not a bother.



    Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
     

    TheDan

    deplorable malcontent scofflaw
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    27,551
    96
    Austin - Rockdale
    My thoughts are that a store owner, you have the right to ask people to leave. Shoes, shirt, guns.

    You don't get to post a magic sign that makes it a criminal offense to walk across your threshold.
    That's a good point... If you walk past a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign without a shirt on, you aren't trespassing until they tell you to leave.
     

    Dash Riprock

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 8, 2009
    1,459
    66
    Austin
    That's a good point... If you walk past a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign without a shirt on, you aren't trespassing until they tell you to leave.

    Actually, I think you are, it's just never enforced that way. Apparently that's the issue. I think most of us would be happier if the law required a business owner to ask you to leave first, but I don't think they necessarily have to in order for it to be criminal trespass.

    From what I understand, when they passed the original CHL statutes they didn't want "gun buster" signs to have the force of law, so they came up with the 30.06 requirement instead. I guess they wanted to force businesses to go out of their way to exclude CHL carriers, but looking back now, I can't help but wonder if this was a distinction without a difference? I don't know. I'm sure it made sense at the time but I think it's time to take another look at it.

    Ironically enough, didn't the Open Carry Law drop the offense of carrying past a sign down from a Class A to a Class C, unless you were told to leave and refused? So we're already nibbling at the edges of 30.05 a bit, right?
     
    Last edited:

    Big Dipper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    2,940
    96
    ATX & FC, WI
    That's a good point... If you walk past a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign without a shirt on, you aren't trespassing until they tell you to leave.

    Yep! And what they can't see should not concern them. As in: entering while dressed "commando", having a pocket knife (weapon?), a t-shirt with an obscene message hidden under you jacket or a concealed firearm.
     

    Dash Riprock

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 8, 2009
    1,459
    66
    Austin
    Here's another thought I had - what if we expanded 30.06/30.07 to include LEO's? You think that might make businesses think twice about posting? Or is there some reason that can't be done?
     

    SidewaysTA

    Active Member
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Sep 5, 2011
    830
    76
    CSTX
    I think 30.05 says you can't trespass leo's because off their side arms more or less.

    I guess you can still trespass them for other reason though, like if you don't like their face?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk
     

    Dash Riprock

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 8, 2009
    1,459
    66
    Austin
    I think 30.05 says you can't trespass leo's because off their side arms more or less.

    I guess you can still trespass them for other reason though, like if you don't like their face?

    Well then change that part of 30.05. LEO's are welcome to come in and leave their firearms in the car like the rest of us at a posted location. Maybe make an exception if they're pursuing a suspect, or they've got a warrant or court order or something specific to that particular business but otherwise, why should they get special treatment?


    ***just to be clear, I'm not criticizing LEO's, I'm just making a counter argument to why they should be allowed to violate 30.06/30.07 signs.
     
    Last edited:

    Mreed911

    TGT Addict
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Apr 18, 2013
    7,315
    21
    Austin, TX
    Well then change that part of 30.05. LEO's are welcome to come in and leave their firearms in the car like the rest of us at a posted location. Maybe make an exception if they're pursuing a suspect, or they've got a warrant or court order or something specific to that particular business but otherwise, why should they get special treatment?


    ***just to be clear, I'm not criticizing LEO's, I'm just making a counter argument to why they should be allowed to violate 30.06/30.07 signs.

    Because they have a duty to act, codified in state law, statewide, for certain crimes.
     
    Top Bottom