51% and the TABC

[Charlie]

I'm with SC-Texas and the others. If you own a store and don't want guns in your store, OK. Just put up ANY notification that indicates you don't want guns in your business. If someone comes in with one showing or covered but can still be identified, the proprietor can just ask them to leave. If they don't they become a trespasser. Why do we need certain signs that mandate certain consequences? I see no logic to any of the new laws.

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

I'm with SC-Texas and the others. If you own a store and don't want guns in your store, OK. Just put up ANY notification that indicates you don't want guns in your business. If someone comes in with one showing or covered but can still be identified, the proprietor can just ask them to leave. If they don't they become a trespasser. Why do we need certain signs that mandate certain consequences? I see no logic to any of the new laws.

I'd agree with this, mostly. A sign should be sufficient notice. If you walk past the sign without noticing it, a reminder is due and you should leave. But what about those who purposely ignore 30.06 signs? I know a few that do. I don't know the answer there. As a business owner I follow the don't ask don't tell policy for anything. If I can't see it then what do I know kinda thing works for me.

While I am 100% carry every where, every time, private entities should be allowed to restrict any customer they want under any condition. Government shouldn't have a play in it. A sign that says no guns should be sufficient, if past that, a gentle warning, and then if no comply you're trespassing.

I merely just don't think, "You should let me into your private business because..." type things. Whether it's gays and cakes or Texans with guns and restaurants...

Sent from some where out there.

 

[Charlie]

I'd agree with this, mostly. A sign should be sufficient notice. If you walk past the sign without noticing it, a reminder is due and you should leave. But what about those who purposely ignore 30.06 signs? I know a few that do. I don't know the answer there. As a business owner I follow the don't ask don't tell policy for anything. If I can't see it then what do I know kinda thing works for me.

While I am 100% carry every where, every time, private entities should be allowed to restrict any customer they want under any condition. Government shouldn't have a play in it. A sign that says no guns should be sufficient, if past that, a gentle warning, and then if no comply you're trespassing.

I merely just don't think, "You should let me into your private business because..." type things. Whether it's gays and cakes or Texans with guns and restaurants...

Sent from some where out there.

I think we agree completely!

 

[Hoji]

I merely just don't think, "You should let me into your private business because..." type things. Whether it's gays and cakes or Texans with guns and restaurants...

Sent from some where out there.

30.08- Trespass by cake wielding homosexual.

 

[Charlie]

Heh!

 

[SidewaysTA]

I'd agree with this, mostly. A sign should be sufficient notice. If you walk past the sign without noticing it, a reminder is due and you should leave. But what about those who purposely ignore 30.06 signs? I know a few that do. I don't know the answer there. As a business owner I follow the don't ask don't tell policy for anything. If I can't see it then what do I know kinda thing works for me.

While I am 100% carry every where, every time, private entities should be allowed to restrict any customer they want under any condition. Government shouldn't have a play in it. A sign that says no guns should be sufficient, if past that, a gentle warning, and then if no comply you're trespassing.

I merely just don't think, "You should let me into your private business because..." type things. Whether it's gays and cakes or Texans with guns and restaurants...

Sent from some where out there.

But if you can walk past a sign with no consequences then there is no need for a sign. Just go with the verbal notice at that point.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

 

[Hoji]

Edit due to double post a half hour apart. Not sure how that happened.

 

[busykngt]

And don't forget 30.09 - no shoes and 30.10 - no shirt; to be followed by a citation for criminal trespass if a follow-on verbal warning is not heeded.

 

[SidewaysTA]

Lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

 

[Charlie]

Since the businesses that don't want guns are required to post signage, it's only fair to require the businesses that will allow guns to post signage that says they welcome legally armed customers. Wonder who'd get the most business!

 

[Hoji]

Would 30.08 apply if they were carrying a pie?

 

[Charlie]

What flavor?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

What flavor?

Huckleberry....

 

[Charlie]

Figures!

 

[roadkill]

What if my gun identifies as a sling shot?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dash Riprock]

30.05 allows signs for notice of no entry. That is WHY we have 30.06 and .07.

Then that needs to be changed. No more automatic criminal trespass

I get that we have 30.06 and now 30.07 because at the time we had 30.05. But as SC-Texas said, why can't 30.05 be changed? Or why can't we just make licensed carry an exception to criminal trespass, or eliminate the penalty entirely, or eliminate 30.06/30.07 and make it criminal trespass only if you refuse to leave after being asked?

I know it wasn't intended to be such, but it seems like with 30.06/30.07 that we gun owners are going out of our way to allow our own discrimination. Name me one other group in the country that does that.

The entirety of our concealed carry statutes needs an overhaul, imho. So much of it has become almost indecipherable. I consider posters here to be among the most informed on this issue and hardly a week goes by that we don't have a thread about some aspect of the statutes that we are confused about or even disagree on.

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

30.08- Trespass by cake wielding homosexual.

Lol

But if you can walk past a sign with no consequences then there is no need for a sign. Just go with the verbal notice at that point.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

You shouldn't be able to walk by a sign without consequences. If you see/ignore a sign, you can/should be held liable because you are trespassing. You accidentally cross the border into Mexico, do they give you verbal notice? The "Oh, I didn't see it." defense doesn't work in the legal world, usually. Can you now walk by a authorized personal sign without consequences? Or a no trespassing sign? A business owner should not have to cater to your conveniences. Me being gun friendly wouldn't have those signs to begin with, but I might have others signs I would want enforced. Me being a business owner, if someone walks in past a sign I will assume he didn't see it, remind him of it, and he should leave, but that is my choice because if he walks past that sign (which should be reasonably visible to assume he'd see it) he is already trespassing. Again written notice is just as acceptable as verbal, IMO. If I don't want you there, I should be able to notify you in any way I see fit... Whether it be a Rabbi performing circumcisions, sign, video from Al Gore, fireworks display, dancing monkey, showgirls, whatever I want, it's MY business in which you have NO right to ANYTHING. Asking for special treatment because you are a gun owner is no different than those who wish to impose their anti gun beliefs upon us.

Sent from some where out there.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Help me out here but where does signs and 30.05 come into play here?

If a business owner puts up a sign invoking 30.05 wouldn't they essentially be telling all patrons to stay out not just ltc holders? How would that work out good for them?

I'm probably missing something but if you just remove .06 and.07 then business owners would have to trespass people on an individual basis, right? I would think invoking .05 with a sign on the door essentially means everyone has to stay out unless given permission to enter?

I think - and someone please correct me if I'm wrong - that 30.05 basically gives property owners a blanket mechanism to exclude whoever they want for whatever reason they want. They can post "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs, or "No Tattoos" signs, or "No Baggy Pants" or whatever (with the obvious exceptions for protected classes and such). Then, if you have a tattoo and cross a "No Tattoos" sign, you are technically trespassing and, in theory at least, you can be arrested on the spot and charged with a misdemeanor - generally Class B, I think, although there are various exceptions to that, one being that if you have a weapon on you it's Class A.

Anyway, long story short, I would imagine crossing a "No Shirt/No Shoes/No Service" sign while barefoot would not invoke a call to the police. Most likely the business owner would just ask you to leave first and then call the cops if you didn't. But legally, my understanding is that he doesn't have to if he's posted the sign.

I don't know the trespassing laws in other states. I don't know if they are set up the same as ours to begin with, and maybe that's why Oregon and others can get away with allowing signs that don't have the force of law. But every time this issue comes up, we run into this "30.05" roadblock, and I don't understand why it seems to be impossible to change 30.05 if that's what it takes.

 

[SidewaysTA]

I think - and someone please correct me if I'm wrong - that 30.05 basically gives property owners a blanket mechanism to exclude whoever they want for whatever reason they want. They can post "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs, or "No Tattoos" signs, or "No Baggy Pants" or whatever (with the obvious exceptions for protected classes and such). Then, if you have a tattoo and cross a "No Tattoos" sign, you are technically trespassing and, in theory at least, you can be arrested on the spot and charged with a misdemeanor - generally Class B, I think, although there are various exceptions to that, one being that if you have a weapon on you it's Class A.

Anyway, long story short, I would imagine crossing a "No Shirt/No Shoes/No Service" sign while barefoot would not invoke a call to the police. Most likely the business owner would just ask you to leave first and then call the cops if you didn't. But legally, my understanding is that he doesn't have to if he's posted the sign.

I don't know the trespassing laws in other states. I don't know if they are set up the same as ours to begin with, and maybe that's why Oregon and others can get away with allowing signs that don't have the force of law. But every time this issue comes up, we run into this "30.05" roadblock, and I don't understand why it seems to be impossible to change 30.05 if that's what it takes.

Thanks, I knew I was missing something. I can see Sean's point about needing to change 30.05.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

 

[Dash Riprock]

Lol

You shouldn't be able to walk by a sign without consequences. If you see/ignore a sign, you can/should be held liable because you are trespassing. You accidentally cross the border into Mexico, do they give you verbal notice? The "Oh, I didn't see it." defense doesn't work in the legal world, usually. Can you now walk by a authorized personal sign without consequences? Or a no trespassing sign? A business owner should not have to cater to your conveniences. Me being gun friendly wouldn't have those signs to begin with, but I might have others signs I would want enforced. Me being a business owner, if someone walks in past a sign I will assume he didn't see it, remind him of it, and he should leave, but that is my choice because if he walks past that sign (which should be reasonably visible to assume he'd see it) he is already trespassing. Again written notice is just as acceptable as verbal, IMO. If I don't want you there, I should be able to notify you in any way I see fit... Whether it be a Rabbi performing circumcisions, sign, video from Al Gore, fireworks display, dancing monkey, showgirls, whatever I want, it's MY business in which you have NO right to ANYTHING. Asking for special treatment because you are a gun owner is no different than those who wish to impose their anti gun beliefs upon us.

Sent from some where out there.

I don't necessarily disagree with this as a matter of principle, but I'm having a problem reconciling why we should tolerate the increasing restrictions that are being placed on commercial property, primarily by the left, with increasing discrimination against us as carriers, particularly concealed carriers, particularly licensed concealed carriers. Either private property rights are sancrosanct, or they aren't. We (well, the left anyway) have already established that they are not, so if them's the rules, then I fail to see why we shouldn't force businesses that are open to the public to at minimum accept licensed concealed carry. That seems to me far more innocuous than forcing businesses to allow transgendered men in the ladies room.