CC just passed Senate. Almost law now!

[rotor]

People, even the dreaded red 51% sign refers to handguns. Not long guns.

 

[rotor]

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

A simple no firearms sign would do that now. A bill that was supposed to be limited to the right to carry a handgun has restricted when a long gun can be carried. Two years from now maybe they will fix it.

 

[1911'S 4 Me]

All of you that was so proud to email and call your representative's over and over are now making all of us pay the consequences. We went backwards not forward.

 

[easy rider]

Even a gun buster sign,

, has no legal standing and shows a handgun, but it does show intent of the business as to their view of firearms. Certainly I can tell myself, "well if they don't know", but it doesn't make it any more welcome. I never looked at a place posting 30.06/.07 signs thinking "I should go grab a rifle instead", concealed or not concealed, because I know their intent is firearms in general. If businesses want a sign covering all firearms, I may not like it, but it certainly makes their intent clearly known.

 

[Vaquero]

All of you that was so proud to email and call your representative's over and over are now making all of us pay the consequences. We went backwards not forward.

I went forward.

 

[1911'S 4 Me]

I went forward.

As the Indian Chief would say; How

 

[ZX9RCAM]

As the Indian Chief would say; How

People without an LTC went forward...

 

[1911'S 4 Me]

Except if there is a 30.05

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Except if there is a 30.05

Just like 30.06/07 for those with an LTC.

I'd be very surprised if any place posting 30.05, didn't also post 30.06/07.

 

[rotor]

Even a gun buster sign, View attachment 258565 , has no legal standing and shows a handgun, but it does show intent of the business as to their view of firearms. Certainly I can tell myself, "well if they don't know", but it doesn't make it any more welcome. I never looked at a place posting 30.06/.07 signs thinking "I should go grab a rifle instead", concealed or not concealed, because I know their intent is firearms in general. If businesses want a sign covering all firearms, I may not like it, but it certainly makes their intent clearly known.

Who cares that you didn't think about carrying a rifle. The intent of a store means nothing unless legally posted. Are you a LTC holder? If a store posts a non legal 30.06 would you go in? Do you know their intent? I also know what is legal. If they don't know what to post I don't care what their intent is, I am legal to carry. Why are you so concerned about their intent? Did you ever think a store might post an incorrect 30.06 to oblige their anti 2A people knowing that they are not restricting their 2A people. Maybe you know true intent, I don't. I have never understood the logic of keeping out of a store the proven most honest people in Texas because they are carrying a weapon that nobody can see. LTC holders have a better record than LEO. Of course I don't understand the logic or lack of logic of some on this forum either.

 

[oldag]

... I like to shop places that want my business, and actually prefer other businesses to openly state they don't.

So do I. But some folks live in areas where they have little to choose from in the way of shops.

 

[Army 1911]

Except if there is a 30.05

They still went forward because they can now carry w/o paper. LTC holder aren't affected by 30.o5 so get a license.

 

[easy rider]

Who cares that you didn't think about carrying a rifle. The intent of a store means nothing unless legally posted. Are you a LTC holder? If a store posts a non legal 30.06 would you go in? Do you know their intent? I also know what is legal. If they don't know what to post I don't care what their intent is, I am legal to carry. Why are you so concerned about their intent? Did you ever think a store might post an incorrect 30.06 to oblige their anti 2A people knowing that they are not restricting their 2A people. Maybe you know true intent, I don't. I have never understood the logic of keeping out of a store the proven most honest people in Texas because they are carrying a weapon that nobody can see. LTC holders have a better record than LEO. Of course I don't understand the logic or lack of logic of some on this forum either.

Since their intent is to exclude me and my gun, I go elsewhere. I thought it was evident that I have an LTC by what I posted. You seem to think 30.05 is something new, it's just been redefined. Those businesses that would post signs essentially showing they don't want firearms don't care if you find a loophole to the law, they still don't want you there.

 

[Spcwolf]

I just ignore the signs and go in anyways.

I conceal carry in the pocket, not open carry.

 

[rotor]

Since their intent is to exclude me and my gun, I go elsewhere. I thought it was evident that I have an LTC by what I posted. You seem to think 30.05 is something new, it's just been redefined. Those businesses that would post signs essentially showing they don't want firearms don't care if you find a loophole to the law, they still don't want you there.

Again, you didn't read my post or if you did you didn't understand it. You are clairvoyant knowing intent of a business. I am not. 30.05 has been modified to exclude firearms from a store. Even red 51% sign doesn't exclude long guns. So that portion is new. Where you shop is your concern. I have less capability to shop where I want to under the new law and be armed. So this law is 2 steps forward, 1 step back. If you take away a right that we have now you have gone backwards. If you don't see this so be it.

 

[toddnjoyce]

They still went forward because they can now carry w/o paper. LTC holder aren't affected by 30.o5 so get a license.

Not correct. The 30.05 language does not provide an exception for the LTC holder; it provides a defense to prosecution.

 

[ScottDLS]

Not correct. The 30.05 language does not provide an exception for the LTC holder; it provides a defense to prosecution.

Same as today the LTC provides a Defense to Prosecution (46.15) to unlawful carry of a weapon (46.02).

But 46.15 doesn't say Defense...you say?

PC §46.15. NON-APPLICABILITY.
(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:

Aha, but in order for something to be an exception, it must say EXACTLY:

Sec. 2.02. EXCEPTION. (a) An exception to an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an exception to the application of . . . ."

Since it doesn't say that, currently (appellate) courts have ruled that LTC is a Defense, just like being a cop, traveling, hunting, and target shooting.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Same as today the LTC provides a Defense to Prosecution (46.15) to unlawful carry of a weapon (46.02).

But 46.15 doesn't say Defense...you say?



Aha, but in order for something to be an exception, it must say EXACTLY:



Since it doesn't say that, currently (appellate) courts have ruled that LTC is a Defense, just like being a cop, traveling, hunting, and target shooting.

Correct. When does a defense to prosecution get presented?

 

[ScottDLS]

Correct. When does a defense to prosecution get presented?

If you get to trial, because the DA is stupid and doesn't drop the case when he sees you have a Defense, then you/your attorney must bring up the Defense at trial. With an exception, the DA is not supposed to go to trial if you have an exception. Anyway once you raise the Defense, the DA must refute it beyond a reasonable doubt for you to be convicted. Any DA that brings a lot of these cases where there is a known Defense is probably going to start getting charges dismissed by the judge before trial when the judge gets pissed that he his wasting the court's time. Though legally, it is up to the defendant to present the Defense.

 

[toddnjoyce]

If you get to trial, because the DA is stupid and doesn't drop the case when he sees you have a Defense, then you/your attorney must bring up the Defense at trial. With an exception, the DA is not supposed to go to trial if you have an exception. Anyway once you raise the Defense, the DA must refute it beyond a reasonable doubt for you to be convicted. Any DA that brings a lot of these cases where there is a known Defense is probably going to start getting charges dismissed by the judge before trial when the judge gets pissed that he his wasting the court's time. Though legally, it is up to the defendant to present the Defense.

Exactly. Now, some may argue the new 30.05 won’t apply to LTC holders without a 30.06 or .07 posting. At trial is where that will be decided, which is the only point I was making.

Some people want to be a guinea pig, some people become a guinea pig, and some people get convicted.