If OC passes.

[Renegade]

Disagree. A private business owner can and should be able to regulate and control access to his property.

Those days are long gone.

The debate is now how much or little he should be regulated.

 

[tweek]

Disagree. A private business owner can and should be able to regulate and control access to his property.

No worries. I don't go to Grapevine Mills b/c of the stupid, and incorrectly placed, 30.06 signs. You open your doors to the public then your doors are open. What I carry or do not carry on my person is none of your business. Think the gangbanger with his glock shoved in the back of his pants cares that you posted a sign? Just means: fresh, unarmed meat.

An office building is not the same b/c it is not open to the public. The only people present are employees or invited guests.

 

[MR Redneck]

I've meant to ask about this a few times. After reading the law over several times I am pretty confident that if I accidently show my unmentionable in public I won't have broken the law. However, peoples constant concern about things like printing or accidental display makes it confusing. Yeah, I'd prefer that nobody be aware that I'm armed, but given the choice between being armed with some printing or being unarmed - I'll take armed.



I think 30.06 signs need to go away for publicly accessible businesses - malls, stores, resturants, etc. An office building isnt publicly accessible but I don't think they should have them either but it's a harder argument to make.

30.06 signs are nothing more than the rights of private property owners. Supporting one constitutional right and infringing on another wont help anything. There are a lot of place those signs shouldnt be allow, but private property should retain the right to use them. There are better was of dealing with public business other than violating their rights. Such as requiring metal detectors and security and the entrances.
30.06 signs have a way of phasing themselves out in public business. Profit rules over rights denyal .
For anyone to think you can force what you want on private property is not helping anything.

 

[tweek]

Fair enough. Thing is: a 7Eleven isn't really a private place. A person's residence is private - my door is not open to anybody during normal business hours. Where as a retail location (what I'm specifically talking about) is open to anybody that cares to go to the location. But in general I'd prefer to allow the market place to take its course, but it is still annoying.

 

[txinvestigator]

No worries. I don't go to Grapevine Mills b/c of the stupid, and incorrectly placed, 30.06 signs. You open your doors to the public then your doors are open. What I carry or do not carry on my person is none of your business. Think the gangbanger with his glock shoved in the back of his pants cares that you posted a sign? Just means: fresh, unarmed meat.

An office building is not the same b/c it is not open to the public. The only people present are employees or invited guests.

While I agree that 30.06 creates unarmed kill zones, that does not negate the right a business owner has to control his own property. You cannot FORCE me to accept you with your gun. That is as it should be. Don't like that; shop elsewhere.

 

[txinvestigator]

Those days are long gone.

Disagree, but to be fair, how so?

 

[txinvestigator]

Fair enough. Thing is: a 7Eleven isn't really a private place. A person's residence is private - my door is not open to anybody during normal business hours. Where as a retail location (what I'm specifically talking about) is open to anybody that cares to go to the location. But in general I'd prefer to allow the market place to take its course, but it is still annoying.

A business open to the public is a public place. However, it is still a private business. The owner can control entry. If he does not like the part of your hair he can demand that you leave, and if you refuse you can be charged with a crime.

 

[Renegade]

Disagree, but to be fair, how so?

Civil rights laws, Legal Right of Ways, etc.

A private business owner no longer has 100% control over who comes and goes on his property. Surely you agree he cannot legally deny entry based on skin, race, Appraisal Officer, etc?

 

[MR Redneck]

Fair enough. Thing is: a 7Eleven isn't really a private place. A person's residence is private - my door is not open to anybody during normal business hours. Where as a retail location (what I'm specifically talking about) is open to anybody that cares to go to the location. But in general I'd prefer to allow the market place to take its course, but it is still annoying.

Dude! If it aint owned by the state or belongs to the public, then it is private. Like I said, there are better ways to protect your rights without infringing on the rights of others. Forcing what you want on private industry and private property will get you nothin. Those are two most cherished things in Texas. It's been a fight to keep it that way and it will stay that way.

 

[MR Redneck]

Civil rights laws, Legal Right of Ways, etc.

A private business owner no longer has 100% control over who comes and goes on his property. Surely you agree he cannot legally deny entry based on skin, race, Appraisal Officer, etc?

Really, since when?

 

[Renegade]

Really, since when?

1964, for civil rights, not sure about when for the Appraisal Officer, but I know many have tried to stop him and lost in the courts.

 

[Bithabus]

I don't see where the difference would matter from a 4A standpoint. In either case, the police officer would have to be able to articulate a reason why they believed you did not have a license in order to detain you and force you to present it.

No he would not. Like I said before, carrying a handgun is illegal in Texas. Driving a car is not illegal. Driving a car without a license is illegal. In the latter case the Officer needs to be able to articulate that you had no license and that you were driving a car in public. In the former, he need only articulate that you were carrying a handgun. During the course of the invetgiation he may find out that you have an exemption and end the stop.

 

[Bithabus]

Okay....driving a car is illegal if not licensed. The license gives us an exemption.

Because when you get right down to it, a car is actually pretty heavily regulated. It must be registered and inspected annually. It must be insured at all times. Only licensed drivers are allowed to operate it.

I ain't tryin' to beat a dead horse, but I personally think that it won't take long before cops either tire of asking folks for their licenses, or some PD's get hit with harrassment suits....

No, the DL does no gives us an exemption. Driving without the DL is illegal. If the handgun law and the driving law worked the same way the driving law would look like this:
(a)it shall be unlawful for any person on public property to operate a motor vehicle.
(b)this section shall not apply to a person possessing a valid Driver's License issued by the department of public safety.

But of course it does not look like that. The handgun law, however, does which is why the mere presence of a handgun on or about a person constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed.

I'd like to see the law changed. Hell, I'd like to see 46.02 and 46.03 deleted. But it is what it is.

 

[Bithabus]

Thanks I was unaware of that. I see that it is recent and is from a lower court, and thus not binding all over the state (only binding in the Amarillo area). Do you have anything from The Texas Court of Appeals? I do not think that ruling is binding in the other 13 jurisdictions. I will ask around myself.

You're right, that decision isn't binding everywhere in Texas. Although in light of SCOTUS decisions I think other courts would agree with the ruling. I'll try to find Court Crim Appeals ruling.

 

[The Lox]

1964, for civil rights, not sure about when for the Appraisal Officer, but I know many have tried to stop him and lost in the courts.

I am pretty sure you are wrong. Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as they are not basing it on Race, or any of the other protected categories. I personally think this is a good thing. If someone comes in, and you don't want to serve them so be it...

What are the penalties for walking past a 30.06 sign? Back in KS I would walk right past a sign that was not posted correctly, and in some cases a sign that was. I would rather have to deal with the outcome of a justified shooting as opposed to being dead if I was in a place that was posted.

That saying goes, concealed is concealed...

 

[Renegade]

No, the DL does no gives us an exemption. Driving without the DL is illegal. If the handgun law and the driving law worked the same way the driving law would work like this:
(a)it shall be unlawful for any person on public property to operate a motor vehicle.
(b)this section shall not apply to a person possessing a valid Driver's License issued by the department of public safety.
.

Pretty darn close though:

Sec.A521.021.LICENSE REQUIRED.A A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a
motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver ’s license issued under this chapter.

 

[Renegade]

I am pretty sure you are wrong. Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as they are not basing it on Race, or any of the other protected categories. I personally think this is a good thing. If someone comes in, and you don't want to serve them so be it...

You just agreed with what I wrote, so how am I wrong?

 

[Bithabus]

Pretty darn close though:

Sec.A521.021.LICENSE REQUIRED.A A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a
motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver ’s license issued under this chapter.

Looks like this when I looked it up:

SUBCHAPTER B. GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS


Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED. A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

 

[Renegade]

BTW, the UCW laws did look like the DL law back in the 90s, before they separated out the exemptions.

 

[Bithabus]

Thanks I was unaware of that. I see that it is recent and is from a lower court, and thus not binding all over the state (only binding in the Amarillo area). Do you have anything from The Texas Court of Appeals? I do not think that ruling is binding in the other 13 jurisdictions. I will ask around myself.

The SCOTUS tell us in DE vs Prouse that suspicionless stops of vehicles are only acceptable as part of a checkpoint operation DELAWARE V. PROUSE, 440 U. S. 648 :: Volume 440 :: 1979 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. In Texas, in absence of State wide guidelines, checkpoints have been ruled unreasonable intrusion by the Court of Criminal appeals:  Holt v. State, 887 S.W.2d Texas - Google Scholar