FYI: TSRA Legislative Director answers a few questions about TX Permitless Carry

[JamesH]

Some of the most heartwarming content on YouTube documents people who have escaped communism (mostly North Korea or Cuba) and are now experiencing the USA.

I remember watching a NK defector interview on Tim Pool. A shocking revelation was that she wanted to go back to NK, after experiencing the "freedoms" South Korea had because she had to be responsible for herself.

Damn shame but in retrospect, kind of undersable when thinking about the level of control the government had over an individual.

It could be only a generation or two before U.S. citizens share a similar fate. Unless of course, we remain vigilant, aware and actively prevent the inception of such ideals.

I don't believe it takes a community to raise a child. I do believe it takes many communities to prevent government tyranny, however.

 

[jrbfishn]

I remember watching a NK defector interview on Tim Pool. A shocking revelation was that she wanted to go back to NK, after experiencing the "freedoms" South Korea had because she had to be responsible for herself.

Damn shame but in retrospect, kind of undersable when thinking about the level of control the government had over an individual.

It could be only a generation or two before U.S. citizens share a similar fate. Unless of course, we remain vigilant, aware and actively prevent the inception of such ideals.

I don't believe it takes a community to raise a child. I do believe it takes many communities to prevent government tyranny, however.

Not really shocking at all. Look at prison recidivism. Criminals bitch about being in prison, and when they get out and can have a normal life, repeat the same behaviors that will get them sent back.
Responsibility for ones own actions and life are too much for some people to handle. Easier to be somewhere that most decisions are made for you.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[motorcarman]

I have brother that is homeless most of the time. (I guess it is easier?)

 

[Aus_Schwaben]

They should add the signage and explain the differences as well because the pdf said "permitless carry" allows them to carry in the same places as an LTC yet 30.05 does not allow "permitless" carry on premises with that sign.

 

[DoubleDuty]

They should add the signage and explain the differences as well because the pdf said "permitless carry" allows them to carry in the same places as an LTC yet 30.05 does not allow "permitless" carry on premises with that sign.

No they should get rid of enforceable signs as have other states

 

[JamesH]

I know slightly more than nothing about sinage regulations in TX yet and I'll have to become familiar sooner than later.

Please excuse my ignorance. I gather that particular sinage can prohibit either OC, CC or both with an automatic and arbitrary trespass, without verbal notification?

If so, I have a huge problem with this.

 

[DoubleDuty]

I know slightly more than nothing about sinage regulations in TX yet and I'll have to become familiar sooner than later.

Please excuse my ignorance. I gather that particular sinage can prohibit either OC, CC or both with an automatic and arbitrary trespass, without verbal notification?

If so, I have a huge problem with this.

Yes

 

[JamesH]

Yes

Surely, the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs carry the same legal weight?

How about "If you're not going to behave in a manner deemed appropriate, you are trespassed signs"?

Rediculous is an understatement, IMO. Can someone please explain the logic behind such regulations? Type slowly because I'm a simple man.

 

[DoubleDuty]

It's feelgood nothing more. It leaves everyone vulnerable because criminals don't care about signs.

 

[Axxe55]

Surely, the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs carry the same legal weight?

How about "If you're not going to behave in a manner deemed appropriate, you are trespassed signs"?

Rediculous is an understatement, IMO. Can someone please explain the logic behind such regulations? Type slowly because I'm a simple man.

A business or company is private property, regardless of whether they are open to the public. As a private entity, they should be allowed to the right to restrict, or prohibit anything they deem unacceptable, for whatever reasons they decide. Signs are how they convey those decisions.

If I see a business displaying any such signage, I will do business elsewhere. Honestly, I don't care to know their reasons for displaying the signage. None of my business.

 

[JamesH]

A business or company is private property, regardless of whether they are open to the public. As a private entity, they should be allowed to the right to restrict, or prohibit anything they deem unacceptable, for whatever reasons they decide. Signs are how they convey those decisions.

If I see a business displaying any such signage, I will do business elsewhere. Honestly, I don't care to know their reasons for displaying the signage. None of my business.

While I agree with you on weather or not a private business should have a right to restrict or prohibit anything they deem unacceptable, for whatever reasons they decide. I don't think sinage should be the vehicle in which the offense is enforced.

The method of being verbally trespassed seems far more reasonable to me.

What happens if the establishment displays the sinage outside of view from the threshold of the business? I potentially could break established law before knowing the law applies? Is there an exemption carved out for such an act?

Just spitballing here, though I can see and understand your point.

 

[Axxe55]

While I agree with you on weather or not a private business should have a right to restrict or prohibit anything they deem unacceptable, for whatever reasons they decide. I don't think sinage should be the vehicle in which the offense is enforced.

The method of being verbally trespassed seems far more reasonable to me.

What happens if the establishment displays the sinage outside of view from the threshold of the business? I potentially could break established law before knowing the law applies? Is there an exemption carved out for such an act?

Just spitballing here, though I can see and understand your point.

I will always err on the side of property owner's rights to restrict or prohibit what they deem to be unacceptable.

But at the same time, if they so choose to prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premises, using signage, then that signage needs to be plainly seen by everyone.

Putting the signs up, but not in plain sight, then making a complaint about someone carrying within their business is just wrong.

 

[JamesH]

I will always err on the side of property owner's rights to restrict or prohibit what they deem to be unacceptable.

But at the same time, if they so choose to prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premises, using signage, then that signage needs to be plainly seen by everyone.

Putting the signs up, but not in plain sight, then making a complaint about someone carrying within their business is just wrong.

Putting signs up but not in plain sight, isn't just wrong in my opinion. It can be an intentional, unintentional or even a predatory attempt at punishing otherwise law abiding gun owners by threat of violence, through law enforcement resources.

"In plain view" can easily be decided arbitrarily, depending on a person's definition thereof. Does window film, combined with polarized sunglasses meet the definition of "plain view"? I don't know.

Being verbally told to leave by an owner or authorized representative of a business is pretty cut and dry, on the other hand.

 

[DoubleDuty]

While I agree with you on weather or not a private business should have a right to restrict or prohibit anything they deem unacceptable, for whatever reasons they decide. I don't think sinage should be the vehicle in which the offense is enforced.

The method of being verbally trespassed seems far more reasonable to me.

What happens if the establishment displays the sinage outside of view from the threshold of the business? I potentially could break established law before knowing the law applies? Is there an exemption carved out for such an act?

Just spitballing here, though I can see and understand your point.

It has to be displayed at every entrance and meet the signage rules setup by the state. As I have stated other states have unenforceable signs. And so should Texas. Business owners have the right to ask you to leave.

 

[DoubleDuty]

I will always err on the side of property owner's rights to restrict or prohibit what they deem to be unacceptable.

But at the same time, if they so choose to prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premises, using signage, then that signage needs to be plainly seen by everyone.

Putting the signs up, but not in plain sight, then making a complaint about someone carrying within their business is just wrong.

Other states don't have enforceable signs. The owners still have the right to ask you to leave. Those signs do nothing to protect anyone.

 

[jordanmills]

It's feelgood nothing more. It leaves everyone vulnerable because criminals don't care about signs.

Worse. It advertises a vulnerable disarmed crowd and a parking lot likely filled with party favors.

 

[BobCat]

Other states don't have enforceable signs. The owners still have the right to ask you to leave. Those signs do nothing to protect anyone.

You are right that the signs don't protect anyone in the business - except someone who comes to rob the business, or to shoot disarmed people.

The signs just enable the owner to express their preference that nobody carry in their store, without actively telling each and every person who enters the business that they are not welcome if carrying.

The signs are only "enforceable" in that if you carry past the sign and are discovered, you are in violation of the law and could be charged if you do not leave. Ignoring the sign is a choice, and there are consequences if discovered.

When I see a 30.06 sign I simply do business elsewhere. Their property, their choice; my choice to avoid their business. My choice to avoid any consequences attached to violating their wishes.

30.07 is problematic because I can understand their not wanting open carry for fear of antagonizing some of their more easily-frightened customers; but 30-07 and no 30-06, they are not discriminating against me. Probably still go elsewhere but not as irritated. 30.05 - haven't even thought about it yet, but my visceral response it same as 30.06, leave and do business elsewhere; don't be among the willingly disarmed.

There is no point to this post except to ask you for clarification about the difference between enforceable and unenforceable signs.

 

[benenglish]

30.07 is problematic because I can understand their not wanting open carry for fear of antagonizing some of their more easily-frightened customers; but 30-07 and no 30-06, they are not discriminating against me.

Someone here on TGT cited a situation of a gun store or range that posted 30.06 but not 30.07. The owner doesn't mind people being armed; he just wants to know who they are.

Anybody remember that or am I imagining it?

 

[DoubleDuty]

You are right that the signs don't protect anyone in the business - except someone who comes to rob the business, or to shoot disarmed people.

The signs just enable the owner to express their preference that nobody carry in their store, without actively telling each and every person who enters the business that they are not welcome if carrying.

The signs are only "enforceable" in that if you carry past the sign and are discovered, you are in violation of the law and could be charged if you do not leave. Ignoring the sign is a choice, and there are consequences if discovered.

When I see a 30.06 sign I simply do business elsewhere. Their property, their choice; my choice to avoid their business. My choice to avoid any consequences attached to violating their wishes.

30.07 is problematic because I can understand their not wanting open carry for fear of antagonizing some of their more easily-frightened customers; but 30-07 and no 30-06, they are not discriminating against me. Probably still go elsewhere but not as irritated. 30.05 - haven't even thought about it yet, but my visceral response it same as 30.06, leave and do business elsewhere; don't be among the willingly disarmed.

There is no point to this post except to ask you for clarification about the difference between enforceable and unenforceable signs.

You can't always go somewhere else and other states have signs that are not enforceable by law.

 

[BobCat]

Thanks for making me look it up!

From LTC-16 2021-2022 edition:

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a
fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown
on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was
personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and
subsequently failed to depart.

So if you walk past the sign and they catch you, it is a Class C misdemeanor and fine up to $200, but if you hang around after they catch you and tell you to leave, it is Class A.

I have misunderstood this for years. I thought that you were in violation if 1) you got caught, 2) were told to leave, and refused to do so. So I learned something.

What I'm looking to understand is the difference between enforceable and unenforceable. At this point it seems that if the sign is unenforceable there is no legal penalty or fine for ignoring it. The owner can express his wish not to have armed people in his store, but can't "make it stick" except by yelling real loud and stamping his feet.

Not sure under what circumstances one can't "go somewhere else" - if Burger King is posted I can go to Sonic; if Ace Hardware is posted I can go to Home Depot - but have to admit there may be circumstances where there is no alternative business. At that point one has to decide whether one needs whatever they are selling so much that one would disarm; but since I got my CHL in 1996 that circumstance has not arisen so I don't know what I would do.

In states with unenforceable signs, does the property owner have any recourse at all? If not, the signs seem entirely futile.