Target Sports

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

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!
  • Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    @BobCat :

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

    It also seems to me that if the signs are unenforceable, that takes away the property owner's rights to prohibit the carrying of firearms as well.
    DK Firearms
     

    JamesH

    New Member
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 8, 2021
    43
    11
    California
    I would imagine the right to refuse service would still apply if the signage is unenforceable. I fail to see where the property/business owner's rights are nullified.

    If I am asked to leave and refuse, I'd be committing a trespass offense. Same if I am told to never come back and return.
     

    BobCat

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 11, 2008
    20
    11
    East Bernard, TX
    JamesH, that clarifies the situation - for open carry.

    For concealed (and I'm from the generation that was concerned about being 'busted for printing') they can't refuse service or ask one to leave if they can't see through one's cover garment. In that circumstance it seems their legal right to prohibit concealed carry is indeed nullified.

    I'm trying (unsuccessfully so far) to imagine a 'thing' that I do not want someone who comes to my place to visit, to bring along. Something like a pocket-sized nuclear warhead, because we all know how prone those are to 'going off by themselves' - but something more realistic for the sake of discussion.

    If I post "no nuclear warheads past the front gate" and someone brings one, and the Geiger counter at the gate detects it, I can tell him to get it the hell out of here. But lacking a Geiger counter he can have it in his pocket and I'm unaware, until it 'goes off' and kills a bunch of people.

    My sign puts my heirs in the clear - the property was posted and someone violated the prohibition, so the property owner, while dead, is legally in the clear. No sign, my heirs are liable because I didn't exercise due diligence to keep nukes off the property.

    Sorry (a little) for the fanciful turn, but I did say that I was unsuccessful in thinking of something I wanted to prohibit.
     

    DoubleDuty

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 9, 2019
    3,679
    96
    DFW
    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.
    They have always had the right to ask you to leave. Unenforceable signs don't change that. Other states have instituted this.
     

    DoubleDuty

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 9, 2019
    3,679
    96
    DFW
    JamesH, that clarifies the situation - for open carry.

    For concealed (and I'm from the generation that was concerned about being 'busted for printing') they can't refuse service or ask one to leave if they can't see through one's cover garment. In that circumstance it seems their legal right to prohibit concealed carry is indeed nullified.

    I'm trying (unsuccessfully so far) to imagine a 'thing' that I do not want someone who comes to my place to visit, to bring along. Something like a pocket-sized nuclear warhead, because we all know how prone those are to 'going off by themselves' - but something more realistic for the sake of discussion.

    If I post "no nuclear warheads past the front gate" and someone brings one, and the Geiger counter at the gate detects it, I can tell him to get it the hell out of here. But lacking a Geiger counter he can have it in his pocket and I'm unaware, until it 'goes off' and kills a bunch of people.

    My sign puts my heirs in the clear - the property was posted and someone violated the prohibition, so the property owner, while dead, is legally in the clear. No sign, my heirs are liable because I didn't exercise due diligence to keep nukes off the property.

    Sorry (a little) for the fanciful turn, but I did say that I was unsuccessful in thinking of something I wanted to prohibit.
    Again criminals don't pay attention to signs. Law abiding people are not a danger. If they don't know then no one knows except you.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Again criminals don't pay attention to signs. Law abiding people are not a danger. If they don't know then no one knows except you.
    That is true. We know that the criminals disregard signs and that law-abiding citizens are not the danger, but still there places that think of placing signage that prohibits the carrying of firearms within their premises.

    Signs won't stop a criminal, but an armed law-abiding citizen can and have stopped criminals.
     

    TheDan

    deplorable malcontent scofflaw
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    27,551
    96
    Austin - Rockdale
    For concealed (and I'm from the generation that was concerned about being 'busted for printing') they can't refuse service or ask one to leave if they can't see through one's cover garment. In that circumstance it seems their legal right to prohibit concealed carry is indeed nullified.
    A business/property owner might post a sign saying "No two inch dicks allowed.", but it's not any of their business as long as you keep it concealed.
     

    JamesH

    New Member
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 8, 2021
    43
    11
    California
    JamesH, that clarifies the situation - for open carry.

    For concealed (and I'm from the generation that was concerned about being 'busted for printing') they can't refuse service or ask one to leave if they can't see through one's cover garment. In that circumstance it seems their legal right to prohibit concealed carry is indeed nullified.

    I'm trying (unsuccessfully so far) to imagine a 'thing' that I do not want someone who comes to my place to visit, to bring along. Something like a pocket-sized nuclear warhead, because we all know how prone those are to 'going off by themselves' - but something more realistic for the sake of discussion.

    If I post "no nuclear warheads past the front gate" and someone brings one, and the Geiger counter at the gate detects it, I can tell him to get it the hell out of here. But lacking a Geiger counter he can have it in his pocket and I'm unaware, until it 'goes off' and kills a bunch of people.

    My sign puts my heirs in the clear - the property was posted and someone violated the prohibition, so the property owner, while dead, is legally in the clear. No sign, my heirs are liable because I didn't exercise due diligence to keep nukes off the property.

    Sorry (a little) for the fanciful turn, but I did say that I was unsuccessful in thinking of something I wanted to prohibit.
    I understand where you're coming from. Concealed or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. It is no one's responsibility but the property owner/ business to make sure no firearms enter. It not the government's, law enforcement's or anyone else's. Better phrased is "it shouldn't be".

    In your scenario, the Geiger counter detects the warhead, providing you a warning that the warhead is present and you act accordingly. A direct equivalent is a metal detector which would be installed by the owner/ business. A sign, or the law doesn't act like the "detector" is this case.

    Legal liability goes both ways too. Due diligence is vague. I argue the minimum due diligence required for gun free zones are armed defenders outside and metal detectors at the entrances and exits. Disneyland does this, despite not having a law-backed sign displayed.
     
    Last edited:

    JamesH

    New Member
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 8, 2021
    43
    11
    California
    That is true. We know that the criminals disregard signs and that law-abiding citizens are not the danger, but still there places that think of placing signage that prohibits the carrying of firearms within their premises.

    Signs won't stop a criminal, but an armed law-abiding citizen can and have stopped criminals.
    I have little issue with private business not wanting firearms on their premises. Notice I didn't say "no issue". There has to be a line where the individual right of the business and the individual right of the patron coexist. Other than "find another business that allows carry" or "if found, be asked to leave. If refusing, you are tresspassing", I don't know what that line is. I certainly don't think using the government and subsequent potential threat of violence is the answer either.
     
    Last edited:

    BobCat

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 11, 2008
    20
    11
    East Bernard, TX
    I argue the minimum due diligence required for gun free zones are armed defenders outside and metal detectors at the entrances and exits. Disneyland does this, despite not having a law-backed sign displayed.
    Turns out we agree - I strongly agree with you about this.
    There has to be a line where the individual right of the business and the individual right of the patron coexist.
    And with this as well.

    You've clarified the difference between 'enforceable' and 'unenforceable' signs, which was the root of my confusion and source of my question.

    I agree with Axxe55 that the property owner has a right to prohibit (not the same as "prevent") people from carrying on his property. It is clear that signs can not prevent anyone,from carrying, it is just a matter of whether one wishes to obey the law or intends to break it.

    "Concealed is concealed" only gets one so far. Knowingly breaking the law - even if it is an ineffective, poorly designed law - is still breaking the law. If it is an act of civil disobedience, to be effective must be overt. That means getting arrested and being a test case.

    Forgive my long-windedness, it is a hazard of old age. My belief is that the origin of the 30.06 law had to do with getting concealed carry passed in the first place. It was a sop to Cerberus - "See, your Private Property Rights are preserved, all you have to do to exclude guns is to post this sign" - to remove one objection to the proposed concealed carry law. Note that I have zero knowledge or factual basis for this belief and if it is incorrect maybe someone with the facts will post about it.

    But if this view is correct then you are right, it is time to revisit the law and remove the Class C misdemeanor part of it.
     
    Top Bottom