Military Camp

Legislative Director

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!
  • toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Hey @AndiTurner, I've been kicking this over with @TexasRedneck over lunch for a couple of months now and he's mentioned I need to bring this up to you. I gave a lot of time, a little talent, and some treasure to help get HB1927 passed and certainly am glad that option is available for most people in Texas who don't opt for the LTC. There were some significant disappointments with that, though. It wasn't just that TPC 30.06 and 30.07 weren't repealed, it was that 30.05 was added with a sign and TPC46.03 got a sign. Setting aside the argument that private businesses can do what they want, I want to address the legislative absurdity behind those provisions. Channel your best Rod Sterling voice and put the Twilight Zone opening soundtrack on in the background and say these words: "Imagine a place where the government passes a law allowing private businesses to prohibit exercising a constitutional right. Imagine a sign posted that you can't enter a convenience store openly wearing a t-shirt with a religious emblem on it. Imagine a place where governments can flout the law and prohibit you from exercising your constitutional right to peaceably assemble in a government building, even with a permit from the state and law that allows you do so. You have entered the state of Texas."

    Seriously, I'd like to propose a grand compromise on all the signs, while creating both parity and alignment between LTC and Permitless Carry. And businesses get their sign. Repeal TPC 30.05/.06/.07. Go to TPC 46.03 and create a new subsection on Prohibited Places, all of which require one of two signs, in English and Spanish, in 1" letters in contrasting colors. Re-write TPC 46.03 as Prohibited Places with two categories, one being a Class C misdemeanor and encompasses all those entities today that can legally post a 30.05/.06/.07 sign. Rewrite the defense to prosecutions (specifically 30.06 (f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as defined by Section 46.01.) and to state (f) This section does not apply if the person is carrying a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as defined by Section 46.01. from the old 30.05/.06/.07 and make them applicable for this part of the 46.03 re-write. This section makes no distinction between open or concealed carry otherwise.

    Then leave the existing 46.03 in place, except these places get the same sign as today but with a giant red border all the way around. Whichever sign is applicable has to be conspicuously posted at each entryway (yes, that means sports arenas, etc. need a sign at each door). Now, the second problem is what's a valid sign. This part is super simple. Any entity wanting to post the sign has to apply to DPS Regulatory Services Division for the appropriate sign and pay a fee to cover DPS costs for processing and pay for the required number of signs to be issued. These signs are only valid for, let's say five years. If the entity name or address changes, then they have to re-apply and pay a small processing fee. That creates parity between entities and citizens. The last part, verifying a sign is valid, is super simple as well.

    Treat is just like a TABC red sign (51%); publicly searchable database that allows anyone to report an entity who's posted one of these signs and isn't in the database. Attach a fine for violators (yes, DPS should be able to fine the City of San Antonio when they put up a sign in a place that isn't on today's 46.03 prohibited places list). These are the table stakes going forward for my support.
     

    Dave Z

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 24, 2021
    138
    26
    Roanoke, TX
    My problem with that is the shop keeper or business owner being forced into allowing firearms carry is losing my constitutional rights to run my business as I see fit and the possibility of my liability insurance rates going up as a result.
    An individuals constitutional rights terminate at my property line where my rights begin. If the individual cannot abide by my wishes, he is welcome to keep walking. I haven't lost anything. My business in on property controlled by federal regulations where firearms possession is controlled by federal code of regulations and executive orders.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    My problem with that is the shop keeper or business owner being forced into allowing firearms carry is losing my constitutional rights to run my business as I see fit and the possibility of my liability insurance rates going up as a result.
    An individuals constitutional rights terminate at my property line where my rights begin. If the individual cannot abide by my wishes, he is welcome to keep walking. I haven't lost anything. My business in on property controlled by federal regulations where firearms possession is controlled by federal code of regulations and executive orders.

    Nothing prevents you or your employee from asking someone to leave for any reason at all. Nothing would prevent you from being able to apply for and order up the sign.

    The bolded “does not apply” text already exists in 30.06/30.07 today (and has for years) as a defense to prosecution.
     

    Sasquatch

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 20, 2020
    6,590
    96
    Magnolia
    My problem with that is the shop keeper or business owner being forced into allowing firearms carry is losing my constitutional rights to run my business as I see fit and the possibility of my liability insurance rates going up as a result.
    An individuals constitutional rights terminate at my property line where my rights begin. If the individual cannot abide by my wishes, he is welcome to keep walking. I haven't lost anything. My business in on property controlled by federal regulations where firearms possession is controlled by federal code of regulations and executive orders.

    If you're running a membership business, that's fine. If you're opening your business to the general public and creating a public accommodation, then you should either allow lawfully armed customers, or accept liability for all that happens on your property and have capable security in place - along with secure storage areas for the weapons you don't want in your business so that a person doesn't have to make the choice of committing a crime by entering, leaving their firearm in an unsecure vehicle, or foregoing the exercise of their right to be armed and capable of defending themselves just to patronize your establishment.

    A business operating as a public accommodation is quite different than your private home - you wouldn't invite the general public into your home. You do as a business. You're already assuming liability for guests coming into your home, if they get injured in your home and its not because of gross negligence on their part or a true act of God - you're liable and your renters or homeowners insurance (if you have it - or you, if you don't) is going to wind up paying for their care, or paying their estate should they die from that injury. Your rates are probably going up in that case, if your policy doesn't wind up cancelled.

    If you were to survey businesses in states that don't provide force-of-law for no-guns signs, I doubt you're going to find they pay higher premiums for insurance based on that aspect. They may pay higher premiums due to a location's crime rate, chance of fire or flood, but not because they can or cannot legally ban people from carrying into their establishment.

    "Go elsewhere" may work in a large city or urban area - what of the more rural areas or places where someone cannot just "go elsewhere" to get what they need? They now have to be less safe to receive the same accommodation as others? I suppose by the same logic, you'd be a-OK with a business saying "show us your medical records" to be allowed entry? Or what about "no blacks allowed" or "whites only" signage? Blacks can always "go elsewhere" to eat, or shop, or receive medical care, right? Why are legal, law abiding firearms carriers not given equal treatment?

    A criminal is going to ignore every sign out there. Force of law behind no-guns signs just creates two classes of people - potential victims and predators who would victimize them. You can leave trespassing statutes in place without firearm-specific wordings - you can ask anyone to leave your business or private property at any time, if they don't leave - they're now committing a crime.
     

    AndiTurner

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 16, 2021
    180
    46
    Bastrop County
    Fair points well made, all! This is why I wanted to talk to the OP about it. I was a little confused about whether he was aligning the sign language or something more. There is absolutely a right for you to run your property as you see fit and we do need to honor that. Since we're all here, is there a middle ground between your rights as a property owner and my right to self defense? I'm not sure I see one but this is why I surround myself with people who are smarter than me! So I can learn and discern!!!!!
     

    Big Dipper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    2,940
    96
    ATX & FC, WI
    Very few “no firearms or dangerous weapons” signs in Wisconsin.

    Per WI statutes:

    175.60  License to carry a concealed weapon.
    (21)  Immunity.
    (b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
     

    rotor

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 1, 2015
    4,239
    96
    Texas
    I have never understood any of the reasons for no carry signs for any ltc person. Why can’t I conceal carry at a voting booth? Am I more likely to shoot someone? I can see open carry as possibly influencing someone but not concealed. Why should a business care if I conceal carry? Am I wearing red underwear or white? Businesses property rights are violated routinely by armed robbers not LTC holders. Does LEO have better security background than I do. I don’t think so. Why 51% signs? I can go into a bar restaurant and not drink. Haven’t been to an execution lately. How many LTC holders have shot up schools? Post office parking lots. Is that the next Okay Corral?
     

    Dave Z

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 24, 2021
    138
    26
    Roanoke, TX
    Nothing prevents you or your employee from asking someone to leave for any reason at all. Nothing would prevent you from being able to apply for and order up the sign.

    The bolded “does not apply” text already exists in 30.06/30.07 today (and has for years) as a defense to prosecution.

    But that's not what you said in your post

    Setting aside the argument that private businesses can do what they want, I want to address the legislative absurdity behind those provisions. Channel your best Rod Sterling voice and put the Twilight Zone opening soundtrack on in the background and say these words: "Imagine a place where the government passes a law allowing private businesses to prohibit exercising a constitutional right.
    You are advocating legislative action to prevent a business from conducting business as they see fit.
     

    Big Dipper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    2,940
    96
    ATX & FC, WI
    My problem with that is the shop keeper or business owner being forced into allowing firearms carry is losing my constitutional rights to run my business as I see fit and the possibility of my liability insurance rates going up as a result.
    An individuals constitutional rights terminate at my property line where my rights begin. If the individual cannot abide by my wishes, he is welcome to keep walking. I haven't lost anything. My business in on property controlled by federal regulations where firearms possession is controlled by federal code of regulations and executive orders.

    Besides firearms, what other things that a customer might have in their pockets or under their clothes do you have a “constitutional right” to know about and control?

    Knives, magic markers, offensive tattoos, mace, sufficient money on hand to buy your wares even if they are only looking, …?
     
    Last edited:

    Sasquatch

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 20, 2020
    6,590
    96
    Magnolia
    Fair points well made, all! This is why I wanted to talk to the OP about it. I was a little confused about whether he was aligning the sign language or something more. There is absolutely a right for you to run your property as you see fit and we do need to honor that. Since we're all here, is there a middle ground between your rights as a property owner and my right to self defense? I'm not sure I see one but this is why I surround myself with people who are smarter than me! So I can learn and discern!!!!!

    Middle ground is remove the force-of-law behind a "no guns sign" - the property owner / manager can still ask or tell people to leave for whatever reason, and if that person stays after being told to go, they're trespassing. NO reason to make it a separate offense with a higher criminal penalty if someone walks in while armed. Criminals will ignore the sign anyway - and you're just creating criminals from an otherwise law abiding person who decides their right to self protection trumps a property owner's right to say "no guns".

    I realize it was before Texas had any legal handgun carry - but the shooting at Luby's is a big reason Texas became a legal-carry state. Giving force of law to no-guns signs creates the same dangers today as were present in that Killeen Luby's in 1991 - the people inside could not legally be armed or they'd be committing a crime themselves. The killer didn't give a damn about the laws, or signs, or anything but his own intent to harm others.

    While I am not familiar with every aspect of Texas law - in many or most states - if you yourself are committing a crime, then your claim to self defense is rendered null and void in the event you must defend yourself. If that is the case here in Texas - then an otherwise law abiding person who chooses to protect their life by carrying a firearm with them, including into a place which prohibits firearms would face murder or attempted murder charges if they do wind up in a Luby's like situation.

    I think everyone here would see that person as a hero if they, while armed, were to stop a mass shooting event - but the prosecuting DA could well say "no, they're no hero, they're a criminal just like the person they killed" and that person could well spend the rest of their life in prison, or being here in Texas, could wind up executed by the state for the audacity to go armed and defend themselves in a place with a stupid sign on the door prohibiting carry.

    The right of self preservation should be the ultimate right - like it or not - we must be able to rank our "rights" in order of importance. For most people - we would put the safety of ourselves and our loved ones, or innocents above the rights of those that would seek to do us harm, or to otherwise impede upon our own right to self preservation. I'm sorry but your property rights are not more important than my life.

    If you are opening business to the general public - and not as a private club where membership is necessary to participate and members joining agree to abide by a set of rules - then you shouldn't be able to exclude people from carrying a firearm. If they make an ass of themselves, trespass them. If they're waiving a gun around - trespass them.

    There shouldn't be areas other than prisons and maybe secure areas of mental institutions where you shouldn't be allowed to be armed. We should be able to carry into the halls of the legislature, into court houses, into schools, into churches, bars, restaurants, city halls, county offices, airports, bus stations - any place where a member of the public is allowed. There are already mechanisms built into the law to prosecute people acting a fool.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Middle ground is remove the force-of-law behind a "no guns sign" - the property owner / manager can still ask or tell people to leave for whatever reason, and if that person stays after being told to go, they're trespassing. NO reason to make it a separate offense with a higher criminal penalty if someone walks in while armed. Criminals will ignore the sign anyway - and you're just creating criminals from an otherwise law abiding person who decides their right to self protection trumps a property owner's right to say "no guns".

    I realize it was before Texas had any legal handgun carry - but the shooting at Luby's is a big reason Texas became a legal-carry state. Giving force of law to no-guns signs creates the same dangers today as were present in that Killeen Luby's in 1991 - the people inside could not legally be armed or they'd be committing a crime themselves. The killer didn't give a damn about the laws, or signs, or anything but his own intent to harm others.

    While I am not familiar with every aspect of Texas law - in many or most states - if you yourself are committing a crime, then your claim to self defense is rendered null and void in the event you must defend yourself. If that is the case here in Texas - then an otherwise law abiding person who chooses to protect their life by carrying a firearm with them, including into a place which prohibits firearms would face murder or attempted murder charges if they do wind up in a Luby's like situation.

    I think everyone here would see that person as a hero if they, while armed, were to stop a mass shooting event - but the prosecuting DA could well say "no, they're no hero, they're a criminal just like the person they killed" and that person could well spend the rest of their life in prison, or being here in Texas, could wind up executed by the state for the audacity to go armed and defend themselves in a place with a stupid sign on the door prohibiting carry.

    The right of self preservation should be the ultimate right - like it or not - we must be able to rank our "rights" in order of importance. For most people - we would put the safety of ourselves and our loved ones, or innocents above the rights of those that would seek to do us harm, or to otherwise impede upon our own right to self preservation. I'm sorry but your property rights are not more important than my life.

    If you are opening business to the general public - and not as a private club where membership is necessary to participate and members joining agree to abide by a set of rules - then you shouldn't be able to exclude people from carrying a firearm. If they make an ass of themselves, trespass them. If they're waiving a gun around - trespass them.

    There shouldn't be areas other than prisons and maybe secure areas of mental institutions where you shouldn't be allowed to be armed. We should be able to carry into the halls of the legislature, into court houses, into schools, into churches, bars, restaurants, city halls, county offices, airports, bus stations - any place where a member of the public is allowed. There are already mechanisms built into the law to prosecute people acting a fool.
    I can agree with most of your post, but in 1991, concealed or open carry wasn't even legal with a pistol. That didn't pass until 1996 IIRC. So that was not a policy of Luby's but at the time current Texas laws.
     

    Sasquatch

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 20, 2020
    6,590
    96
    Magnolia
    I can agree with most of your post, but in 1991, concealed or open carry wasn't even legal with a pistol. That didn't pass until 1996 IIRC. So that was not a policy of Luby's but at the time current Texas laws.

    I think you skimmed my post there friend - I stated that the Luby's shooting was one of the big things that lead to *legal* carry of a handgun in Texas.
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,119
    Messages
    2,953,342
    Members
    34,941
    Latest member
    Irowland1994
    Top Bottom