You don't think private property owners should be able to control access to their own property?
Private property designed for public accommodation should be treated differently than private property for personal use.
As long as this is part of 30.05:
(i) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure , regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.
then this should be too:
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, 1 to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.
In fact, it should be changed to:
(f) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was issued a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, 1 to carry a handgun;