Permitless carry ethics poll

[Fletcherjl]

I go somewhere else. I don't believe in doing business with people that don't love America.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I go somewhere else. I don't believe in doing business with people that don't love America.

Welcome to the Forum!

 

[kenboyles72]

Howdy and welcome.

Ethically, the property owner can follow the law, just like I do. A circle-slash pictogram does not meet the intent of 30.05. So, what would I do…ignore it; I’m concealed and I’m LTC, so it has no standing. Also, I’m not going to store a firearm in my vehicle to do my business. That’s one of, if not the leading contributor to stolen firearms.

Posted with all three signs? Me and my money go elsewhere. Not my job to educate or convince someone how to run their business.

I’ll just say I’ve inadvertently carried in valid 51% places, .06/.07 places, 46.03 prohibited places, AND a federally prohibited places before. I’ve yet to have an LE interaction out of all those opportunities, much less an interaction with a business owner.

Actually, the gun buster sign is a legal form of notice. Just like a sign that just says "No Guns" or "No guns allowed". This of course only applies to Constitutional Carry and those that don't have a LTC.

There is no wordage requirements for a sign under 30.05

30.05(c)
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;

 

[ZX9RCAM]

 

[toddnjoyce]

Actually, the gun buster sign is a legal form of notice.

No, no it isn’t. That section is rewritten.

(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly
visible to the public.

The “may” is an alternative to purple posts or oral notification. Written notification in Spanish and English is abundantly clear.

 

[jordanmills]

Starve them. Anti-american anti-texan karens don't deserve my time or money.

 

[TipBledsoe]

That my friend is the point. Anyone can bash us, but the use of words that exceed the one syllable level tend to throw the trolls back under the bridge. Thanks for your support and kind words. Know that we fight the honorable and good fight for justice and true rights of man. Yhose who oppose this will fail in the long run. Thousands of years of history support the fact that humankind rejects tyranny and oppression with the eventuality of human dignity and rights reigning supreme.

A-Men brother!

 

[TipBledsoe]

I've been meaning to tell you - I really like that Will Rogers quote!

 

[candcallen]

Meh, I don't like lord of the rings or wizards.

 

[rotor]

No, no it isn’t. That section is rewritten.

(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly
visible to the public.

The “may” is an alternative to purple posts or oral notification. Written notification in Spanish and English is abundantly clear.

You know this is still up for debate. Let’s not treat it as fact that your interpretation is fact. I hope you are right though. Our legislators could have said shall but instead said may. On the other hand hopefully business that want to ban CC won’t understand the subtlety.

 

[Grey Pilgrim]

You know this is still up for debate. Let’s not treat it as fact that your interpretation is fact. I hope you are right though. Our legislators could have said shall but instead said may. On the other hand hopefully business that want to ban CC won’t understand the subtlety.

Sucks that we have to debate it.

One perspective I haven't seen discussed is that 30.05 doesn't define when a person has "received notice" like 30.06/07 do. The 30.05 offense occurs if the person "had notice" or "received notice."

30.06(b) "For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication."

So under 30.06/07 if the owner puts up a legal 30.06/07 sign, anyone entering the premises is legally considered to have received notice. But under 30.05, it's unclear. What if the compliant 30.05 sign is posted conspicuously but I didn't see it by mistake? I could see that going either way. Applying the 30.06/07(b) definition of "received notice" seems like a stretch but I wouldn't put it past the courts to decide that is what the law means. Or I could see a stricter interpretation that you have to go by the plain words and it's not reasonable to say you somehow "received" something you didn't see.

But at the same time, that's a really important distinction because 30.05 doesn't have a defense to prosecution for people who accidentally missed the sign, but later received notice orally and left. It's only a $200 ticket, but that's not nothing to me.

 

[Grey Pilgrim]

How do you know this if you joined Sept 3? OK I guess you could infer it from some of the responses. On the other hand the poll answer:

"Respect the right of the property owner to forbid firearms if he wants to. I'll go somewhere else."

seems to imply: That a property owner, who otherwise opens his property to the public, has some right to the State's assistance in regulating other people's choices that are unobservable, and have no effect on anyone else. I can put up a "no fat chicks" sign on my store, but I don't expect the cops to come to throw out a "birthing person" of size if she should ignore it and enter my store. That and the fact that owner(s) intent or desires of how people behave are irrelevant to the law. If you don't like someone in your store, tell them to leave. Or put up a sign saying NO TRESPASSING so no one can come in. Don't put a toddler's crayon drawing of a frowny face and a squirt gun and expect us to discern that it means "your entry to this property is forbidden".

I also wanted to reply on this topic. From what I understand, most trespassing issues (other than breaking and entering or burglary) under 30.05 require the offense to occur in the presence of a police officer or a formal written notice of trespass, probably signed by the trespasser, after which police can arrest the person if they come back. If you tell them orally to leave and they don't, police can come and make them leave, but they're typically not just going to arrest them on the spot, especially if they're gone by the time they get there.

Would I be correct in assuming a similar process would apply for a person being told orally "no guns allowed" or similar? Basically, if you hang out long enough for the police to get there, you sign this paper acknowledging if you bring your guns back you'll be arrested next time?

 

[ScottDLS]

"Respect the right of the property owner to forbid firearms if he wants to. I'll go somewhere else."

I also wanted to reply on this topic. From what I understand, most trespassing issues (other than breaking and entering or burglary) under 30.05 require the offense to occur in the presence of a police officer or a formal written notice of trespass, probably signed by the trespasser, after which police can arrest the person if they come back. If you tell them orally to leave and they don't, police can come and make them leave, but they're typically not just going to arrest them on the spot, especially if they're gone by the time they get there.

Would I be correct in assuming a similar process would apply for a person being told orally "no guns allowed" or similar? Basically, if you hang out long enough for the police to get there, you sign this paper acknowledging if you bring your guns back you'll be arrested next time?

For 30.06/7 theoretically if the signs are posted properly, you can be charged simply for walking past them, if somehow you're noticed and a LEO gives you the citation ($200 class C no jail ticket). Many people have argued (incorrectly IMO) that 30.05 allowed for prosecution of anybody passing a sign indicating (somehow) that a particular activity (carrying a gun, chewing gum, etc.) was not wanted by the property owner. I've called bull crap on this for 25 years. Nobody ever gets charged with trespass for passing a sign on publicly accessible property. No CHL/LTC has in 25 years EVER been convicted under 30.05 or 30.06/7. And that includes ALL 30.05. DPS keeps the stats. Total red herring thrown out by the pre-paid legal services to drum up business.

 

[benenglish]

Maybe @benenglish could courtesy flush the noob and his thread so it's not used in some anti gun hit piece?

I could but I won't. I've just seen this thread. If he means to do "some anti gun hit piece" I'm sure he has already copied the thread and has what he needs.

Nobody hit the "Report" button. If someone had, I might have locked the thread until Grey Pilgrim and I could have talked via PM. Now that responses have been committed to the thread I don't see anything that should be done about it.

I assume everyone is willing to stand behind what they've posted to this thread so no one needs protection from me or anyone else on the staff.

As for Grey Pilgrim, he may be a troll. He may be an anti. He may be a good guy who's just curious and trying to work through, in his mind, the implications of the Sept. 1 change in the law. I have no idea what's going on in his head. But I have read every one of his posts and until he does something that contravenes the rules, he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

Of course, the rules do include that the staff can ban anyone, any time, for any reason or no reason. I try very hard not to invoke that one. Actually, I don't think I ever have and I'm not going to start just based on this thread.

 

[popsgarland]

That my friend is the point. Anyone can bash us, but the use of words that exceed the one syllable level tend to throw the trolls back under the bridge. Thanks for your support and kind words. Know that we fight the honorable and good fight for justice and true rights of man. Yhose who oppose this will fail in the long run. Thousands of years of history support the fact that humankind rejects tyranny and oppression with the eventuality of human dignity and rights reigning supreme.

I couldn't fine {Yhose} in the dictionary.

Would you, please,define that word for us that only,and barely, got out of high school.

 

[ScottDLS]

I couldn't fine {Yhose} in the dictionary.

Would you, please,define that word for us that only,and barely, got out of high school.

Yhose people who don't understand that word will never get it.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I couldn't fine {Yhose} in the dictionary.

Would you, please,define that word for us that only,and barely, got out of high school.

Y was too close to T on his keyboard.

Just like e was too close to d on yours.

Sorry, couldn't resist....

 

[easy rider]

Y was too close to T on his keyboard.

Just like e was too close to d on yours.

Sorry, couldn't resist....

Move over! You're too close!

 

[no2gates]

I don't know what the problem some people have with this thread.
It seems like a valid question and possibly some of you sound a little tin-foil-hat paranoid jumping on the OP.

 

[General Zod]

BTW, several options on your poll are incorrect. A 30.05 notice does not make it illegal to enter while armed if you're carrying your LTC. It only affects permitless carry.