What signs will bar entry to a business for CC person if legislation passes?

[kyletxria1911a1]

View attachment 258365

I saw your sig line don't forget the puppies when someone says clip

 

[rotor]

HB 1927 adds language to TPC 30.05 authorizing a sign prohibiting firearms (not handguns) with 1” letters, in English and Spanish. LTC is a defense to prosecution under that subsection of the code.

But it will restrict long guns not just handguns. Two steps forward, one back.

 

[Vaquero]

But it will restrict long guns not just handguns. Two steps forward, one back.

Fatty and snowboots are fucked.

 

[toddnjoyce]

But it will restrict long guns not just handguns. Two steps forward, one back.

Correct. I’m going to crosspost, because HB1927 crossed a shîtload of streams.

CC just passed Senate. Almost law now!

Oldest looking 25 year old I've met.

www.texasguntalk.com

 

[popo22]

Most likely it will be the 30.05 signage to cover all the bases.

 

[ScottDLS]

Most likely it will be the 30.05 signage to cover all the bases.

I hope that a lot of businesses will think that because LTC carriers will able to legally carry if only a 30.05 sign is posted.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Most likely it will be the 30.05 signage to cover all the bases.

Will have to see. The 30.05 language includes a defense to prosecution for LTC holders. While not as strong as an exception, that may lead to some officer discretion if it comes to that. As an LTC holder, absent further clarification from the AG’s
office I don’t plan to observe a 30.05 sign if I am carrying concealed.

Open carry with an LTC into 30.05 is not something I’m going to try on for size because I don’t want to antagonize businesses for a legislative fûckup.

 

[easy rider]

I'm hoping they have to make so many signs that it confuses people so much, they just say screw the signs and don't post.

I'm fine with someone asking me to leave, I'll spend my money elsewhere.

 

[majormadmax]

HB 1927 adds language to TPC 30.05 authorizing a sign prohibiting firearms (not handguns) with 1” letters, in English and Spanish. LTC is a defense to prosecution under that subsection of the code.

Which goes completely against the claim the new CC law would require no additional signage...

 

[CAtoDFW2021]

Which goes completely against the claim the new CC law would require no additional signage...

But it will restrict long guns not just handguns. Two steps forward, one back.

The one glaring issue that nobody has mentioned:

What should be weighted more, long guns or handguns?

My belief is that long guns becoming more restricted is not worth handguns becoming less restricted because long guns are primary weapons while handguns are sidearms. One does not fight for freedom with handguns.

 

[baboon]

Here is what the HRO bill analysis says. But this was written back in April. Not sure how the final text of the bill will, or will not address the issue of signs.


But if I interpreted the final bill correctly, the provision in the Alcoholic Beverage Code requiring the blue signs will be rescinded. I wonder if the TBAC will be forceful in making retail establishments take those down.

From my experience with TABC you comply. Few bars want want to pay fines, loose their license or even have something on their record.

 

[TheDan]

One does not fight for freedom with handguns.

I wouldn't concern myself with signs if it came to that.

 

[rotor]

The one glaring issue that nobody has mentioned:

What should be weighted more, long guns or handguns?

My belief is that long guns becoming more restricted is not worth handguns becoming less restricted because long guns are primary weapons while handguns are sidearms. One does not fight for freedom with handguns.

Your point is well taken. The problem of course is that open carry of a long gun into a place of business is very likely going to cause some exasperated moments and probable police encounter. For me it will mean my foldable KelTec sub 2000 in a computer case will not be welcome. I don't know why they used the term firearm instead of handgun except that there may have been some real pressure following the El Paso shooting. This would be a good question for the authors to answer.

 

[CAtoDFW2021]

Your point is well taken. The problem of course is that open carry of a long gun into a place of business is very likely going to cause some exasperated moments and probable police encounter. For me it will mean my foldable KelTec sub 2000 in a computer case will not be welcome. I don't know why they used the term firearm instead of handgun except that there may have been some real pressure following the El Paso shooting. This would be a good question for the authors to answer.

Kel-Tec Sub2000 is exactly the practical reason I am not happy about it. I have one too, and I've carried it in a messenger bag before. With this law I could now be committing a firearm-specific crime by carrying it into certain places, which was not the case before 30.05.

 

[Renegade]

My belief is that long guns becoming more restricted is not worth handguns becoming less restricted because long guns are primary weapons while handguns are sidearms. One does not fight for freedom with handguns.

This was the most disappointing loss in the bill, IMO.

 

[Renegade]

Your point is well taken. The problem of course is that open carry of a long gun into a place of business is very likely going to cause some exasperated moments and probable police encounter.

I can fit my non-handgun into a backpack, computer case, tennis racket bag, etc.

 

[rotor]

I contacted Sen Schaefer specifically about this issue and here is what I got back...

"Thank you for contacting our office with your question regarding HB 1927. The provision that added this was a Senate amendment. With that said, Penal Code, Section 30.05 already applies to firearms. The new 30.05 sign is just one method of providing notice. 30.05 has not changed--it is just more likely a business owner will use the notice because of constitutional carry. However, at the end of the day- a private property owner has always had the right to exclude firearms. 30.06/30.07 only applies to handguns carried by license holders.
I hope that provides some clarification!"
Not completely clarified but...

 

[Renegade]

I contacted Sen Schaefer specifically about this issue and here is what I got back...

"Thank you for contacting our office with your question regarding HB 1927. The provision that added this was a Senate amendment. With that said, Penal Code, Section 30.05 already applies to firearms. The new 30.05 sign is just one method of providing notice. 30.05 has not changed--it is just more likely a business owner will use the notice because of constitutional carry. However, at the end of the day- a private property owner has always had the right to exclude firearms. 30.06/30.07 only applies to handguns carried by license holders.
I hope that provides some clarification!"
Not completely clarified but...

Captain Obvious would say, it if already applied, there was no need to re-apply it.

Captain Obvious would then ask, if it already applied, why did they create 30.06/07?

There is a long history here of the evolution of these signs dating back 25+ years.....

 

[ScottDLS]

I contacted Sen Schaefer specifically about this issue and here is what I got back...

"Thank you for contacting our office with your question regarding HB 1927. The provision that added this was a Senate amendment. With that said, Penal Code, Section 30.05 already applies to firearms. The new 30.05 sign is just one method of providing notice. 30.05 has not changed--it is just more likely a business owner will use the notice because of constitutional carry. However, at the end of the day- a private property owner has always had the right to exclude firearms. 30.06/30.07 only applies to handguns carried by license holders.
I hope that provides some clarification!"
Not completely clarified but...

To be more legally correct he should have said:

30.06/30.07 only applies to handguns carried by license holders, WHEN CARRIED UNDER THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY THAT LICENSE

While making the sign for banning firearms more explicit under 30.05, one positive thing that the new law did is drop the penalty for violating 30.05 by carrying a firearm where the owner has prohibited it, from a class A misdemeanor, to a class C no-jail $200 fine ticket.

 

[ScottDLS]

Captain Obvious would say, it if already applied, there was no need to re-apply it.

Captain Obvious would then ask, if it already applied, why did they create 30.06/07?

There is a long history here of the evolution of these signs dating back 25+ years.....

Agreed. The contention that 30.05 applied to someone carrying a firearm on property generally open to the public because the owner didn't wish someone to, but who hadn't specifically notified that person of such, was always a dubious claim.

No CHL/LTC from 1995-2001 was ever prosecuted for it.

In 2001 there was an explicit Defense to 30.05 added for LTC, although the creation of 30.06 in 1997 had made it moot anyway.