Discussion in 'Legal' started by calaverasslim, Apr 13, 2015.
Any word on Campus Carry yet?
SB 11 Conference report passed the Senate yesterday and the House today. On the way to the governor for signing.
I expect we may see a mix of 30-06 and 30-07 signs as some businesses may choose to allow concealed but not open carry. Denying both would require posting 2 large unattractive signs near each entrance and with TABC requirements, places like Sprouts (at least the local one) are running out of space to post the required signs. Not that this will alter Sprouts polocy--I expect to see a 30-07 sign go up before January.
I refuse to shop at sprouts due to their stupid signs...
they don't like my Glock... they don't want my $$$
Actually denying both would be as simple as posting a sign that says "No Guns", or a picture of a handgun inside a red circle with a line drawn through it.
There is no need or requirement for a business to post an unattractive Compliant sign. Any sign,any size will do and any sign, any size will inform the potential costumer that his/her firearm is not welcome.
The Non-compliant sign may not carry the force of law, but it still conveys the wished and "demands" of the property owner and failure to obey a non-compliant sign will still get you an invitation to the front door.
The only reason a business owner would need to post an unattractive Compliant sign is if he/she wished to legally punish or file charges against anyone that violated their wishes.
I would respectfully suggest that you become knowledgeable of Texas law before commenting on it. There are only 2 acceptable signs to prohibit CHL carry in Texas a 30.06 or a 51 percent sign.
Not in Texas. The law specifically states the requirements for signage appicable to CHL holders. Any non conforming sign can be ignored by a CHL holder without penalty of law. Ignoring a legally conforming sign is currently a Class A misdemeanor, but the new law reduces that to a Class C Misdemeanor. Failing to leave after being orally notified firearms are not welcome is a Class A Misdemeanor. Openly carrying past a non compliant sign may get an immediate oral notification, but carrying concealed will probably go unnoticed in most cases. No harm, no foul.
That is exactly what I posted. It can be legally ignored, but it will still get you and invitation to the front door if you carry past it.. The only difference between a Compliant sign and a non-compliant sign is that a Law enforcement officer will not be involved when you are asked to leave after carrying past a Non-Compliant sign. Either way, you will be out the door.
As a matter of fact, there doesn't even need to be a sign at all.
If you carry into a business that is not posted at all, you can still be asked to leave for carrying into their establishment.
The late night news has said that Campus Carry has passed and is headed to the Governor's desk.
Ibid. AUSTIN, TX --
The Texas Legislature has approved allowing license holders to carry concealed handguns on public college campuses - but included a caveat that lets college presidents designate "gun-free zones."
The House voted 98-47 on Sunday to approve the measure, sending it to Gov. Greg Abbott to be signed into law.
Sorry...I missed your post.
Change "will" to "may" and I will concur. There is a business in town with two doors and they only had a compliant sign posted at a door I never used and I didn't know it was posted. I carried (concealed) in there for months before they finally posted a sign and I stopped going in there. But I was never once asked to leave.
I am by no means an expert on any firearms carry laws since I am a black powder shooting enthusist, but let me ask you pards of new fangled cartridge arms a stupid question: First Ive seen numerous news reports and videos of Open Carry Texas guys open carrying presumably unloaded long guns with clips of ammo readily available in a non threatning manner with the gun on their back with the muzzle down.
1. Does open carry of a long gun require that it not be loaded? I've seen more than a few videos not necessarily in Texas where LEO's adamantly inquire as whether weapon is loaded.
2. If so, might there be a problem with open carry of side arms and harassment of carriers by police regarding LOADED sidearms or perhaps this is a non issue since I understand that open carry is an "endorsement" of the existing CHL for what I presume to a loaded firearm under legal open carry. As I understand it previously a LEO did not ask if you had a weapon on your person under a CHL unless you imprinted and some citizen saw and reported it or you self identified as having a CHL during a traffic stop. With open carry what exactly can a LEO ask you, other than for your CHL period, thank you please drive thru. The devil is in the details and I don't see these details in the law.
I can see why Texas LE as not enthusiast on Open Carry and I presume most of it may be costs as opposed to officer safety: Training costs of LEO's set in their ways and old procedures engrained by the system and more importantly huge potentential legal costs for LEO's, their supervisors, chiefs, and municipalities for violating open carrier's 4th amendment rights.
But what do I know, I am an old school black powder enthusiast. I don't even own anything legally considered a firearm, except in some unmentionable NE states where this simple Texican actually lived and worked as a young college grad...o well I did enjoy Woodstock in '69 and the Summer Jam at Watkins Glen in '73.
As far as your question about loaded carry is concerned, the videos you mention were probably from California, where it usetawas you could openly carry UNLOADED handguns. Open carry of loaded handguns was illegal.
As far as Texas is concerned, to the best of my knowledge, after 31 Dec 15, you can openly carry a loaded handgun in a shoulder or belt holster IF you have a concealed carry permit.
" Does open carry of a long gun require that it not be loaded? "
Nope. You can bear them anyway you like.
Hombre, there is no restriction in Texas on loaded weapons. Long arms may be openly carried fully loaded and chambered without license. After 1 Jan 2016, openly carried handguns must be carried in a shoulder of belt holster.
FWIW, the law regarding open carry of long arms also applies to antique and replica black powder hand guns so you don't need a CHL to carry your Walker Colt.
Not that I would open carry my cap and ball revolvers other than at the range or private property, but did not a couple of the Open Carry Texas guys get arrested back in Sept. 2013 for Disturbing the Peace by refusing to leave the state capital grounds while carrying unloaded replica Civil War cap and ball revolvers? They brought up the non firearm argument to no avail with the DPS guys to no avail. The charges were eventually dropped months later (one feller made bail immediately, but I believe the disabled gent remained in jail until the case was dropped) , but are you saying there is case law that has demonstrated that open carrying of a black powder cap and ball revolver is currently just fine and dandy? I would retort that even if that is so, with enough money in the defense fund you can beat the rap, but not the ride.
Do you know if the Open Texas arrestees at the capital sued under violation of their 4th amendment right, wrongful imprisonment, false arrest, etc.
I'm not sure on case law, but TX penal code says:
(3) "Firearm" means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:
(A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or
(B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.
That's in the definitions section, and is commonly taken to mean that the concept of unlawful carry of a firearm doesn't apply to antiques or replicas.
I am not aware of any prosecutions for carrying antiques, but there may be many for all I know.
If that theory is true it would probably also apply to 30.06 and other restrictions, but I don't want to be a test case.
What a brilliant way you have discovered to get sued.
If a state has clearly defined verbage and signage for legal exclusion of a person or activity, and you decide to bypass that and make up your own version... better have a good lawyer on retainer for the inevitable lawsuit. If you want to retort with the time tested "but a business can deny service to anyone".. BS, garbage and poppycock. That's not even remotely true.
Furthermore, the "gunbuster" sign, without clear legislation defining it as prohibiting firearms means no such thing to me. All it means to me is that nylon stickers in the shape of Beretta 92s are verboten on that piece of glass.
Post a sign that says "No Guns" and I'll simply assume you failed 3rd grade as there is no Verb in what I assume was supposed to be a sentence.
So yeah, you can call the police, and they will ask me to leave to defuse the situation you have caused, but I'll be right back in a couple days when I feel like shopping again. Kick me out enough times without a solid, communicated, consistent and one hope for you, legally binding policy, and I'll sue you for harassment.
FYI: You might want to read Texas Penal Code 30.05:
So, yeah, 30.05 (criminal trespass) doesn't apply if the reason for the expulsion is a legally carried firearm, which means only 30.06 applies. And 30.06 requires the proper, legally binding signage.
Good luck getting sued.
The common law recognizes the right of property owners over the rights of guests. By default, a store owner can exclude anyone on any premise. This right to control access to property is limited by law in order to protect certain classes of people, which prevents discrimination of race, age, sex, etc.
If I post a "no food or drink" sign outside the door to my furniture store, I can reasonably expect people not to bring in food or drink. And I can also kick them out if they do.
The reason for the 30.06 sign law, is to protect CHLs from accidentally carrying into a prohibited place, while simultaneously giving store owners etc. a way to legally exclude concealed handguns from the premises.
So if I carry into a store with the cheesy "no guns" sign in the window, I'm not criminally liable. But if I'm carrying openly, you bet I'm going to be told verbally that firearms are not allowed. If I don't leave then, then I will be committing tresspass by license holder.
My point is this: the creation of a specific offense for CHL trespass, and a corresponding defense to the ordinary offense, does not affect the rights of property owners to control access to their own property.
OK, this does raise a question.
30.06 (b) states "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.
30.06 (c)(3) defines written communication, but oral communication is not defined in the code.
Therefore, it seems that "Get out of here with that gun" from the owner or manager might be sufficient to meet the legal requirements and survive a lawsuit.
What you replied with regarding the statute is well known by the cap and ball crowd and pretty much exactly what the OCT guys carrying the unloaded percussion revolvers posed to the DPS guys when they got arrested. They were first asked to leave. They refused citing right of assembly as well as the info you stated. They still got a ride to the pokey. I dont think the judge made any kind of decision that would actually create case law. He just.dismissed the charges in the interest of justice or something like that. I could be wrong.
You're exactly right. Any reasonable reading of the law:
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(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.
Would show that for verbal communication, two key elements to meet the requirements of the law are:
1. Remaining on the property, and
2. With a concealed handgun
So if either of those phrases, or some other phrase with the same effect, is absent, there's no criminal offense. But if those two items are communicated in basically any form other than signage, it has the full force of 30.06. What's interesting is that a strict interpretation of the law says nothing about open carry. Not sure if this is affected by HB910.
A related law considered was a punishment for government identits that posed non-comforting signs or making places not restricted by law no gun zones. I think that it passed, but not 100% sure it passed and as always the devil is in the details.
I would also expect that it would take a manager/owner to ask a customer to leave, so not likely that you will be asked to leave unless you do something far enough to get noticed by the person in charge. Also, most managers in large corporations are quite careful about who they "piss off" namely because a lot of powerful people dress and look like old fat bald guys.
FWIW, OCT is currently seeking contributions to support a civil rights action against DPS.
Per HB 910 a new section is added (30.07) to deal with open carry. The language is the same as 30.06 except for the text of the sign which specifically refernces open carry. It is called a 30.07 sign and property owners must display 30.06 to prohibit concealed carry AND 30.07 to prohibit open carry, or give personal oral notification that either ro both are prohibited.
Failure to obey the sign is reduced to a Class C misdemeanor, Refusing to leave after receivign oral communication can be a Class A misdemeanor if proven at trial.
Separate names with a comma.