Quantcast

Open Carry, TX. style

Discussion in 'Legal' started by calaverasslim, Apr 13, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ClickClickD'oh

    ClickClickD'oh Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,544
    Location:
    Lewisville, Tx
    That's is exactly correct. As I said, 30.06 applies, 30.05 does not. But, there's a very significant detail as to why you want to post the sign instead of relying on the verbal notification clause and why it gets you sued... Consistency.

    Until you post a valid 30.06 sign at the door, every time I come in the building you are going to have to catch me and tell me that I have to leave... which will be a special trick if I'm carrying concealed. And god help you if you toss me out when I'm not carrying. You can't file a trespass warning on me because I'm exempted from 30.05... and you can't nail me for 30.06 because I'm leaving every time you tell me. Every time I successfully carry in your establishment without being kicked out I'm setting precedent that you arbitrarily enforce your policy, because let's face it, if you were serious about it you would have posted the sign.

    So yeah, a gunbuster sign means bupkis in Texas.
     
  2. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "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."
    Texas has a more vague (some such as myself would say "accurate/thorough") definition of firearms that certainly appears to include cap and ball guns, so...

    "OCT is currently seeking contributions to support a civil rights action against DPS."
    Of course they are. :rolleyes: I'm sure they're already hustling donors for defense against all of Acevedo's warrantless stop n' checks of licensed open carriers, too ;)

    "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."
    Eh, or not, in which case there is no problem. Depends on how committed the managers are (or should be --wakka-wakka!) whether or not they will actively confront a patron to the point of dismissal over such a silly objection. Especially when the people who drive the signage are so often not the ones charged with enforcing it (plutocrat managers or insurance companies).

    TCB
     
  3. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "Until you post a valid 30.06 sign at the door, every time I come in the building you are going to have to catch me and tell me that I have to leave"
    Pretty sure a judge won't buy that; notification once is going to cover your carry practices on their premises going forward until additional notification is received. Precedent to the contrary would be good to hear, though.

    "Every time I successfully carry in your establishment without being kicked out I'm setting precedent that you arbitrarily enforce your policy, because let's face it, if you were serious about it you would have posted the sign."
    Precedent is for courts, though, not shopping malls.

    TCB
     
  4. tarosean

    tarosean Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,978
    Location:
    TX
    A swift kick in the rear constitute a contribution???
    Still none to happy with their antics.
     
  5. elhombreconnonombre

    elhombreconnonombre Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,393
    Location:
    San Leanna, Tx. along Slaughter Creek. a day's rid
    Perhaps this should be the subject of a new thread, but I forsee a plethora of incidents where in some jurisdictions LEOs will detain OC folks for questioning under questionable probable cause, basically harassing OC folks. I have seen dozens of these stops on the internet. Once we start OCing here in Texas, are there any law firms( e.g. Texas/US Law Shield) one can turn to instruct us on the best procedure to handle a stop given the larger legal ramifications of these stops/detention? I am actually considering carrying my CHL on a neck lanyard, so if I am stopped by a LEO I simply.point to it and hopefully that eliminates any potentially sticky/confrontational conversations with the LEO.
     
  6. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,708
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    It said 'or' in the law. Sign is up, sign is legal, then you are toast.

    Don't matter what they say. But being OC they immediately call the cops.

    Deaf
     
  7. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,657
    I'm still amazed at how Texans are so offended by a private individuals sign and his prohibiting guns in his establishment but I never hear a word about the 51% and 10 year felony signs that the gov mandates at various venues.
    To hear people talk on the internet there is only one prohibition sign in the state.
    I'm also curious about how many have been prosecuted over 30.06 violation and how they were discovered if they were CCing?
     
  8. tarosean

    tarosean Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,978
    Location:
    TX
    very odd phenomenon indeed... Seems some want their 2A rights yet don't give a squat about property owners rights...
     
  9. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    From conversations, I am of the opinion that there are a lot of mixed but not fully examined feelings guiding various reactions.

    There seems to be a tacit recognition that guns and alcohol may not mix well, but it doesn't sensibly apply to guns and groceries.

    As to private property, a lot of it seems to be a conservative backlash reaction fueled by liberal/progressive actions towards Hobby Lobby and Chic-Fil-A stands against abortion, and various bakeries and other businesses refusing service over the issue of same sex marriage. Rights is rights and if business are going to be forced to serve people exercising rights not clearly enumerated for protection in the Constitution, they can surely be forced to serve people exercising rights that are clearly protected. IOW, inconsistancies in government often produces confused and confusing responses.

    (Yes, I know we aren't supposed to discuss politics here, but politics seems to be a large part of the issue so I mention it for that reason without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of the positons. Mods may delete this if inappropriate with my apologies)
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2015
  10. DNS

    DNS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    725
    Location:
    west Texas
    My plan is to oc locally; another town I'd surely conceal. And Austin will not be getting my vacation dollars.

    After our govenor signs into law the gold repository I'm planning a trip to go check it out. Wonder if they'll let me carry there? ;)

    Lord, I hope its not gonna be in Austin.
     
  11. gun_with_a_view

    gun_with_a_view Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages:
    471
    If the facility is a public accommodation such as a restaurant, property owners rights take a back seat to civil rights.Telling a legal gun-toting patron to leave a public accommodation is akin to telling a doctor with a medical bag to get out.
     
  12. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    According to the Texas DPS website (which is a bit difficult to decipher so even if I am remembering correctly, I may still be misreporting the actual numbers), since 2000, around 12 CHLs have been convicted and about 3x that arrested IIRC. None of those cases were appealed and I'm not personally aware of any of them, so I can't tell you how it happened.
     
  13. steve4102

    steve4102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,458
    Location:
    Minnesota
    If you are referring to Civil Rights as in "protected class" then you would be correct.



    Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964

    National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

    Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act

    Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act

    Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
    Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

    Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
    Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

    Don't see anything here where a Firearm or a Doctor bag has any Civil Rights though.
     
  14. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,683
    Location:
    WNY
    This is an old argument about which rights dominate a situation. It has been determined that the rights of protected classes trump those of someone who wants to discriminate.

    I argue that the right of self-defense to preserve life trumps the property right of a person who opens a business to the general public. Since you invite the public in - you give up the right to discriminate against those of a race, religion or ethnicity that you don't like. SCOTUS just said a company's view of dress cannot trump the reasonable dress of a person based on their religion. So a head scarf cannot be banned. I supposed a painted blue naked druid might be seen differently.

    If one has the right to wear a head scarf for a religion, I do not see the why folks think a business open to the public (not your house) has the right to diminish my right to protect my life.

    Just saying property rights over and over is not enough. If you do, then you have to state that you also object to our current protections against discrimination as you think property rights trump those protections. If you think that being able to discriminate against the protected classes in your business open to the public, I have no use for you.
     
  15. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,683
    Location:
    WNY
  16. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "Just saying property rights over and over is not enough. If you do, then you have to state that you also object to our current protections against discrimination as you think property rights trump those protections"

    Who's to say we shouldn't? It's not like those very protections and the amendments enabling their implementation weren't themselves passed in very ham-fisted, unorthodox, and --dare I say it-- tyrannical moves by a super-dominant party in times of duress, with little regard for their repercussions. Given the track record of similarly-birthed additions to our original guiding principles and their ultimate unintended consequences, I would say the question is worth considering. Especially since we have fairly explicit language barring the designation of "special" or "protected" classes, to boot. It's worth remembering that your state --my state-- is still valiantly fighting to reclaim the authority to define its own darn voting districts; a basic power allotted even the most impoverished, corrupt, and ignorant regions of the US in the faith of their ultimate ability to reform until some fifty years ago. Now it seems clear they intend on never giving it back (which on some indirect level, submits growing Texan representative power to largely unaccountable federal Justice Department 'crats thousands of miles away in that tiny burg of One Party Rule known as DC)

    Perhaps in the old days where immobility and ignorance greatly limited the free market's ability to right true social wrongs there was a place for federal leverage, but with a veritable industry of wrongs-righters amplifying the voice of every conceivable group imaginable, it's fairly hard for anyone to trample anyone without government backing. Which leaves the government the last ones doing the trampling at this point.

    Only so many things can happen when a private concern shuts off the portion of the public that wishes to go there armed, and none of them results in a truly coercive situation for anyone as far as I can tell. Store thrives, store fails, store gives up in frustration at throwing out carriers all day, or carriers get bored and find somewhere else to be. No one is forced to do anything, except leave the premises when asked by the owner, or shut the doors once the money runs out.

    TCB
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2015
  17. gun_with_a_view

    gun_with_a_view Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages:
    471
    Well, no, of course they would not. But a bearer of either of those two would have civil rights applicable to public accommodations, providing the firearm or the doctor's bag was legal to carry under state law.
     
  18. Averageman

    Averageman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,443
    Location:
    Texas
    http://www.statesman.com/news/news/...o-goes-on-twitter-to-decry-open-carry-/nky4d/

    “If criminals, drug cartels and extremists had a seat at the policy writing table they couldn’t have come up with a better amendment,” Acevedo wrote. “Through this amendment we are facilitating the victimization of people we are sworn to serve, protect and lead.”
    https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/27/police-chiefs-provisionl-handcuffs-law-enforcement/
    Flanked by about a dozen law enforcement leaders from around the state, Acevedo said Wednesday that the legislation would "handcuff" police officers, endangering both them and the communities they protect. "It absolutely allows criminals to carry a gun with impunity," he said.

    http://kxan.com/2015/02/13/chief-acevedo-stands-by-statements-on-campus-carry-bill/

    Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo is standing by the comments he made Thursday at a state Senate hearing. Acevedo spoke against a Senate bill that would let people carry guns on college campuses.

    “Now we’re going to create an environment where people are lawfully allowed to carry firearms on campus,” he said. “We’re potentially turning sexual assault victims – who we have a lot of resources to help these young people…through our victims services and so forth – into potentially murder victims.”

    http://kxan.com/2015/05/27/texas-police-groups-oppose-portion-of-open-carry-bill/

    Police sent a strong message to the Legislature’s Republican majority that they will keep up the pressure.

    “You can’t be the party of law and order and not listen to us,” Acevedo said. “If it doesn’t get removed, the only responsible thing to do is for the governor to veto.”
     
  19. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,708
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    No, civil rights end were your nose begins.

    Just like 'free speech' if you say things a business owner does not like they can tell you to hit the road. If they have a 30.06 sign up, you can't carry there.

    Now you CAN exercise your rights to not buy they products, or even picket their business, but no, it's their land and they can tell you to leave.

    Deaf
     
  20. Deltaboy1984

    Deltaboy1984 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    7,033
    Location:
    Johnson County Texas
    I wish he would quit and move to NJ. His beliefs about guns is more intune with those folks.
     
  21. steve4102

    steve4102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,458
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Acevedo believes that the "Dutton" amendment would have tied LEO hands and prevented them from "Stopping" and demanding to see one's CPL license.

    In reality LEO are already prohibited from such activity (without Reasonable Suspicion) by the 4th Amendment, Terry v Ohio and countless other Circuit Court rulings.

    This was even discussed on the Senate floor during the Dutton Amendment debate.

    Scroll down to 1894-1895 and read Senators Tyalor and Estes comments.


    http://www.journals.senate.state.tx.us/SJRNL/84R/PDF/84RSJ05-22-F.PDF

     
  22. J.E. Walker

    J.E. Walker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    There is no real conflict. A business owner can refuse service to gun carriers. Gun carriers in turn, can refuse to spend money with anti-gun sissies. It all balances out. Signs on the door identifying the place as a enemy establishment are actually a benefit to the licensee.
    Both sides retain the right to be Offended in equal measure.
     
  23. gun_with_a_view

    gun_with_a_view Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages:
    471
    That smells unconstitutional in the wake of US v Heller. In the final analysis of that SCOTUS decision, one has a right to carry arms, as the court defined them for self defense, in a public accommodation. I'm confident litigation on this will be forthcoming sometime in the next twenty or so years.
     
  24. Glock1978

    Glock1978 Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8

    Well it depends. Does the property owner have it in writing on the deed that no crime shall happen on their premises or in transit to one's vehicle? If not then yes, my 2A and right to what is n my pants does trump property rights.
     
  25. gun_with_a_view

    gun_with_a_view Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages:
    471
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice