TX Constitutional carry, deal reached

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, and unlike the 30.06 and 30.07 signs which only had to be posted, in full, at "primary entrances," the 30.05 signs are required to be posted, English & Spanish at every entrance.

In the language of the bill, having a sign at every entrance is a defense against prosecution. Or the Owner, or their obvious representative (AG will have to weigh in on whether than includes the Manager on Duty) has to tell every person entering on entry. Which will include delivery drivers and the like. The new bill puts a significant burden on places that want to deny carry.

Much of the 30.05 language is about labeling facilities that might be used as shelter in emergencies. Doubly so as carry during declared emergencies is fully protected. (AG will need to weigh in on whether GFZ or State Law will apply to school facilities used in declared emergencies.)
 
From the language on the 30.05 sign, it appears that the sign is intended to be used only in locations where guns are strictly prohibited by State Law, such as hospitals or court buildings rather than be posted at normal business or retail locations.
 
TRX said:
Once you put the copy of your business license up, your property isn't really "private" any more.
Click to expand...

This is a commonly expressed fallacy that I see repeated by folks who are making the claim that their civil rights are being violated, mostly gun owners and free speechers. With a few exceptions, the owner of the private property retains control of the the property as being private property. That owner can stop the carry of guns onto the property (2nd Amendment). That owner can stop somebody from setting up a printing press, using the property for church services, or engaging in public speaking, such as a politician who might want to use the property for a backdrop to further a campaign talking point (first amendment). Trespass laws are still in effect. The exceptions tend to be issues related to sex, race, and religion (of the person), and in some cases, gender preference.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
This is a commonly expressed fallacy that I see repeated by folks who are making the claim that their civil rights are being violated, mostly gun owners and free speechers. With a few exceptions, the owner of the private property retains control of the the property as being private property. That owner can stop the carry of guns onto the property (2nd Amendment). That owner can stop somebody from setting up a printing press, using the property for church services, or engaging in public speaking, such as a politician who might want to use the property for a backdrop to further a campaign talking point (first amendment). Trespass laws are still in effect. The exceptions tend to be issues related to sex, race, and religion (of the person), and in some cases, gender preference.
Click to expand...

Yep, basically the customer or visitor is a guest.
 
However, the definition of what rights the business owner maintains is not a law of physics but determined by the actions and decision of society. The exceptions mentioned above were determined to violate human rights and be detrimental to society. I would argue that the right to ban carry unless there is a technical issue is detrimental to societal as the exceptions mentioned above. The appropriate discussion and legislative and court actions, IMHO, should disallow bans on concealed carry for the most part. OC can be debated.

Customers can be a guest but the business has to provide certain services such as disability accommodations, toilets, cleanliness as in restaurants, etc. Fire exits may be required for safety.

The right to self-defense should trump property once you open yourself to the public. That is not a mathematical proof but should be debated. For example, in TX - the legislature demanded state schools allow carry and gun being allowed in parking lots in some circumstances. They allowed private schools to ban, although some versions of the bill did not.

A debate and legislative process should resolve this. No right is absolute as we have discussed many times. Dogs have the right to go outside with no pants and poop. Humans don't. Why is that?
 
I can say that in ID, UT, WY I have never seen a sign saying no guns. I have never seen a sign at any entrance at Wally World that says NO open carry or anything similar and in ID, where I live, have often seen open carry of handguns, without any badges. Per a person who works at Wally, who know me, knows I carry a gun, they will not ask a person with an open carried gun to leave the store, nor call the police, so long as it remains in the holster. (They have never stopped anyone from entering without a face diaper either.)

Other large locations such as Fred Meyer, Smiths, City Market (Kroger owned) have any no gun signs.

Idaho has been no permit required for quite a few years, Why has been for residents and this year changing to all over 21, UT's new law takes affect in a few weeks. I doubt if any will change their policies.

I would hope, they treat Texans the same way.
 
Ok, sorry I did a dog joke. Let's move on from that. :D
 
RETG said:
I can say that in ID, UT, WY I have never seen a sign saying no guns. I have never seen a sign at any entrance at Wally World that says NO open carry or anything similar and in ID, where I live, have often seen open carry of handguns, without any badges. Per a person who works at Wally, who know me, knows I carry a gun, they will not ask a person with an open carried gun to leave the store, nor call the police, so long as it remains in the holster. (They have never stopped anyone from entering without a face diaper either.)

Other large locations such as Fred Meyer, Smiths, City Market (Kroger owned) have any no gun signs.

Idaho has been no permit required for quite a few years, Why has been for residents and this year changing to all over 21, UT's new law takes affect in a few weeks. I doubt if any will change their policies.

I would hope, they treat Texans the same way.
Click to expand...

Probably not an issue in rural Texas, but the metro areas here are blue and located in purple counties.
 
The thing about running a business in a metro area is that you have plenty of competition, unlike more rural settings. I suspect that most 'I won't be shopping here, and here's why' cards get tossed in the trash the minute that you turn your back, but a well-worded comment via the web presence is probably harder to ignore - especially when a competitor is literally no more than a mile or two away.

Some time back, I noted that the local Nissan dealership was posted 30-06/30-07, and this annoyed me greatly (having just bought a late-model Frontier Pro4X). I went to the corporate web site and used the 'contact us' info to tell them exactly why I would not be giving them my money. I had occasion to wander by some time later (taking the wife's car to the VW dealer next door) and noticed that all of the posted signage had been removed. I won't assert for a fact that I was that influential, but it *is* an interesting coincidence.
 
Last edited:
I think car dealerships are more vulnerable to expressing displeasure as they are more individualistic, word of mouth. lower volume places of business. With internet sales booming, you have other options. One big dealer in San Antonio, had signs and ditched them.

A high volume restaurant, not as much.
 
GEM said:
legislative and court actions, IMHO, should disallow bans on concealed carry for the most part. OC can be debated.

Customers can be a guest but the business has to provide certain services such as disability accommodations, toilets, cleanliness as in restaurants, etc. Fire exits may be required for safety.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree agree with this.

gun-control-asay.jpg
 
GEM said:
However, the definition of what rights the business owner maintains is not a law of physics but determined by the actions and decision of society. The exceptions mentioned above were determined to violate human rights and be detrimental to society. I would argue that the right to ban carry unless there is a technical issue is detrimental to societal as the exceptions mentioned above. The appropriate discussion and legislative and court actions, IMHO, should disallow bans on concealed carry for the most part. OC can be debated.

Customers can be a guest but the business has to provide certain services such as disability accommodations, toilets, cleanliness as in restaurants, etc. Fire exits may be required for safety.

The right to self-defense should trump property once you open yourself to the public. That is not a mathematical proof but should be debated. For example, in TX - the legislature demanded state schools allow carry and gun being allowed in parking lots in some circumstances. They allowed private schools to ban, although some versions of the bill did not.

A debate and legislative process should resolve this. No right is absolute as we have discussed many times. Dogs have the right to go outside with no pants and poop. Humans don't. Why is that?
Click to expand...

You can make that argument all day long, but until it is law, it is inconsequential to reality. Equating the carrying of a weapon with disability accommodation and health codes is absolutely sketchy at best.

We really aren't talking about the right to self defense trumping property rights. You are talking about the right to carry a firearm trumping property rights. You are commingling the two despite them being separate under the law.

You mentioned Texas requiring state schools allowing carry in parking lots and such....which is on actual PUBLIC property, not private property. Versions of the bill that did not become law, again, are of no matter.

Now, you can work to change the law, but I don't see where even the NRA has ventured to try to take away the rights of private property owners.

But let's say we go that route of taking away rights of property owners. Why limit it to businesses that are open to the public? Following your logic, my 'right to self defense (carrying a gun) should not be able to be disallowed by anybody's property rights, because as you stated, property rights should not trump this. But are you willing to give up that right to your property, to have say so on what people can do there? I bet not and even if you are, I am sure few people here are willing to give up their rights on their property, regardless of the 2nd amendment and right to carry. After all, it is just property rights, right?
 
So there should be no laws regulating how businesses set up their premises for health and safety? It's just property rights. Taking the issue to the extreme is fun rhetorically but isn't a good argument. Businesses that are open to the public is a reasonable and practical line.

We will disagree. I will remind folks that antigunners used the idea of business, church and school bans as an explicit tactic to make carry useless practically.
 
GEM said:
It's just property rights.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you as I posted above.

I'm a BIG proponent of property rights.

However, when looking at the Constitution, BOR, and later amendments, the 2A is, imo, clearly stronger.

I know of no property right Amendment that says 'un-encumbered use' where as there is a 2A that says 'shall not infringe'.


From what i can tell, property rights, constitutionally, have more to do with the ability to own, search and seizure, eminent domain etc and less to do with what you can actually do with it.
 
According to a major LTC insurance company;

The 30.05 signs only apply to the non licensed. So no constitutional carry where you see a 30.05 sign.

People who are licensed to carry can ignore the 30.05 signs but must continue to obey the 30.06 (no carry) and the 30.07 (no open carry)

A business wanting absolutely no firearms must post all three signs. Or prohibited places like hospitals can post a 46.03 sign.


The only problem I see is with a business who doesn’t update anything, leaving their old 30.06 and 30.07 signs but not posting 30.05 signs. In this case, LTC holders can not carry but other people can constitutionally carry.
 
Won’t be much longer until inaction makes it law anyway.

How much time does the governor have to act on a bill?

The deadline for the governor to act on a bill is contingent upon the point in time in which the bill is presented to the governor.

If a bill is sent to the governor during the legislative session, the governor has 10 days (excluding Sundays) to sign the bill or return the bill to the Legislature with objection. If after 10 days the bill is not returned to the Legislature by the governor with objections or he has not yet signed it, the bill becomes law as if the governor had signed it.

If the Legislature has adjourned sine die, or if the bill is presented to the governor less than 10 days (excluding Sundays) prior to final adjournment, the governor has 20 days (including Sundays) after the final day of the session to sign or veto the bill. If neither action is taken, the bill becomes law without the governor's signature (Texas Const. art. IV, § 14).

Sunday, June 20, is the 20th day following the final adjournment of the 87th Regular Session. It is the last day the governor can sign or veto bills passed during the 87th Regular Session. The LRL's vetoes database will be updated for the 87th Regular Session as we receive those documents.
Click to expand...

https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/clie...hats-Next-PostSession-FAQ-and-Bill-Statistics
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

WestKentucky
  • Locked
Constitutional Carry changes
Replies
3
Views
413
GEM
G
M
  • Locked
Texas Considers allowing open carry of handguns-news report
Replies
21
Views
1K
USAF_Vet
U
C
  • Locked
Texas Open Carry law
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
richyoung
R
The_Shootist
  • Locked
Tx Hunts Hogs From Air (Again)
Replies
8
Views
479
The_Shootist
The_Shootist
T
  • Locked
Petition For Open Carry In Texas
Replies
16
Views
646
frankie_the_yankee
F
Back
Top