There are times when I ignore signs that prohibit the lawful carry of firearms here in the great state of Texas. Thankfully, most of these establishments violate the strict requirements for legally-binding signage. Which are as follows [via texas3006.com]:
In Texas there are three different signs that restrict a License to Carry holder from carrying their handgun into a place of business. They are a 30.06 sign, a 30.07 sign, and a 51% sign.
A 30.06 sign is a sign that a business owner can post to restrict a LTC (License to Carry) holder from entering the business with a concealed handgun. The sign must contain the exact words required by Section 30.06 in both English and Spanish [as above], be placed in an area visible to the public, and have 1″ lettering or it will not be considered a legally-binding 30.06 sign.
“Gunbuster” signs, or signs with a red slash through a gun, are not considered valid 30.06 postings.
A 30.07 sign is a sign that a business owner can post to restrict a LTC holder from entering the business with a handgun carried openly. The sign must contain the exact words required by Section 30.07 in both English and Spanish [as above], be placed in an area visible to the public, and have 1″ lettering or it will not be considered a legally-binding 30.07 sign.
“Gunbuster” signs, or signs with a red slash through a gun, are not considered valid 30.07 postings.
A 51% sign is a sign that a business is required by law to post if 51% of their revenue is obtained through on-premises drinking, such as at a bar. Unfortunately this also has the consequence of not allowing LTC holders to enter the premises where the drinking is taking place while carrying their handgun.
Additional places are not required to post a sign to forbid LTC holders from entering the premises with their handgun as Texas law already forbids it, such as court houses and certain educational institutions.
These signs are huge AND they must BOTH be posted at ALL entrances to a private establishment if it wishes to ban BOTH concealed AND open carry. Which is why most Austin businesses put up a translucent decal instead (e.g., Whole Foods, as above). Or use a legally invalid “gun buster” sign (e.g., Lamberts BBQ).
Businesses that don’t want to “desecrate” their establishments with the proper, legally binding signs may instead provide written or verbal notice to a patron, who then must leave the premises. Obviously, that only really works for people who open carry.
Once informed, if you leave, there’s no penalty. If you get into an argument and the cops are called, it’s a misdemeanor rap the first time. Gun rights may be suspended temporarily for the second offense. Permanently for the third.
Bottom line: most of the time, when I carry concealed “illegally,” I’m not carrying illegally.
It’s not a point I’d like to pursue in court. But as concealed means concealed, I don’t anticipate having to do so. And if I do end up in front of a judge after a defensive gun use, well, so what? Better to be judged by twelve, etc.
Carrying a gun for self-defense in a public place is not an option I’m willing to forgo. Unless I am. I don’t carry in my daughter’s school, where firearms are prohibited under Bush the Elder’s Gun Free School Zones Act. If I’m caught carrying it’s a federal beef; I’d lose my gun rights forever.
And I don’t carry in Whole Foods. If I’m caught there I’d face a permanent ban from the store. Say what you will; I value their food and the occasional recipe exchange with exceedingly healthy members of the opposite sex.
OpSec demands that I not reveal places where I carry illegally, full stop. Let’s just say they’re the kind of crowded public environments where spree killings have occurred. Locations where I place my ability to defend myself and my loved ones by force of arms above any and all legal restraints.
A part of me would like to open carry somewhere where it’s completely forbidden. Where I would stand my ground and be ticketed. So that I could fight that ticket in court, asserting that my right to keep and bear arms trumps private property rights. But there’s a problem with that.
I’m a small “c” conservative. Someone who believes the less government interference in any and all aspects of our lives, the better. I don’t think that gun rights DO trump private property rights. If a private business wants to exclude gun owners, or Jews, or blacks, so be it. (If it doesn’t want to bake a cake for gays, same deal.) If that’s the case, I don’t want to give them my money.
Which makes me a hypocrite. I respect property rights but I don’t respect property rights. My only defense is . . . selfishness. Self-preservation. Preservation of my loved ones. Does that make me a bad person?
What signs??? Haven’t see any in CO.
they are here in CO, check out goodwill thrift store, malls, Texas roadhouse, some theaters ect. what area of CO are you in?
I never seem to look…ohhh my.
Exactly.
Yes, but the signs in Colorado have no force of law unless they’re backed by a checkpoint with a magnetometer.
As such, those signs are suggestions. If they catch you they can ask you to leave and refusing to leave is trespass but they could ask you to leave without the sign and refusal would be trespass.
The signs, other than at places with are least a wand being used, are a joke. Some bars wand people and have a sign but mostly it’s large sporting events, courthouses etc.
In my area of Ohio some Goodwill stores are posted, some are not, and some are posted with old signs that carry the wrong information and actually indicate (accidentally I’m sure) that a permit holder can carry there. Even in the posted ones the clerks will darn near hold your gun for you while you try on a coat. then again, I’m blessed to live in an area where guns are normal and gun rights are mostly respected.
It wouldn’t matter if you did see them.
The local mall has 12×18 signs on the access road coming in. That’s my excuse…”How am I supposed to read that? I’m DRIVING, FFS!
So the translucent signs are not legally binding in TX?
And really, within the realm of private property rights I would bother to split hairs because private property is basically a myth.
If you can’t turn away people based on other facets of their personality or physical make up why can you ban guns?
Also, since the government has already gone down the “hang your shingle in public” route then it makes sense to me that should a business wish to intrude on my rights, which are harming no one, then the business in question must take steps to provide the security which they have robbed me of or face legal consequences if something happens to me which I could reasonably be expected to have dealt with on my own if not for their rules.
The sign language must be in contrasting colors, 1″ block letters, etc.. Translucent letters on clear glass isn’t very contrasting.
I agree that it would be easy to miss but I didn’t know if that meant the sign wasn’t up to snuff with the law or not.
Good to know, thanks!
As a small c conservative myself, I feel that if a business doesn’t want me to enter as a chl holder I just as soon won’t frequent the business no matter if the sign is correct or not. Since I don’t open carry nor see the purpose I don’t really care about 30.07 signs. All that said sometimes shit happens, concealed means concealed.
Transparent signage is really very strongly discouraged by the Americas with Disabilities Act. IANAL, but seems to me you could arguethat they were not legal on that basis.
The exercise of the right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with property rights, and exercising the right to keep and bear arms in no way whatsoever violates the property rights of another. Property rights extend only to the allowing or disallowing of a person to be present on the property in question. One’s person may be welcomed on, or trespassed from, property by the owner. Once welcomed on the property, the property owner’s property rights do not extend in any way to compel the person welcomed to act in any particular manner, nor do property rights justify the violation of the natural rights of the person welcomed on the property.
If a property owner asks me to leave, I will respect his property rights, and leave willingly. But if the property owner attempts to tell me to disarm, I will either ignore the property owner, or tell the property owner to pound sand.
Food for thought. I decide to air my grievances to issue “xyz”, no threatening language, in your front yard. Would you have a problem with that? If yes, then how could you stand by your post? Should my 2nd right come before your private property rights since you state that your 6th right comes before someone else’s private property rights.
As far as “Once welcomed on the property, the property owner’s property rights do not extend in any way to compel the person welcomed to act in any particular manner, nor do property rights justify the violation of the natural rights of the person welcomed on the property.” By this statement, if you welcomed someone on to your property and lets say something got them all hot under the collar and and they start yelling, screaming and threatening, are you telling me you are not going to do something to stop it? Their freedom of speech come before your right to bear arms, 2nd before 6th remember. When on someone else’s property, you follow their rules of conduct just as you expect any guest on your property to do. If I choose to carry in a place that has no open carry, I conceal, if no CC, well then, either I don’t CC, I do CC, or don’t give them my business. A business IS private property, not public property. And what is this contradiction “exercising the right to keep and bear arms in no way whatsoever violates the property rights of another. Property rights extend only to the allowing or disallowing of a person to be present on the property in question”? If the local McDonald”s (private property) disallow persons that carry on their property then exercising your right to carry onto their property DOES violate their property rights. And the natural right to bear arms is actually not as old as property rights, either personal or land.
The ONLY thing I get from your post is that YOU have a right to bear arms regardless of ANOTHERS right.
It’s really quite simple; I’m a bit surprised that you have to ask: I would ask you to leave my property.
If, in exercising your first amendment-protected rights, you were otherwise unlawful (e.g. disturbance of peace, public nuisance, etc.), other courses of action would be appropriate.
I don’t recall bringing up the right to a speedy trial, nor do I see how the rights protected by the sixth amendment are germane in this instance.
Why, yes: I’m going to do something about it. Can you guess what it is?
Since it seems still to be unclear to you: I would ask that person to leave. I would trespass that person.
(Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp?)
Wrong again. Individual rights do not supersede each other. They coexist in a complementary manner. Where the exercise of one right may constitute a violation of another’s right or ability to exercise another right, the government exists to set appropriate boundaries. It’s right there in our founding document:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
That is generally a true statement, but it is merely a matter of courtesy.
As is your choice. Good for you. Carry on, as you so choose.
In a perfect world: agreed. (Though, in the current “right of public accommodation” climate, in practice, that statement is no longer true.)
Where’s the contradiction? With respect to a person other than the property owner, “property rights” = “allow or disallow [that person] on the property”.
No, it doesn’t. Me staying on the property once asked to leave does, but not what I carry on my person while I remain welcomed on the property.
Nonsense.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…
The right to life is an endowment of our Creator. The right to keep and bear arms derives from the right to self-defense, which is the practical application of the right to life. Our Creator endowed mankind with our natural rights upon creation, and then after creating man, charged man with taking possession of, filling, and being productive with the earth (i.e. real property). Though, I would also accept as a valid argument that property rights are attendant to the right of pursuit of happiness – in which case, both rights have always co-existed.
Well, that would be a true statement. (My exercise of my right to keep and bear arms violates no natural rights of anyone else, and neither conflicts with nor restricts anyone else’s exercise of natural rights.)
If that’s all you take away from my comment, I’ll consider that a success.
https://youtu.be/yio5TT4PiVQ
You sound more like a small l libertarian then a small c conservative.
No one wants to be associated with any kind of libertarians after their behavior last election.
Who is this mythical libertarian conglomerate that dictates the behavior of all libertarians, and how come I didn’t get on the mailing list?
No one that I know of, but I think he’s talking about Gary “What is Aleppo?” Johnson.
The Libertarian Party is no longer libertarian.
There are a lot of libertarians in the RNC but the actual party had a poor showing this election cycle.
I have argued this till im blue in the face. Pretty tired of it. I carry. It is to defend my life where ever i go. The only place i shouldn’t be able to carry is the defendant chair in a court room. Or jail as a criminal.
Obviously i won’t carry in a location with powerful magnets.
Otherwise pound sand.
I, too, draw the line at the MRI chamber
This is what the CIA letter opener is for, getting and MRI. I thought everyone knew this…
Chris,
I have a fairly simple counter-argument for people who claim that private property rights include the property owner’s authority to ban firearms …
Scenario:
A property owner invites you into her home under the condition that you cannot use her private side door under any circumstance. Then a fire suddenly roars up and blocks the front door. The only other exit is through the private side door which she has forbidden you to use. (There are no windows in the home and no other possible alternate escape routes.)
Question 1:
Are you legally obligated to burn to death because the property owner stipulated that your visit to her home was under the condition that you cannot use her private side door under any circumstance? The obvious answer is “NO!”.
Question 2:
If you violate her ban on using her private side door and escape the fire through her private side door, are you subject to legal penalties? Again, the obvious answer is “NO!”.
What this illustrates is that property rights do not empower the owner to exercise life-or-death over guests. Just as a property owner has no righteous, decent authority to ban a guest from using a “prohibited” exit to save their life, neither does a property owner have any righteous, decent authority to ban a guest from having a firearm to save their life.
Signs here in Florida carry no weight at all. Worst is your asked to leave. If your dumb enough to be in a place that has them anyway. If you for whatever reason refuse to leave. You could be charged with trespassing. As far as carrying in Gun Free Zones…… I do and will most of the time say at a Post Office. I might leave my ccw in the car. If Im on my motorcycle I walk right on in. I have no kids so no reason to be in a school zone.
I did forget one year when I went to vote. I guess Ive been lucky or fortunate with the PO, Its rare that I go in the building. But I wont go anywhere unarmed. Intentionally. If Im not supposed to be armed I dont go there for the most part. I wont go to the big FedX here as its got no weapons allowed sign. But none of the smaller store sized do…………..strange Ive always thought. No issue in the stores but there is in the Depot??
Is the 30.06 code number coincidental or intentionally related to the rifle caliber?
No, It was coincidental. Chapter 30 is the penal code and 30.05 was already for Criminal Trespass. 30.06 is “Trespass by License Holder with a Concealed Handgun”
I carry everywhere and all the time in Iowa. Regardless of the signs which are few and far between. I carry in banks. post offices, and even in police stations. Concealed carry is exactly that CONCEALED. I’ve never been asked to leave because no one knows it’s there. If the need arises that I need to use it it will be there. Being alive and protecting my family is my 1st priority. PERIOD…
I don’t disagree with the sentiment. A consideration for me though is whether the very slim chance of being shot while temporarily disarmed at a Post Office is worth the very slim chance that I might face felony charges that would negate my ability to carry anywhere else forever moving forward.
Thankfully I live in Utah where no guns allowed signs carry no criminal charges. Only remaining after being asked to leave (trespassing) has any legal ramifications
Completely agree with Darkman; exactly what I do.
Where I live, there is a mall owned by a very large national mall property corporation. They don’t post any signs (as required by law) to exclude gun carriers of any kind, but they have a policy on their web-site stating that no weapons of any kind are allowed on their premises. They don’t advertise this fact because I live in a free state and they don’t want to scare away customers….but still they have this policy. As such, they must inform me to leave if they determine that I have a weapon…actually, they simply ask that you go back to your car and store it there.
I ignore this policy because a) I don’t feel safe at such places unarmed and b) they cannot immediately place me in legal jeopardy just because I violate their ‘policy’. They don’t know either because I’m concealed, and if somehow they did find out, they could only ask me to leave…which I would do without hesitation.
So yeah, I strongly believe in property rights but they are subordinate to my right to protect myself in a public/privately owned place.
Both graphics in this article state “open carry”. Please update with the 30.06 wording.
If carrying is illegal, don’t do it. At best, you won’t get caught and you won’t need your gun. If either of those fails, you’re in trouble. Where I live, an armed, but off duty, security guard broke up an armed robbery at a pharmacy. The county attorney (i.e. prosecutor) ruled the shooting justified but the anti-gun city attorney tried to get the hero guard on a charge of violating a municipal ordinance against concealed carry without a state permit.
If carrying is legal but the establishment objects, carry concealed. The worst they can do, and that’s only if your concealment fails, is order you to leave.
Either way, avoid such places whenever possible. Usually, there are alternatives where carrying is both legal and accepted.
Don’t sit in the front of the bus, no matter how tired you are……..
The way our courts work, at SOME point someone is going to have to violate a rule/regulation/law in order to challenge this crap into court. Unfortunately the RKBA is the ONLY right that can be permanently taken away for exercising it. Rosa Parks only faced a fine.
You are not a bad person…need a hug? We all make value judgements and cost/benefit risk analysis everyday. Yes, and even can be hypocritical at times. I’m OK, your’re OK. Do what you are comfortable with.
I carry everywhere I can. No business can or will protect me, so I protect myself. If they don’t like it, fvck ’em. Sideways.
I don’t see that this requires too much agonized soul searching. What they don’t know won’t hurt them.
The specific problem, aside from the general one of RKBA, is going into a free fire zone that attracts spree shooters like flies to a carcass.
But then, you’re much more likely to get hurt in a traffic accident on the way to the mall or the Whore Foods.
Wear your seat belts and your gun!
Also, do stretching exercises, get a good breakfast, and where clean undies in case something does go down.
They haven’t even started getting serious about making some place gun free unless they have metal detectors. Short of that they’re just wishing and I’m not Santa Claus.
Don’t want to get banned from Whole Paycheck over chicks….Your dedication to your beliefs is sad.
He wouldn’t be the first man to have risked himself in pursuit of the opposite sex. I’d only question his hunting grounds: Nothing says high maintenance like meeting a woman at Whole Foods.
Violent and evil people don’t care what signs say. Reason enough to carry where ever you think you can get away with it. I’d rather be alive and on trial on trumped up tyrannical charges as opposed to dead because I abandoned common sense to follow tyrannical legislation written by a mongoloid that likely has the luxury of armed guards where they work or a security detail.
I’m still waiting for the “common sense” legislation that bans armed security details or help from anyone that uses firearms for anyone that is anti-gun.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
I must go to a different ‘Wholefoods’ all the broads that go to mine are wanly, bad tempered and cheap.
“I don’t carry in my daughter’s school, where firearms are prohibited under Bush the Elder’s Gun Free School Zones Act. If I’m caught carrying it’s a federal beef; I’d lose my gun rights forever…”
Not if you have a carry permit. Which you have to legally have to conceal carry in Texas anyway.
18 USC (Q)(2)(b)(ii) (this prohibition does not apply to…)
“if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;”
(note: state law may, and often does, prohibit the practice. But don’t blame the federales for this one)
Correct. in RI I can carry legally in schools with a permit. Bizarre right? Feels weird as hell at first. Local lawmakers try to introduce legislation closing what they refer to as a gun free zone “loophole” every year and fail. Given that this state is pretty much all blue, I am amazed it and others like it die in committee. We seem to assemble at the capital to protest these laws better than the antis, and write more letters I guess. That said, I can’t help but notice most of the attendees are over 50yrs old. I weep for the future.
We should start to refer to “Gun Free Zones” as something like “civil rights loopholes.” Or maybe the Sandy Hook loophole. We can stand on the graves of innocent children too! How about the jihadi loophole?
People are stupid and would get on board with that even if they were anti-gun. I still remember when “The Man Show” got a bunch of women to sign a petition to end women’s suffrage.
It is legal to carry in every courthouse I’ve ever been in that isn’t federal except for one municipal court.
It is now the law that you can’t carry in courtroom and they’re administrative offices. If the county courthouse has more offices than that, like other county offices, then they cannot legally prohibit carry by LTC holders.
The county courthouse around here illegally prohibit carry, but, as has been said above, I’m not going to be the first one to sit on that bus.
Also I’m not sure if the 51% sign has any legal effect on the LTC holder. TABC gives them to everyone who has a license to sell alcohol. Even those that don’t sell that much. It is illegal to carry in a 51% establishment, but a sign doesn’t make a place a 51% establishment. The lack of a sign may have more of a legal effect.
Question: If there is no signage, how does one distinguish a 51% joint from a 50% or 49% one?
Must I call a forensic accountant to examine every eatery’s books before I dare set foot inside while strapped?
You can’t. You also can’t determine a 51% establishment with a sign from a < 51% establishment with a sign. I go to a place that has a 51% sign that I know isn't a 51% establishment. TABC, ATF, DPS, and TPWD are all jerks. They make up their own requirements and to hell with what the legislative branches said. A lot of people will argue with me til the cows come home because one of tbe alphabet soup groups said something in direct contradiction to the law. It's one thing to avoid an expensive legal battle because the agency will come after you, but another thing entirely to advocate for their usurpation of the legislative branch's authority.
The biggest criminals are always in the government. I'd imagine that a lot of people in an agency are true believers that the activities of their jurisdiction should be severely regulated.
Doesn’t make you a bad person Robert. It makes you honest. A good trait for sure…
I’ll carry everywhere I am not legally prohibited not matter what sign they have put up except for my parents, my dad doesn’t care for guns so out of respect to him I’ll leave it in the car.
So much misinformation in this comment section. Y’all scary.
Answear
for texas
1.pass hb 560 in 2019
2.) pass constitutional carry too 2019
in general so long it s not a felony keep calm and carry concealed
As long as a responsible concealed carrier is not breaking any laws, then I fully support carrying inside any business that would “prefer” for customers to be unarmed, but is not willing to take the legal steps required to prevent concealed carry on their premises. I am however a firm believer that concealed means concealed.
I just always assumed those signs meant no Berettas or revolvers. Also, I can’t read, so I have no idea what the text says.
I don’t follow bulls#$T laws that can put my or my loved ones life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in jeopardy. Oh and one other thing it’s called concealed carry for a reason….If someone can make out that your carrying then your doing a poor job of concealing.
I have known business owners who deliberately posted signage that did not comply with state requirements.
The stated rationale was that it complied with insurance requirements (some insurers are very anti-gun) while giving the wink to knowledgeable concealed carriers.
Careful, this statement is incorrect:
“These signs are huge AND they must BOTH be posted at ALL entrances to a private establishment if it wishes to ban BOTH concealed AND open carry. ”
A 30.06 sign does NOT need to be posted at all entrances to be legally binding, only “conspicuously placed”.
The way the law is currently written, only the 30.07 sign has the requirement to be posted at all entrances.
Until you find binding precedent interpreting “conspicuously placed” heed Mr. Jones warning. I would argue that it means posted in a manner other than it was posted if my client got arrested for violating the sign law. I know I’ve missed signs before because of how they were posted. Like out in a parking lot. I’d probably win that one. But one where they missed an entrance that my hypothetical client didn’t use? That wouldn’t be easy.
I hear the phrase “Leave your gun in your car” when going into places that prohibit concealed carry, such as post offices, etc. How safe is that! You hear all the time, about cars being broken into. Plus, you run the risk of someone spotting you pulling your piece out, to stick it in the trunk etc.
The last time I went to a doctors office, where I assumed they were going to ask me to remove some of my clothing, I put my carry piece in a small camera bag with a strap long enough that I could carry it over my opposite shoulder. The nurse asked me what was in the bag. I told here it was something valuable, that I didn’t want to leave in the car, end of story.
Your in that fluky paranoid zone that some have here that the whole world is out to get you. Nobody is popping your trunk at the doctor’s office. The idea that gun free zones are useless is beyond the point. The wishes of the property should take priority.
“The wishes of the property should take priority”
Well, I have the last word on that. I’ll exercise my individual freedom. Thank you very much.
If the property owner has metal detectors and armed security, great.
Otherwise, as he is douing nothing to guarantee my safety, he can make no demands that I not guarantee my own.
At least, not as far as a business, open to the public, is concerned.
At his home, sure, but I wouldn’t visit his home.
So, you’re OK with those businesses that want to prevent “them colored folk” from coming in, too? How ’bout “No Fatties” signs?
I honestly believe a business has the Constitutional right to refuse to do business with “colored folk.” The 1A guarantees the right of the people to freely associate. The right is meaningless without the right to choose who one does not associate with.
I don’t believe there is a sufficient market for such a business in the brick and mortar retail world. I know I wouldn’t go there.
Hmmmm…. No. I think it is apples & oranges. One is a civil right. While gun carry is more on the level of no shirt, no shoes, no pets.
Nice try, but no dice.
Since when is a Constitutionally-protected right not a “civil right”?
Since when is freedom of association not a right? Since when does anyone have the right to shop at a particular store? Where does the “civil right” to do business with whoever you please, regardless of their preference, come from? Civil rights are rights against government power. They are not rights against fellow citizens.
What is right and what is legal do not and should not be a 1:1 correlation.
You’re conflating multiple, disparate issues, and putting words into my mouth. Care to try again?
Ok, but first stop asking questions from which your intent must be inferred and make a declaratory statement of your position.
My response was in direct relation to Tiger’s assertion that gun carry is not a civil right. I’m sorry if that was so hard to comprehend.
You said “So, you’re OK with those businesses that want to prevent “them colored folk” from coming in, too? How ’bout “No Fatties” signs?” Then you, tiger, I talked about what were civil rights or Constitutionally protected civil rights. I took these statements combined to mean that perhaps you were equating what’s legal with whats moral. It’s a common enough argument.
Whether or not you were doing that, I liked your “sense when” style of argument. I took it to the next point in the context of tiger’s “[t]he wishes of the property should take priority” premise*. If you were disagreeing with me, it fit as a response; if you were agreeing with me, it built on your (implied) argument that tiger’s “apples & oranges” statement is a bit nonsensical because he was the only one talking about things that were not Constitutionally protected rights, i.e, entering someone else’s property while being “colored,” a “fattie,” undressed, or with a pet. (Entering someone else’s property while being “colored” is often a statutory civil right).
If responding directly to your statement was not proper internet protocol in such a situation as outlined above, I apologize. I typically don’t read the comments on internet forums, let alone participate. Most are full of morons. Here, with the exception of our resident trolls, most commenters don’t seem to be idiots. We all may say something idiotic from time to time, but that is the exception here, not the rule.
*I agree with the premise that a property owners rights to exclude anyone else from their property should take precedence over most everything else.
Here is where we disagree – unless we don’t, because you haven’t ironed out how you would protect the property owner’s rights:
I don’t think “no gun” signs should have force of law, anywhere.
I do think property owners should have the right to eject visitors or customers whom they catch violating their rules, and that they should be able to “no trespass” notify those whom they eject.
That is how it works in Missouri and Kansas. I run a risk of being asked to leave, but not of being arrested or charged for possession.
I think that ahould be the law in all 50 states (or was it 57?).
I try to look at things through base principles. If a reasonable person should know that they may only enter the premises under certain conditions and enters the premises in violation of those conditions, then that person is trespassing (in my opinion, but not necessarily legally). I don’t really care what the conditions are. I don’t care whether they are posted store hours or posted no guns signs.
I don’t think your position is unreasonable. I don’t strongly disagree. Ceteris paribus, I’d even prefer living under your system because it benefits me (unfairly, in my opinion).
Making your property a gun free zone is the wrong decision, but in America, people are entitled to their opinions and to act on them to a certain point, no mater how wrong they are.
You mentioned “legal vs moral” and “legal vs right.”
From that perspective, I find it immoral and not right that a business owner would deny me the ability to defend myself and mine, yet not take responsibility for ensuring my safety.
And it is easy to say, “Just don’t go to that business.” For those of us who live near smaller towns, “that business” may be the only one of its kind.
Totally agree. Here in America, we have the right to do all sorts of immoral things. Like go to “that” church down the way from the “right” church that we all go to.
“I agree with the premise that a property owners rights to exclude anyone else from their property should take precedence over most everything else.”
In theory, I 100% agree with this. However, in (current) practice, I absolutely loathe the inconsistent “legislation”. Either the business is able to say exactly whom is allowed and is not allowed—”racist”, “sexist”, or otherwise—or the business must welcome any and all customers—without exception, as long as the business operations are not being interrupted. And no, OC/CC is not an “interruption”.
“In theory, I 100% agree with this. However …” agreed. Sometimes the best answer in politics is to just shout samsies. I remember a congressman who argued for fiscal responsibility, but had more pork than most. His response was that once the Congress as a whole decided to waste a bunch of money, then it would be best if it was wasted in his district.
“And no, OC/CC is not an ‘interruption’.” My contrarian nature tempts me to argue otherwise, but the same general argument could be applied to any protected class. The argument would be that most of your customers don’t want “that” where they do business. It’s a fair argument because it is not the business owners job to die on every “civil rights” hill.
I carry in my vehicle mostly. Some folks would not consider that carrying. I find open or concealed carry to be a PITA. Other than a S&W Bodyguard 380 in my front pocket, carrying sucks IMO. Heavy, bulky, pants fall downy. Having said that I try not to do business with any place that posts a gun buster and I quit going to the mall or the movie theater years ago. Neither one serves any purpose for this 50 something male.
The signage has to be correct, in any state. Whether the law supports criminal penalties for carry or it is just a notice that you will be tresspassing and asked to leave varies from state to state and in some states, even city or county.
Besides the exact wording and appearance of the sign it must be posted precisely. In Kansas such signs do not invoke criminal penalties but they valid sign must be placed within 1 foot of the door [every door] and at eye level between 4 and 6 feet above ground. They may not be obscured by advertising or other objects.
BUT THE IMPORTANT FACT, the owners of the property are mentally defective because they think that a criminal intent on robbery or murder will be deterred by a sign. If any criminal even notices they are more likely to seek out gun free zones where they feel safer.
I always refer to Gun Free Zones as Helpless Victim Zones. If you can’t or won’t protect yourself and those you love then you deserve to die. The police are at best a reactionary force. That’s why 911 gets called after the SHTF. You can chose to not carry just don’t blame anyone but yourself when bad things happen.
Many years ago when I took the mandatory training class for concealed carry in Utah, it was taught by a Country Sheriff Sgt.who pointed out that there were indeed business establishments even in Utah that “prohibited” legally carried concealed handguns. His next comment was that we needed to remember that the operational word was “concealed.” In other words, if we were carrying like we were supposed to no one would know we were armed anyway unless we had to use our gun to defend life and limb, in which case no one would care.
I live in Virginia now and follow the same philosophy. Other than places like courthouse and the post office, I ignore “No guns allowed” signs. They have no weight of law and all that can happen is that the proprietor can ask you to leave if they find out you are carrying, and then you must or you will be trespassing. On the other hand, if some criminal or crazy or terrorist decides the “Gun free zone” I happen to be in at the moment is a juicy target, and I cap him I’ll count that in the “win” column. But to be honest, in all the years I have carried concealed no one has ever figured out I was armed. So why worry about it. If you do it right, it’s a non-issue.
Comments are closed.