• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What a massive misunderstanding of the word “Right”!

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
576
Location
Kentucky
Actually one does have the right to be armed and remain armed on private property. Even in someone's living room.
No permission need be asked ahead of time. Rights don't require permission.

What one doesn't have is the right to remain on not open to the public private property if told to leave it. Gun or no gun.

I won't ask your permission to carry if I'm invited too or on your not open to the public private property. It's my absolute right to be armed.
However if you see I'm armed you have every right to tell me to leave.
You have no authority to disarm me but every right to tell me to leave.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,281
Location
Florida
Signage in 30.06 & 30.07 carry weight of law - TRESPASS is the offense!

30.06 (d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

30.07 (d)...see above ^^^
GHEE...
If you walk past a 30.07 sign openly carrying a handgun, and a police officer sees you, he's going to act. That's not trespassing. Trespassing is going onto someone's property without their permission or being on someone's private property that is open to the public but then being asked to leave by the property owner and then failing to leave. Trespass carries a class B misdemeanor in Texas, and with a deadly weapon will be a class A. This 30.06 and 30.07 statute assigns lawful authority to the government where they have no right to meddle. If it's a "trespass" issue, then isn't the current law good enough? 30.06 and 30.07 are not trespass laws, they are laws that assign private property rights to the authority of the government. It's a discriminatory law aimed towards people exercising a right recognized by the state. "no trespassing" applies to everyone. 30.06 and 30.07 only apply to those lawfully carrying a weapon onto private property open to the public. If a person were to "trespass" while carrying a weapon, they'd be given a class A misdemeanor, but in the case of 30.06 and 30.07 they are given a class C misdemeanor. Unless of course it can be proven that they purposeful walked past properly posted signage, or disregarded oral communication to leave. Going further, from the link you provided, section (e) says: "It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035." What's that mean? It means that the law can't be applied to citizens on public property, because the government doesn't have the authority to enforce this law there when it comes to constitutionally protected rights. I've always wondered why, if the government can't prohibit people from carrying on public property or certain government buildings, just like they can't prohibit the takin gof photos and videos, why can they prohibit people from entering private property? All a private property owner has to do is put up a sign that says "no guns", and when they see someone with a gun, ask them to leave. If they don't leave, call law enforcement and have them trespassed.

Am I right? Wrong? Way off?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,426
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Do you agree with the 30.06 and 30.07 laws in texas?
If those laws, as I infer from the context, allow property owners to deny access to folks carrying firearms, then yes, I do. To state eye95’s Razor another way, no one’s Rights can interfere with the Rights of others. We don’t have a Right to impose ourselves on another’s property.

The anti-Rights legal concept of “public accommodations” is what got us into this paradoxical mess.

Just as no one has a Right to set up a soap box on your property and to start spewing opinions that you find vile, no one has a Right to carry on your property if you (foolishly) fear the presence of firearms
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,371
Location
here nc
If you walk past a 30.07 sign openly carrying a handgun, and a police officer sees you, he's going to act. That's not trespassing. ...
Snipp...

All a private property owner has to do is put up a sign that says "no guns", and when they see someone with a gun, ask them to leave. If they don't leave, call law enforcement and have them trespassed.

Am I right? Wrong? Way off?
QUOTE from my cite which referenced Texas
PENAL CODE TITLE 7.
OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
CHAPTER 30. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN.
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN.

The nice LEs cannot act without a complainant to press trespass charges since they do not have sufficent RAS to even question if the OC’g citizen meets exception criteria!
Now, Texans in 2016 got what they whined for...OC privileges ONLY with a license/permit as well as statutory permission for LEs to ask for a citizen’s papers IF they see the citizen OC’g.

06 & 07 outline the signs criteria to make them enforceable.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,426
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Actually one does have the right to be armed and remain armed on private property [emphasis mine]. Even in someone's living room.
No permission need be asked ahead of time. Rights don't require permission.

What one doesn't have is the right to remain on not open to the public private property if told to leave it. Gun or no gun.

I won't ask your permission to carry if I'm invited too or on your not open to the public private property. It's my absolute right to be armed.
However if you see I'm armed you have every right to tell me to leave.
You have no authority to disarm me but every right to tell me to leave.
No, one has the privilege to do so—with the owner’s permission, implicit or explicit. That permission can be revoked in advance by signage. Real Rights are inalienable; they cannot be revoked. Privileges are alienable; they can be revoked by proper authority.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,371
Location
here nc
No, one has the privilege to do so—with the owner’s permission, implicit or explicit. That permission can be revoked in advance by signage. Real Rights are inalienable; they cannot be revoked. Privileges are alienable; they can be revoked by proper authority.
GHEE...What is the definition of REAL RIGHTS and who made them inalienable?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,371
Location
here nc
In case you are having trouble figuring this out, I am choosing never to reply to you. Have a nice day.
Truly...
Wondering minds might benefit from clear definitions instead of guessing or perceiving their definition is the same as yours, or using different criteria for the forum’s discussion and genterating further ghee whiz!
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
576
Location
Kentucky
No, one has the privilege to do so—with the owner’s permission, implicit or explicit. That permission can be revoked in advance by signage. Real Rights are inalienable; they cannot be revoked. Privileges are alienable; they can be revoked by proper authority.
Maybe in your state. No gun Signs mean nothing in mine.

Only verbal notice not to enter armed or leave.
List me one state where a private property owner can lawfully disarm someone simply for being on their property.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,371
Location
here nc
Maybe in your state. No gun Signs mean nothing in mine.

Only verbal notice not to enter armed or leave.
List me one state where a private property owner can lawfully disarm someone simply for being on their property.
Better question might be how can/would a property own be able to disarm a trespasser?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
576
Location
Kentucky
Better question might be how can/would a property own be able to disarm a trespasser?
Well there is that too lol.

But even if the person armed was not going to physically resist, I know of no state where a property owner can lawfully disarm a person simply because they don't want guns there.

Tell the person to leave yes. Disarm them? Not in any jurisdiction I'm aware of
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,426
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Maybe in your state. No gun Signs mean nothing in mine.

Only verbal notice not to enter armed or leave.
List me one state where a private property owner can lawfully disarm someone simply for being on their property.
My point was relevant to the concept of Rights, not to the law.

The law should be written with a proper conceptualization of Rights in mind.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,281
Location
Florida
If those laws, as I infer from the context, allow property owners to deny access to folks carrying firearms, then yes, I do. To state eye95’s Razor another way, no one’s Rights can interfere with the Rights of others. We don’t have a Right to impose ourselves on another’s property.

The anti-Rights legal concept of “public accommodations” is what got us into this paradoxical mess.

Just as no one has a Right to set up a soap box on your property and to start spewing opinions that you find vile, no one has a Right to carry on your property if you (foolishly) fear the presence of firearms
Do Texas property owners NEED 30.06 and 30.07 to get those who are lawfully carrying trespassed from their property? Or do they ALREADY possess that right?
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,281
Location
Florida
QUOTE from my cite which referenced Texas
PENAL CODE TITLE 7.
OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
CHAPTER 30. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN.
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN.

The nice LEs cannot act without a complainant to press trespass charges since they do not have sufficent RAS to even question if the OC’g citizen meets exception criteria!
Now, Texans in 2016 got what they whined for...OC privileges ONLY with a license/permit as well as statutory permission for LEs to ask for a citizen’s papers IF they see the citizen OC’g.

06 & 07 outline the signs criteria to make them enforceable.
What fairytale world do you live in where LEO's act according to the law?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,426
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Do Texas property owners NEED 30.06 and 30.07 to get those who are lawfully carrying trespassed from their property? Or do they ALREADY possess that right?
IDK. I only responded to that question about TX law as a hypothetical question about the Rights of property owners to bar carry. I believe that, in a society that respects individual Rights, property owners have that Right, even pre-emptively with a sign. I know nothing of, nor am I all that concerned about, TX law.

So, do they already possess that Right? Yes. Is it recognized in TX law? IDK.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,371
Location
here nc
Do Texas property owners NEED 30.06 and 30.07 to get those who are lawfully carrying trespassed from their property? Or do they ALREADY possess that right?
Well 06 & 07 eff date was ‘16 and amended ‘17, so i guess the august legislature felt in the heat of allowing Texans to OC, they needed to tighten their no carry boundaries as well as articulate specifics on their signs so the signs carried the weight of law!
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,281
Location
Florida
IDK. I only responded to that question about TX law as a hypothetical question about the Rights of property owners to bar carry. I believe that, in a society that respects individual Rights, property owners have that Right, even pre-emptively with a sign. I know nothing of, nor am I all that concerned about, TX law.

So, do they already possess that Right? Yes. Is it recognized in TX law? IDK.
Well 06 & 07 eff date was ‘16 and amended ‘17, so i guess the august legislature felt in the heat of allowing Texans to OC, they needed to tighten their no carry boundaries as well as articulate specifics on their signs so the signs carried the weight of law!
So, if you trespassed someone prior to 30.07 you had no legal authority?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,371
Location
here nc
IDK. I only responded to that question about TX law as a hypothetical question about the Rights of property owners to bar carry. I believe that, in a society that respects individual Rights, property owners have that Right, even pre-emptively with a sign. I know nothing of, nor am I all that concerned about, TX law.

So, do they already possess that Right? Yes. Is it recognized in TX law? IDK.
So you do not concer yourself with the RIGHTS of those citizens of Texas or elsewhere outside your immediate sphere of reality?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
576
Location
Kentucky
My point was relevant to the concept of Rights, not to the law.

The law should be written with a proper conceptualization of Rights in mind.
OK. In short a person has a right to be armed on private property.

The property owner has the right to tell that person to leave armed or for some other reason.

It's the only way both rights coexist.

Open to the public is NOT private, no matter who owns it.

Signs having force of law criminalize the RTKABA and should not exist.
 
Top