Pretty much, although it allows store owners to operate as they see fit, but require them to be liable if something happens that could have been prevented.dlance said:
Eh, this is the gun owners' version of "bake the cake". Not a fan.
dlance said:
Eh, this is the gun owners' version of "bake the cake". Not a fan.
Seven said:
Help me with a hypothetical. Lets say a properly licensed citizen willfully ignores a 30.06 sign and an armed perp goes into a store to rob it. The citizen uses deadly force on the perp and is successful. Would your charges really be any different than if that happened in a non 30.06 zone? You're going to jail for a while after you pull the trigger regardless if it's 30.06 or not. The store owner would have to decide to press charges against you for the 30.06 violation correct? If you saved the day and perhaps saved the store a lot of money I would think that charges likely wouldn't be pressed. We all know the perp would carry into the store regardless what the sign says. What are the legal ramifications in this situation?
It's a Class C misdemeanor unless previously told to leave the premises with the weapon. See 30.06(d). If the SD kill was indeed SD, then the odds of seeing a courtroom are low. Would depend on the Grand Jury/ADA.
What if the confrontation started in a public space like the parking lot or a side walk and you run into the 30.06 store to seek cover and the perp pursues you into the store and you use your weapon in self defense?
Argue defense of necessity
Outside of them asking you to leave if you're spotted and a possible class C misdemeanor what would happen above what would happen in a non 30.06 zone?
Jumps to Class A misdemeanor if told to leave and refuse to do. See 30.06(d)
Quote:
Would your charges really be any different than if that happened in a non 30.06 zone?
Quote:
A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
If I have a reason to use my weapon, I'll gladly take the punishment.txyaloo said:Quote:
Would your charges really be any different than if that happened in a non 30.06 zone?
Yes. The self-defense statue (castle doctrine) specifically says deadly force is justified when:Quote:
A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
If you walk past a 30.06 sign with a gun, you no longer have a right to be present at that location. You've violated 30.06 (trespass by a license holder). You will likely be arrested and go to jail even if it's a good shoot. Most self defense shootings don't end with the shooter going to jail. Most are investigated by LE, a recommendation is sent to the prosecutor's office, and then a grand jury decides whether to indict. If you're indicted, then you get arrested.
A property owner doesn't "press charges" for a 30.06 violation. Charges are brought by the state. It would be up to a prosecutor to decide whether to bring charges against you.
In your second scenario where the aggression begins outside, and an LTC violates a 30.06 seeking cover, etc, I don't see the state recommending charges. If you willfully violate 30.06 and have an armed confrontation, I could see there being issues.
I don't disagree. Better to be alive in jail than dead.Mr. AGSPRT04 said:If I have a reason to use my weapon, I'll gladly take the punishment.txyaloo said:Quote:
Would your charges really be any different than if that happened in a non 30.06 zone?
Yes. The self-defense statue (castle doctrine) specifically says deadly force is justified when:Quote:
A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
If you walk past a 30.06 sign with a gun, you no longer have a right to be present at that location. You've violated 30.06 (trespass by a license holder). You will likely be arrested and go to jail even if it's a good shoot. Most self defense shootings don't end with the shooter going to jail. Most are investigated by LE, a recommendation is sent to the prosecutor's office, and then a grand jury decides whether to indict. If you're indicted, then you get arrested.
A property owner doesn't "press charges" for a 30.06 violation. Charges are brought by the state. It would be up to a prosecutor to decide whether to bring charges against you.
In your second scenario where the aggression begins outside, and an LTC violates a 30.06 seeking cover, etc, I don't see the state recommending charges. If you willfully violate 30.06 and have an armed confrontation, I could see there being issues.
txyaloo said:I don't disagree. Better to be alive in jail than dead.Mr. AGSPRT04 said:If I have a reason to use my weapon, I'll gladly take the punishment.txyaloo said:Quote:
Would your charges really be any different than if that happened in a non 30.06 zone?
Yes. The self-defense statue (castle doctrine) specifically says deadly force is justified when:Quote:
A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
If you walk past a 30.06 sign with a gun, you no longer have a right to be present at that location. You've violated 30.06 (trespass by a license holder). You will likely be arrested and go to jail even if it's a good shoot. Most self defense shootings don't end with the shooter going to jail. Most are investigated by LE, a recommendation is sent to the prosecutor's office, and then a grand jury decides whether to indict. If you're indicted, then you get arrested.
A property owner doesn't "press charges" for a 30.06 violation. Charges are brought by the state. It would be up to a prosecutor to decide whether to bring charges against you.
In your second scenario where the aggression begins outside, and an LTC violates a 30.06 seeking cover, etc, I don't see the state recommending charges. If you willfully violate 30.06 and have an armed confrontation, I could see there being issues.
When the legislature reduced the penalty for walking past a 30.06 to a Class C, lots of people have suggested it's a good idea. Just most people aren't aware of that nugget in the self defense statute. I've carried frequently in areas that were off limits (*cough*A&M*cough*).
The Legislature probably needs to amend the self defense statute to add a DTP if you were "not authorized" due to a 30.06 sign
How is it bullish? It simply says that business that allow carrying of firearms are partially immune to civil liability if a licensee gets hurt or uses their handgun on the business owner's premises.Blane said:
I'm all for private rights. This seems like a bullish move to push on private property owners. Flip the script and imagine the govt telling you that you couldn't carry a gun on your property or what we've seen already.....CHL holders required to carry additional insurance.
I can see the bullish move as a step to get more freedoms for gun owners. I don't like the bully effect but understand it's the same being used against gun owners. Everyone knows the gun haters will stop at nothing to get the guns. Maybe this move is a step in the right direction for gun owners. Not the final move on the chessboard but a move to let the powers know that guns are not evil and licensed gun owners are not criminals or the enemy.
Quote:
(b)A person with control over the premises of a business who forbids entry on the premises by a license holder with a handgun is liable for damages that could have been prevented by the otherwise lawful use of a handgun by a license holder who would otherwise have carried a handgun onto the premises.
IMMUNITY OF BUSINESS THAT ALLOWS HANDGUNS. A person with control over the premises of a business who allows entry on the premises by a license holder with a handgun is not liable based solely on that permission for damages arising from the lawful carrying of a handgun on the premises.
txags92 said:
If a bunch of lawyers don't like it, that might actually persuade me to like it. I don't like the bully aspect of it, but I do like the idea of pointing out that they are not devoid of liability when they put up a sign that deprives people of their right to self defense on their property. In the end, I just don't shop at 30.06 posted businesses in most cases if I can reasonably avoid it.
RHP-997 said:
Let businesses make their own decisions.
For instance, we have a business that has a much higher likelihood of robbery due to the type of business. We are very gun-friendly, but have 30.07 notices posted. Our reasoning is that we have a protocol for dealing with a situation where a person enters with a weapon. If we allow open carry, we don't know whether that person is friend or foe, and our protocol becomes less effective. We already know that many of our customers carry concealed, and we are happy that they do; we just don't want open carry. On the other hand, our employees are permitted to carry concealed or open, and are encouraged to do so.
If this became law, we would be forced to either have a less effective protocol for dealing with potential threats, or have additional liability (where we otherwise wouldn't) if an incident did occur and a customer was injured.
EDIT: Sorry, totally misread this. I agree with you wholeheartedly.SWCBonfire said:dlance said:
Eh, this is the gun owners' version of "bake the cake". Not a fan.
Freedom = private property rights
This is big government "conservatism". You respect the rights of others, and if they don't respect yours, you don't do business with them.
Yeah, I'm with you. Just totally read it to say the opposite the first time.SWCBonfire said:
I have an issue with legislation that subjects private property owners with increased liability because they legally complied with a statute to prohibit an activity that THEY deemed undesirable on their own private property. For the record, I am 100% for concealed carry.
More bull**** laws made by paper hanging lawyers.
But here is the thing. These business owners are not just making the simple decision to keep weapons out of their business. They are also making a decision to disarm their customers in a very visible manner that telegraphs to criminals that they can expect the customers to be unarmed when entering or leaving the business as well. The way I read it, they are just clarifying for the courts what degree of liability goes with making that decision. That liability would potentially exist with or without this law...it would just be left to individual judges and juries to determine where exactly that liability begins and ends. With this law, they aren't creating new liability, they simply make clear what the boundaries of the existing potential liability are.SWCBonfire said:
I have an issue with legislation that subjects private property owners with increased liability because they legally complied with a statute to prohibit an activity that THEY deemed undesirable on their own private property. For the record, I am 100% for concealed carry.
More bull**** laws made by paper hanging lawyers.
These two passages make this a nightmare to enforce.Quote:
(b)A person with control over the premises of a business
who forbids entry on the premises by a license holder with a handgun
is liable for damages that could have been prevented by the
otherwise lawful use of a handgun by a license holder who would
otherwise have carried a handgun onto the premises.
