AUSTIN TX – Texas Rep. Poncho Nevárez (D – Eagle Pass) who became the new face of gun control in Texas, in large part due to Kory Watkins, who went face to face with the anti-gun rep after he laughed about the reality of open carry in Texas– comparing it to “Santa Clause,” has submitted a bill that would transfer the “gun free” signage requirements from the penal code to the Director of the Department of Public Safety, an un-elected bureaucrat.
As part of the Concealed Carry law of 1996, Texas established a set of rules to appease private business owners that allow them to post signs that met certain requirements to ban concealed handgun carriers from their establishment. These rules are clearly defined in section 30.06 of penal code, “TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.” The rules are as follows:
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) “Written communication” means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) 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.
The bill, HB 2405, “relating to the notice given by a property owner prohibiting a concealed handgun license holder from carrying a handgun on certain property,” seeks to make it easier for business owners to turn law abiding gun owners into criminals for carrying a weapon on their property. The proposed change would remove the specific verbiage requirements from the law and allow the director of public safety to make up the rules as they went along. See the excerpt of the exact text below:
(c-1) The public safety director of the Department of Public
Safety shall adopt rules regarding the content, size, and other
characteristics of signs to be posted on a building or other
property where the property owner seeks to prohibit a license
holder from carrying a handgun. The rules must require the sign to:
(1) contain a pictogram that shows, on a white background, a handgun drawn in black ink within a red circle and a
diagonal red line across the handgun;
(2) contain language that must include the following: “Section 30.06, Penal Code”;
(3) be a readable and conspicuous size but not larger than 8.5 inches by 11 inches;
(4) be posted at each exterior entrance that is open to the public;
(5) be posted in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public;
(6) not be obstructed or altered in any way; and
(7) be immediately replaced by the property owner if the sign becomes illegible.
(c-2) The Department of Public Safety shall make available on the department’s Internet website a printable electronic copy of a sign that complies with the rules adopted under Subsection (c-1).
Reading between the lines, this appears to be an attempt to loosen the signage requirements set forth by the legislature in anticipation of the inevitable open carry legalization in Texas. By transferring authority of signage requirements to an un-elected bureaucrat, the rules could be changed outside the purview of the legislature, which could entrap law abiding gun owners who carry their firearms past an imaginary line.
I am one who believes in natural rights and natural law which is built on private property rights. If a private business owner does not want to participate in voluntary exchange with someone who has a firearm on their person that is their right. However, walking beyond a sign on the outside of a private business which is open to the public, does not establish criminality in and of itself. If the business owner is so paranoid about being in the vicinity of a gun, they should verbally warn their customers before entering their store that guns are not allowed, or frisk them prior to entering their business. However, the passive aggressive nature of these signs speak volumes to the cowards who erect them. How ironic is it that if these cowardly business owners catch someone with a firearm in their business, they will call men with guns to arrest the otherwise peaceful gun owner, under the threat of violence.
I have both knowingly, and unknowingly violated the current 30.06 statute on many occasions, and probably will continue to in the future. However, i’m not a criminal, nor do I advocate initiatory violence. Once I realize I have “committed a crime” by simply walking into a particular building, I make a mental note that I will not shop in that establishment ever again. For example, I used to be an avid shopper at Sprouts, and Whole Foods, however since they both decided to ban guns from their stores, I now shop exclusively at Kroger for high quality, organic produce. As it turns out, respecting gun owners right to carry, and providing quality food options is good business. Kroger has seen positive store sales in their last 45 quarters!
With the centrally planned economy gasping for breath, I can’t imagine turning away customers would be a very popular thing to do. So, maybe we can save all these businesses some time, and mandate that the 30.06 signage read, “Going Out of Business.”