What is the punishment for carrying a pistol in a store....concealed, of course.......
for protection of course....
what;s the point of having a gun if you can't carrying the dang thing around?
how protected am I...if a thief knows everyone going back to his car is unarmed?
I'm in texas....and as far as I klnow, people can't bring their guns in stores (concealed of course)...for fear of government punishment....
I looked here, and it states:
"It is unlawful for a handgun license holder to carry a handgun on the premises of: [...] the property of another after receiving notice that concealed handguns are forbidden on that property."
It kind of looks like you just can't have one on another's property if they tell you that you can't.
It gave Tex. Penal Code § 46.01 et seq. and Tex. Gov’t. Code § 411.171 et seq. as the primary source, so I'd check that if I were you.
This is why I don't understand concealed weapons laws. First off, if no one can carry around a gun, then a criminal will basically know he's safe. Second, if you're only allowed to carry around a gun unconcealed, then guess who's going to get shot first by the criminal. Everyone with a gun. The only thing that makes sense is for there to be no gun laws so that the criminal won't know who has a gun. The moment he takes someone hostage will be the same moment he gets shot from behind.
I think it's considered trespassing: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/tchlaws0102.pdf
see pgs 26-27
Private businesses have the right to prohibit gun possession on their premises.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/faq.htm
"Private property owners may give notice excluding license holders from carrying concealed handguns. If you carry a concealed handgun on posted property, you can be charged with criminal trespass by a license holder. The charge is a Class A misdemeanor, and if you are convicted, your license will be revoked."
EDIT: Nvm, Brian already answered.
That they do, and in Ohio where most can carry a concealed gun leagally into a private business, most business have a "do not carry" sign posted on the door.
"
That they do, and in Ohio where most can carry a concealed gun leagally into a private business, most business have a "do not carry" sign posted on the door."
I understand, people have a right to ask people not to bring guns on their property....at the same time...none of that matters.....
all that matters is the punishment the government will give you if you are caught...
if there's no punishment...I'd carry my gun inside stores all the time...and restuarants.....whether they have a sign or not....
I couldn't care less about the stupid sign....all that stops me is the punishment from the government.
I agree 100% with Brian on the counterproductivity of gun laws. Now, a store owner should probably have the right to ask you to come unarmed, but should we take such a store owner seriously? First, one should educate oneself on whether or not a gun-banning store owner can take legal action against you because of this.
If they cannot, then the reasonable course of action is going to be to disregard "no guns allowed signs"; if they can, then you should make a point out of boycotting such places.
"First, one should educate oneself on whether or not a gun-banning store owner can take legal action against you because of this."
I think you have to ask this question about any law, not just gun laws. If the law lacks enforcement, it's not much of a law.
EDIT: "if there's no punishment...I'd carry my gun inside stores all the time...and restuarants.....whether they have a sign or not....
I couldn't care less about the stupid sign."
How un-libertarian of you, whatever happened to private property rights?
I think store owners are able to calculate what is better for their business; what type of clientele they have, what is or is not productive, the nature of enforcing self-made laws on their business, the effects of a self made law on business, etc, than the average passerby, customer, government, boycotter, or theoretical constructor of political theory telling the owner what they should or should not do and how to do it.
Of course, but in the case of particularly vicious ones, like gun or drug laws, their mere existence is enough of a vexation to all but the most state-loving indoctrinaires, regardless of enforcement.
"Of course, but in the case of particularly vicious ones, like gun or drug laws, their mere existence is enough of a vexation to all but the most state-loving indoctrinaires, regardless of enforcement."
The state could also be used to force these people to allow guns on their property whether they want them there or not.
If you think that's what some of us have implied, then you should work on making your strawmen less transparent.
"If you think that's what some of us have implied, then you should work on making your strawmen less transparent."
I don't think that's what you're implying, I think that's what I'm explicitly saying. If I don't like what someone does with their own property, I try to force them to do what I want. Takes much less time than boycotting and it's certainly more effective. It seems, however, that you would only disagree with my means but not with my ends.
What is your evidence that boycott is ineffective?
Since your means are aggressive, they contradict my ends (namely freedom from legal aggression). I don't even deny the right of shopkeepers to disallow people from entering armed, but I do consider these people vicious and/or idiotic.
"What is your evidence that boycott is ineffective?"
I really haven't studied it, so I don't know either way. It seems like forcing people is just simpler and if the law no longer protects people's right to tell people not to bring guns on their premises, they won't have legal recourse in the event that people do bring guns on their property. Problem solved.
If I don't like what someone does with their own property, I try to force them to do what I want. Takes much less time than boycotting and it's certainly more effective.
The problem with line of thought is: if you have unproductive methods (such as government) that can't calculate and have zero concept of efficency as a significant part of the culture we would be reduced to a stone age standard of living with a severly dwindled population.
but I do consider these people vicious and/or idiotic
I don't know how you can calculate what is best or "non idiotic" for all shopkeeps everywhere at all times.
"if you have unproductive methods (such as government) that can't calculate and have zero concept of efficency as a significant part of the culture we would be reduced to a stone age standard of living with a severly dwindled population."
Government IS a significant part of our culture. I mean the OP asked a question for which there was a government provided answer. Wasn't even that hard to find.
Government IS a significant part of our culture
Even in this day and age, not compared with most other governments as far as market forces are concerned.
bloomj31:It seems like forcing people is just simpler and if the law no longer protects people's right to tell people not to bring guns on their premises, they won't have legal recourse in the event that people do bring guns on their property.
An example of a strong/successful boycott is Ghandi's boycott of british goods. Pretty effective. The problem with violence is that the other party can fight back, so you have to deal with whatever blowback as well as the cost of gearing up to attack them. Pyschologically, I think violence is like a line that once you cross its hard to go back untill one or both parties are completely spent. Even if you don't care about the other party, they're still more valuable in tact as trade partners. I consider attacking people you don't like to be akin to kicking machines which malfunction... not helping. Even though Libertarians usually think violence in self defense is justified, I stress that we do not have to act on that right. Violence is generally a last resort for the reasons I gave above.
"If you realize that whatever's bothering you is something that bothers other people, then boycott is the way to go."
In this case, political/legal action is just as feasible.
"The problem with violence is that the other party can fight back, so you have to deal with whatever blowback as well as the cost of gearing up to attack them."
I have no idea if a court would strike down the kind of legislation we're talking about but I guess you're right, they'd certainly have a case.
Perhaps I can't, but I was merely going by a rule of thumb here. That said, I should probably rephrase my previous statement:
"I consider disallowing guns inside stores to generally be a vicious and/or idiotic decision."
I would even argue against that with four real life cases to consider (admittidly all in the same market):
1) I owned a bar that had a gun incident about a year and a half before I owned the place, and within the time frame I owned the bar (6 years), there were a total of 4-6 gun incidents in the surrounding area. I installed a strict gun policy, there were zero incidents, business went up, and my customers felt more secure and happy with the policy.
2) My father owned an even worse bar in a worse neighborhood and did the same thing. His bar was in 1 small nice neighborhood surrounded by a gang and crime infested area, he bought a business in danger of becoming a derilect bar. His bar was probably the safest and most profitable in the time frame he owned the bar.
3) Most bar owners in my area (assuming the owners aren't tied up with gangs, etc) would not even consider letting people in a bar with weapons, they would much prefer to be in charge of their own security.
4) This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ8z1e2gBc4
It may be one thing to have middle class Texas rangers in a bar who were raised with a responsible gun culture, it would be another thing to expect the same thing in the Detroit area.
Which is why I said "generally". The reasoning behind "no guns inside" signs or stickers seems to be that you can actually trust people to obey them and that you can provide adequate security on your own. The former premise is obviously pretty damn ridiculous; the latter premise only applies if you have actual armed security on site.
Accordingly, if you and your emplyees were armed, then I consider your bar's gun ban sensible. Otherwise, you're just disarming potential victims and contrary to what people running malls, restaurants, schools, or universities may believe, spree killers aren't stopped by signs.
bloomj31:In this case, political/legal action is just as feasible.
bloomj31:I have no idea if a court would strike down the kind of legislation we're talking about but I guess you're right, they'd certainly have a case.
"Otherwise, you're just disarming potential victims and contrary to what people running malls, restaurants, schools, or universities may believe, spree killers aren't stopped by signs."
Agreed.
It isn't even about armed security, it is about providing an environment that can self sustain that customers find desirable. If customers feel that guns in an establishment is undesirable AS WELL AS no armed security to the point where business can't sustain, than I have a no gun policy with no armed security as well as not really ever calling the police in the vast majority of instances all while maintaining a somewhat peaceful environment (which is par for most succsessfull bars I know of). Also, it can not be denied, the more lax owners had more violent prone bars in my area. One of the shootings that occured in the neighborhood was from a patron who I had barred my first month of ownership who was supposedly a regular at a more "tolerant" bar. (or so I am told)
Like it or not, all responsibility falls on the owner, not the customer, for the saftey and well being of the owner's property and how to manage the resources. It is up to the owner to provide a safe environment, if he can not do that to a reasonable degree while maintaining profit, the business will fail. I did not think alchohol and guns mixed well in my market, and on rule of thumb, I would be hesitent to let them mix in any new market I was to enter until I would intimately know my business. My default position would be "no guns in bars". If you don't like my security policy, fine, boycott the bar; you are essentially already calculated into the pricing system anyway though if I find you to be a customer or market worth caring about.
Accordingly, if you and your emplyees were armed, then I consider your bar's gun ban sensible
Why would I want to arm bartenders who are untrained in gun use, or go the extra step to find a warrior bartender?
spree killers aren't stopped by signs.
They are also too rare to for me to calculate or worry and fuss over, particularly when I have to worry about people directly in front of me who get less fearful and more aggresive with the product I sell. Also, I don't know if there has even been a spree killing in my city.
"They are also too rare to for me to calculate or worry and fuss over"
I don't lie awake at night worrying about this either. What I'm saying is that I consider feel-good policies, which essentially you have described as something you adhere to, vicious. EDIT: Perhaps this is close-minded of me, I don't know, but I essentially consider mixing a gun ban applying to patrons/customers with having no armed employees pretty ridiculous.
"Why would I want to arm bartenders who are untrained in gun use, or go the extra step to find a warrior bartender?"
Obviously this is going to be hard in Europe (where I live), where the vast majority of people and policy are decidedly anti-gun. I just kinda hoped that you Yanks still had a gun culture that would make hiring people who knew how to use a gun not much harder than hiring someone with a driver's license. EDIT: This was probably way too optimistic, wasn't it?
And regarding "warrior bartenders", do I smell reductio ad absurdum?
Having just gone through licensing training, I think I can answer the question.
Carrying an unlicensed weapon concealed or open on premises you do not have permission to do so is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the place you're carrying is specially licensed for sale of alcoholic beverages, in which case it is a felony. Federal punishments applying to school zones are in effect, as well. Schools, racetracks, voting locations and others are also felonious. See Texas Penal code, Chapter 46.
Licensed individuals have different restrictions, such as the restrictions on places posted with signs regarding Section 30.06 (ironic name). Signage requirements for 30.06 signs are quite strict, and require 1" contrasting block lettering giving the full text provided in the law in English and in Spanish. Many "no guns" signs are not legally binding by this law, but I'm unaware of any legal challenges, so disobey at your own risk. Businesses getting >50% of their revenue from liquor signs have a different sign they are required to post.
You can carry open or concealed on your own property. Some apartment lease agreements might have language regarding the "threatening" display of firearms, so take with a grain of salt. Also, I'm not sure whether "my property" extends to semi-public areas in an apartment complex, so that could be a problem too.
Want to expand the areas and ways you are permitted to carry in Texas? Join or support Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, the Texas State Rifle Association. Both groups are trying this legislative session to remove the restrictions on licensed concealed carry on university campuses. Future initiatives include legalization of open carry and other similar expansions.
What I'm saying is that I consider feel-good policies, which essentially you have described as something you adhere to, vicious.
It's about a false sense of security vs. security tradeoff. I always tell people that they need to either allow people to carry guns on the college campus, or get sensible guards and give them guns. People find me crazy for even mentioning the thought! If some crazy guy wants to knock off 20-40 people, he'll go to a college to do it, knowing that everyone else is following the rules and the campus security doesn't have any guns. But what's to be expected from a largely left-wing institution? They continue thinking with their hearts instead of thinking with their heads.
I consider a loss of profit to be vicious. The bar was a much safer and more profitable after my ownership, a fact that can be easily demonstrated. If it is a "feel good" policy that works, so be it. I honestly don't consider it a "feel good" policy, it was a calculation of how to get the best profit by directing money to the more demanding needs off of limited means. I also do not think the way some of the actual policy enforcement and the way certain security issues were handled were anything near "feel good".
Feel free to call it ridiculous, but there were no major gun incidents in my profitable bar; it should be of note, the way I turned an unprofitable bar to a profitable one and ran it was by no means original, it was fairly common among profitable bar owners in my market; all of whom learned how to minimize thuggery and violence on shoestring budgets through decades of tough experience.
You also have to look at structure and product: A bar is serving alchohol and is a closed and compact (and often loud) environment
I just kinda hoped that you Yanks still had a gun culture
Depends on where you are at I think. America has very diverse markets, that's why I made the Texas / Detroit stereotype. For me a gun in an untrained hand is not a good idea.
I'm not saying that you don't know how to run a bar, as you obviously do. I'm also not questioning your safety record.
What I am saying that in the event of an attempted mass shooting, having only unarmed people around is a recipe for disaster. And, if the requirements for getting a concealed carry permit in one of the more reasonable states are any indication, operating a handgun is not rocket surgery and could be learned reasonably well in a week or so.
And, if the requirements for getting a concealed carry permit in one of the more reasonable states are any indication, operating a handgun is not rocket surgery and could be learned reasonably well in a week or so.
Gotcha, so this is more of a cultural issue. My state has fairly lax gun laws, and I would imagine there would be bars outside of the more urban environments where I would prefer guns in the bar (as I alluded I may feel OK in a Texas type environment). The problem in my state is when you get to the more urban areas, I feel the situation would be catastrophic, the culture of gun responsibility just isn't there; the rich hate guns and pass insane laws and the poor tend to be violent gangsters while the people in the middle are divided. What is interesting to note, in the Rust Belt area (where I am) the more urban areas are much more government subsidized and hence dangerous, that almost certainly tampers with the way the social environment and security issues are settled; unfortunaly for the present state of affairs for day to day business, it is beyond my control.
"How un-libertarian of you, whatever happened to private property rights?"
lol....I don't care to respect walmart and other huge corporation's private property rights when it comes to disarming me....
if they don't want me to have a gun on their premises....then check people at the door....
if they didn't frisk me at the door and no government is going to punish me...I'm coming in with a guin to protect myself....mainly in the parking lot....and especially at night....
"I don't even deny the right of shopkeepers to disallow people from entering armed"
I'm not suggesting denying them the right to disarm me....
what I'm saying is...get rid of government punishment for breaking these stupid laws....
if they want me disarmed...they need to check people at the door....and frisk them....otherwise, I'm getting in under the radar with a gun...
"Want to expand the areas and ways you are permitted to carry in Texas? "
No, I want to get rid of ALL LAWS THAT PUNISH PEOPLE WHO CARRY GUNS....concealed or unconcealed....
If the guy is a felon the punishment is a half decade in prison. I learned that in jury duty a couple years ago. Fun times.
Okay...but unless you can snap your fingers and make it happen...it probably wouldn't hurt to support anything that expands gun freedom. Just sayin'.
Just watch out for any government program to protect gun rights. There be riders on them bills!
"No, I want to get rid of ALL LAWS THAT PUNISH PEOPLE WHO CARRY GUNS....concealed or unconcealed...."
Hey, I'm not sayin' I disagree with you... but unfortunately, such reforms are viewed as "extreme" and "radical," even here in Texas, what people always consider to be a "gun-friendly" state.
As of right now, the best we can do is try to use the democratic process to relax the restrictions, one at a time. Maybe this year we'll get campus carry. Maybe open carry in three years. Maybe we'll get Alaska/Arizona/Vermont carry sooner or later. I know, it's unjust that we have to put up with these ridiculous restrictions, but what alternative do you offer? Like it or not, the state government here operates as a representative democracy, and infiltration by freedom-hating statists is surprisingly widespread, especially in Austin. So we have to fight with slim majorities against bureaucrats who know how to use procedural points to slow us down, and zealots who cherry-pick information to make our side look bad.
Like how, two years ago, the campus carry bill had a majority of co-signers in the House and Senate, but didn't get voted on in both houses because a) committees held it up until the end of the session, and b) supporting legislators had more pressing matters (voter-ID bill) that they were trying to get passed, so it generally got put on the back of the agenda and never addressed.
"Hey, I'm not sayin' I disagree with you... but unfortunately, such reforms are viewed as "extreme" and "radical," even here in Texas, what people always consider to be a "gun-friendly" state."
If everyone demands it nice and loud and proud....it won't be radical...it will be the norm. The politicians who don't dish out freedom will be the radicals.
never be ashamed or discouraged to demand exactly what you want...
here's another thing...its common sense....its not a crime to carry a gun...very very simple to understand. you are not trespassing against anyone by what you carry. as long as its not a huge rock of uranium that is exposing everyone around you to high doses of radiation.