{Since the original publication of this article, Texas has made several changes to the penalties for violating the 30.06 reducing it from a Class A Misdemeanor to a Class C Misdemeanor} For you non-Texans out there, let me open by saying that carrying a gun here in the Lone Star State is fraught with obstacles. First, you have to get your permit, and unlike Arizona to our left or Florida to our right, the process is time consuming and expensive. Second, having a permit doesn’t guarantee that you can actually carry your gun everywhere you’d like. There are the obvious federal properties where you’re statutorily disarmed (schools, post offices, etc.) but in addition to those, your forward progress can also be halted by three signs . . .
First is the “No Guns Allowed” sign which doesn’t hold the force of law. The worst that can possibly happen is that someone, somehow, discovers you’re carrying and reports you to the store manager. Said manager can ask you to leave, and if you don’t comply, you’re trespassing.
The second sign to be on the lookout for is the 51% sign. The 51% sign is mandated by the TABC and requires that any establishment that takes in 51% of their gross receipts in alcohol must bar the lawful carry of concealed firearms. I rate the 51% sign “pants-on-head” stupid given that being in a bar doesn’t make you intoxicated, but being in a bar does effectively disarms you. Nice projection on the part of our government servants. Should you carry in violation of the law where the sign is posted, you’re committing a felony that carries a fine not to exceed $10,000 and a prison term not to exceed 10 years.
However, the most insidious, stupid, and downright shameful sign in the 30.06 sign (at top). Like the 51% sign, the 30.06 carries the force of law in Texas and allows property owners to decide to bar lawful concealed carriers from the premises under threat of a Class A misdemeanor. Class A in Texas carries a fine not to exceed $4000 and/or confinement in prison not to exceed one year. All I can say there is, “At least it isn’t a felony?” with a shrug of my shoulders.
The problem with the 30.06 is that there isn’t any type of requirement to meet before putting up the sign. By virtue of posting the sign, a property owner has marked their entire building as “gun-free,” putting lawful concealed carriers such as myself at risk of imprisonment or fine or worse…robbery, rape, or murder.
I’m not asking for property owners to show compliance with commonly accepted security requirements, but at a minimum, acknowledgement of the risks associated in posting the sign. Many businesses in Texas post them and I don’t feel particularly compelled to reward them with my money. As we’ve seen time and time again, asking patrons not to carry and posting a “No Guns” sign that doesn’t carry the force of law is enough to shut down the vocal minority looking for some cheap wins in the media. Why go further and turn ordinary guys like me into criminals for wanting to simultaneously exercise a right and give you my money?
My bigger beef, though, is with employers who post the sign, barring their lawfully licensed employees from carrying concealed. Let me give you an example:
Employee Tyler drives his truck to work each day and thanks to the protections afforded to him under state law, he is allowed to keep his lawfully possessed firearm in his truck during the day while he is disarmed in the workplace. At the end of the work day and after making the trek across the parking lot, he can regain access to his firearm and continue about his day.
Unfortunately, to cut costs, his employer has rented a building in a less-than-desirable part of town. Local criminals know that Tyler is likely walking to his car carrying several thousand dollars in electronics in the form of his work-issued phone and laptop, the jewelry he wears each day including his gold wedding band and the Tag Heuer watch his wife gave him for their five year anniversary. Tyler is a perfect target for a robbery.
I’m no lawyer (I don’t even play one on TV), but I’d imagine that if Tyler were assaulted walking from his office to his car, he might have a decent case to bring a lawsuit against his employer for failing to protect him during the course of his duties. Crazier things have happened. Luckily for Tyler, he works during the daylight hours and only has to worry about the walk from the building to his car.
Unlike Employee Tyler, Employee Nick is unable to afford a car so he takes public transportation to get to and from work. And because he’s trying to save for a new car, he’s willing to take on a position working the third shift to get that lucrative shift differential pay. This puts Nick is a very dicey position since he must walk five blocks to get to the bus stop and another three to get to the office.
Normally he’d feel better about his odds at night walking around the high crime area near his office with his trusty GLOCK 19 on his hip. Unfortunately, because Nick’s employer posts a 30.06 sign and doesn’t make provisions for safe storage during the day, Nick is forced to make his commute disarmed. He feels that he’s definitely at a higher risk for injury or death given the timing and location of his commute, but if he can just hang for on a few more months, he’ll have enough saved up for a sizable downpayment on a reliable car. At that point, he can upgrade his risk level to that of Tyler’s.
I’m a staunch supporter of personal property rights. No doubt about it, if you want to bar people form carrying firearms on your property, that’s something worth consideration. Unfortunately, the whole issue comes down to individual rights vs. “individual” rights. I post a 30.06 sign on my house and you commit a Class A misdemeanor by coming into my house. While I’d guess that situation has never happened, I think that’s fine and dandy. Person vs. Person.
However, since we treat corporations as people in these fine United States, a company is well within its rights to post a 30.06 sign on the front door providing severe criminal penalties for all those who cross the threshold while exercising their natural, fundamental, Constitutional and God-given rights. If their employees are assaulted or murdered while leaving the office or on their commute, there’s not any legal standing for the employee to seek damages from their employer.
That’s a tough shit kind of situation and one I’d like to see change. I’ve gone far out of my way to meet the legal requirements in this state to exercise my rights (don’t even get me started on those infringements). But with $50 worth of strategically placed vinyl decals, my employer can put my safety outside the workplace in serious jeopardy while not really exposing themselves to any direct legal liability. While I never like to see legislation as a solution to problems, I’d prefer to see a 2A-friendly legislator take up the case to require acknowledgement at a minimum from those posting a 30.06 on a business. In an ideal situation, I’d like to see an insurance requirement for companies that post the 30.06 indexed to the number of active CHLs in the state.
I understand the need to provide legal protection to individuals (real or corporate entities), but I think those thinking of posting the dreaded 30.06 need to take a long hard look at the downstream effects.