Massachusetts>Texas

[Ultrarunner]

I'd thought I'd share some sad reality that despite all the "Texas is so gun loving" propaganda, the nitty gritty is that it's actually far WORSE than Massachusetts gun laws. Their ironically named 30.06 and now 30.07 signage laws dictate up to a 10 year prison sentence for simply walking into an establishment that doesn't wish to have guns. And the signs are literally everywhere. How is a state gun friendly with this severe of a punishment possible? It isn't....FWIW with a permit and walk into a bar in Texas, you're doing more time than being without an LTC and carrying a post ban hi cap mag and shouting MAGA in Massachusetts....

And since I'm flaming Texas, the only thing "bigger" here is the fast food and insane Cult churches...

 

[amm5061]

But do you need a license that can be revoked at will at any time just to own a gun? So.... Trade offs...

 

[Ultrarunner]

Yes it's true, I just find it ironic that they get such a positive reputation. I'm road tripping across the state and hugely disappointed.

 

[amm5061]

Texas, historically, has never actually been great for carrying a firearm. Though you can own just about anything you want.

 

[not new guy]

I saw some old movies where you had to leave your sidearm with the sheriff before riding into town. MA is bad, but not even Boston does that.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Yeah, TX sucks, but WHATABURGER!

 

[Matt-CZ]

I don't have issue with states that have those kinds of laws. South Carolina has that too. If they hang the sign in accordance with the regs, it's a criminal offence to carry a concealed weapon on the property.

Property owners should be able to prohibit people carrying on their property if they so choose. Vote with your wallets.

I fail to see how not being able to walk into one of the few stores that bothers to prohibit concealed carry is anywhere near as restrictive as the current state of MA law.

 

[Stape]

Its not like you walk into a bar CC'ing and storm troopers charge you and throw you in the clink for 10yrs. Like anything, those signs indicate the possible penalties given the situation/how/if your prosecuted.

No, Texas is not the gun mecca many claim it to be, but being shy of that doesn't make anywhere near the NE retardation. Not even close.

 

[Stape]

Yes it's true, I just find it ironic that they get such a positive reputation. I'm road tripping across the state and hugely disappointed.

Are you driving from Brownsville to El Paso? I don't know your route, but just mentioning many people drive through the panhandle, or drive from Houston to Laredo and think Texas sucks, and yea, that drive DOES suck. Its a big state, but we got our not so great areas and moonbats too.

 

[tuna]

I've always argued that while any law is an infringement, we could have it much worse in Mass than we do.

Obvious cons are the unclear rules on what we can and can't have, 'assault weapons' ban and no clear rules for a permit being issued.

However, overlooking those, once you fight your way through the muddle of BS and have an unrestricted permit, you're pretty much clear for carry everywhere except schools and federal buildings. Arizona you can't go into a store that sells booze, while in Mass you're able to sit at the bar and have a drink or two while carrying (subject to unclear rules about "influence").

I rate us about midway on the suck-o-meter personally, with Alaska being awesome and Hawaii being poop - mainly because I can overlook the AR rules (I prefer the SKS, so none of the AWB touched me, yet) and overpriced Glocks (fine, I'll get the Ruger). I don't like it, and I'll support your ghey ARs, but it doesn't effect me.

 

[mikeyp]

Property owners should be able to prohibit people carrying on their property if they so choose

Sure, but if you take away my right to defend myself, you should be held liable for doing so if something happens

 

[Matt-CZ]

Sure, but if you take away my right to defend myself, you should be held liable for doing so if something happens

Nah, you chose to disarm yourself. No one is making you go into that Burger King.

 

[SpencerT]

^^^^^^

Couldn't have said it better. I'm not sure why people have that feeling that it's the property owners job to protect you? Unless of course you are REQUIRED to enter the store why shouldn't they be able to run it as they want?

 

[drgrant]

I'd thought I'd share some sad reality that despite all the "Texas is so gun loving" propaganda, the nitty gritty is that it's actually far WORSE than Massachusetts gun laws. Their ironically named 30.06 and now 30.07 signage laws dictate up to a 10 year prison sentence for simply walking into an establishment that doesn't wish to have guns.

Wrong. Unless they just changed the law, unless its a certain type of location (eg, like a college) a
PC 30.06 violation (first offense) isn't even a felony. Read the laws.

Also TX has "basic free by default possession". MA doesn't have that at all, so the entire argument about "MA being better" should begins and ends there, IMHO. I can have a trunk full of unloaded guns in TX and nobody gives a shit. In MA without an LTC, you get caught with that not covered by FOPA, and that's like all your shit gets stolen and you get held on a million dollars bail. Good luck with that. Pretty big difference if you ask me.

ETA: I'm not disputing that binding signage sucks, let me make that clear... but it still isn't "worse than MA gun law". It's a secondary brand of evil, IMHO.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Their ironically named 30.06 and now 30.07 signage laws dictate up to a 10 year prison sentence for simply walking into an establishment that doesn't wish to have guns

Do you have a cite for the 10 years? Is the info posted by US Law SHield Carrying Past a 30.06/30.07 Sign? Beware! - U.S. & Texas LawShield incorrect? Multiple sources state it is a Class C misdemeanor except is specific places like hospitals.

I believe the 10 years applies to posted 51% establishments (at least 51% of revenue from sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption)

 

[drgrant]

I don't have issue with states that have those kinds of laws.

Not with a special force of law they shouldn't- f*** that noise. You've now created a special, discriminated class vs anyone else violating the trespass standard, if you allow or agree with binding signage. Binding signage goes ABOVE AND BEYOND the trespass standard used in the majority of the US, which works perfectly fine. (Under trespass standard, someone is only in violation if they refuse to leave the premises. )

Most non retarded states understand this (like NH) and thats why they are generally "trespass standard" and not binding singage garbage.

-Mike

 

[Dennis in MA]

There are no "free" states. Only less-restrictive ones and more-restrictive ones as it pertains to certain aspects of the law.

Don't let anyone tell you TX is free.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I don't have issue with states that have those kinds of laws.

Agreed with drg on this one. Violating such a sign should be legally the same as violating a dress code - as in "Officer, I want him arrested - we have a jacket and ties required sign he violated. Yes, he left when we asked him to, but that does not change the fact that he violated our rule."

New
There are no "free" states. Only less-restrictive ones and more-restrictive ones as it pertains to certain aspects of the law.

Don't let anyone tell you TX is free.

States that go to the greatest length to protect the right of ordinary, unimportant and unconnected people to carry have a greater tendency to place all sorts of limits on where carry is allowed. Note that Michigan added a bunch of "sensitive places" where guns are banned when that state went from "May issue" to "Shall issue".

 

[greencobra]

So.... Trade offs...

trade off = compromise....compromise opens the door to more gun control, yes?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

However, overlooking those, once you fight your way through the muddle of BS and have an unrestricted permit, you're pretty much clear for carry everywhere except schools and federal buildings.

You are clear as long as you do not wish to exercise your right to remain silent, are suspected of committing a crime but never charged, nolle prossed or found not guilty.

Arizona you can't go into a store that sells booze, while in Mass you're able to sit at the bar and have a drink or two while carrying (subject to unclear rules about "influence").

Funny thing .... being a resident of another state is an affirmative defense to the Arizona "bar ban" on carry.

 

[drgrant]

There are no "free" states. Only less-restrictive ones and more-restrictive ones as it pertains to certain aspects of the law.

Don't let anyone tell you TX is free.

How about... Instead of calling them "free" let's just call them what they really are, in practical terms. There are 40 something WAY LESS SHITTY states than MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, HI, etc...

-Mike

 

[amm5061]

trade off = compromise....compromise opens the door to more gun control, yes?

My point was more along the lines of the fact that in Texas you don't have to beg an arbitrary police officer for a permission slip to allow you the privilege of exercising your constitutional rights.

 

[Whiskeywon]

Agreed with drg on this one. Violating such a sign should be legally the same as violating a dress code - as in "Officer, I want him arrested - we have a jacket and ties required sign he violated. Yes, he left when we asked him to, but that does not change the fact that he violated our rule."

States that go to the greatest length to protect the right of ordinary, unimportant and unconnected people to carry have a greater tendency to place all sorts of limits on where carry is allowed. Note that Michigan added a bunch of "sensitive places" where guns are banned when that state went from "May issue" to "Shall issue".

Very much fits the to large portions of the old west with how strict they were on guns inside town limits. Anybody could own a gun but there were many rules as far as owning and possession within city limits. Obviously not everybody listened to avoid the that's naive bit, but yeah binding signage goes above and beyond.

 

[Whiskeywon]

How about... Instead of calling them "free" let's just call them what they really are, in practical terms. There are 40 something WAY LESS SHITTY states than MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, HI, etc...

-Mike

How could you forget CA! I completely agree with you, but I'd rather live in this blue lagoon than that ocean of stupid.

 

[Horrible]

^^^^^^

Couldn't have said it better. I'm not sure why people have that feeling that it's the property owners job to protect you? Unless of course you are REQUIRED to enter the store why shouldn't they be able to run it as they want?

Because the property owner is forcing you to be unarmed.

By your logic, I should be able sue MA RMV if I can't carry there. Afterall, I HAVE to renew my license by lawr.

 

[drgrant]

How could you forget CA! I completely agree with you, but I'd rather live in this blue lagoon than that ocean of stupid.

Yes, CA is on there too but it's debatable if it enters like Top-3 ShitClass because default possession there is somewhat more loose than it is in MA, NY, NJ assuming the gun you keep fits within their confines of what is legal. For example I can visit CA and have an unloaded handgun locked up in my car. In NJ even doing that is very illegal unless covered by FOPA pass through or some kind of license. Same thing with MA (unless LTC exists) Same thing with NY.

-Mike

 

[Matt-CZ]

Because the property owner is forcing you to be unarmed.

By your logic, I should be able sue MA RMV if I can't carry there. Afterall, I HAVE to renew my license by lawr.

There's a difference between a state office building and personal property. If someone comes onto my property loudly asserting their right to be armed, it's not going to go well for them. 2A applies to the gov, not private property.

 

[Whiskeywon]

Yes, CA is on there too but it's debatable if it enters like Top-3 ShitClass because default possession there is somewhat more loose than it is in MA, NY, NJ assuming the gun
you keep fits within their confines of what is legal. For example I can visit CA and have an unloaded handgun locked up in my car. In NJ even doing that is
very illegal unless covered by FOPA pass through or some kind of license. Same thing with MA (unless LTC exists) Same thing with NY.

-Mike

Yeah I can understand that, but I feel things like the bullet button, internal mag latch locks, banning even preban hicap, kydex pistol grip elimianators raise the stupid level pretty high. I guess the question is would you rather take a bath in shit or swim in shit. Either way it ends with you covered in shit.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There's a difference between a state office building and personal property. If someone comes onto my property loudly asserting their right to be armed, it's not going to go well for them. 2A applies to the gov, not private property.

A more relevant situation would be a delivery person or skilled tradesman who arrives with an explicit or implicit invite to perform a task, and happens to be armed. Do you feel that person should be criminally charged if you have a no guns signs your door?

Also, what is this "not going to go well for them" - are you implying that you are going to do tough guy stuff, or just ask them to leave and call the PD if they do not?

 

[Whiskeywon]

There's a difference between a state office building and personal property. If someone comes onto my property loudly asserting their right to be armed, it's not going to go well for them. 2A applies to the gov, not private property.

I think the dilemma here isn't that the property owner shouldn't be able to stake their claim and say no firearms on premises. It's the way that signage practically imposes a legal minimum mandatory as opposed to the accepted norm (standard trespass) of just asking the patron to leave. Not saying personal property shouldn't have rights, but there shouldn't be legal ramifications just for entrance peacefully and if so asked leaving peacefully. That being said somebody coming into your property spouting his right to carry on your property deserves what comes next, but that isn't the issue of binding signage.