s/o Is it appropriate to take a concealed weapon into someone else's home

[December]

If we were to change the laws to require CCers to inform private property owners that they have a gun prior to entering their residence...what would be the rationale for limiting it only to private property?  Why not require they inform businesses too?  Sure, a business could post a sign if they don't want CC, but a private residence could too.

[poppy]

Yes, the numbers I pulled were firearms related injuries, not deaths (almost the entirety of the death statistics involve intentional discharge by adults either in murder or suicide). The accident statistic covers any and every discharge, including domestic violence, gang and drug violence, accidents while on the range, camping or hunting accidents, a parent being fired at and a child being hit, etc etc.

 

There is indeed data on stolen guns vs personally owned and legally acquired guns and the rate of criminal and accidental discharge, but tracking down that statistic is very difficult. The older data I have easier access to is from about ten years ago and indicated that upwards of 30% of those discharges involved a stolen or illegally acquired firearm. That's essentially a code word for intentional, premeditated shootings involving criminal misconduct, not anything accidental like a child touching a loaded gun.

In other words, data from an older source you can easily access (NRA?) indicates that 70% of accidental or criminal discharges come from legally acquainted and owned firearms.... how is that good?

[Butter]

You always have the right to refuse to have people on your private property (not including LEOs with a search warrant of course).  It doesn't matter why you want them to leave.  It doesn't matter if they have a weapon or not.  It's always your choice.  If they refuse to leave, they are trespassing.

[Samm]

Wasn't Martha the poster who originally claimed this is so in her state? Ask her.

I might guess she lives in New Hampshire.

 

You always have the right to refuse to have people on your private property (not including LEOs with a search warrant of course).  It doesn't matter why you want them to leave.  It doesn't matter if they have a weapon or not.  It's always your choice.  If they refuse to leave, they are trespassing.

Yes.

 

Even in NH, private property owners can still set a 'no guns' policy (or a 'no kittens' policy, 'no soy products' policy, etc).  A property owner or anyone who appears in a position of authority can ask anyone to leave for any reason, including if you have a firearm on you, concealed or non.  You leave or face trespassing charges.  I think Martha was pointing out the legal impotence of "No Guns" signage in NH as further evidenced by the no guns = no money (retort) cards.

[wendyroo]

All emphasis mind.

 

Actually, in my state those signs do not carry the force of law. I can conceal carry absolutely anywhere I want that the license permits. (Not in federal buildings or a public school for examples.)

However, should a proprietor or homeowner find out I have a gun on possession, they have the right to ask me to leave and I would be breaking trespass laws if I didn't. If I refuse to leave and the cops are called, I will face fines of up to $250. Around here a store owner is likely to just get a card saying "no guns = no money" to encourage them to remove the sign. I think it also has some concealed carry law facts and statistics on the back but I don't remember.

And really the right to concealed carry means I can conceal it and carry it. I'm under no obligation to disclose I have one on me to anyone who isn't law enforcement.

Now what personally irritates me are those bleepin gun purses for women. Actually holster carry or leave it at home in the safe. Please. :)

ETA: For clarity. I do not personally own a gun or have a license. Yet. But if I did, I doubt I would ever mention it to anyone. For the same reason I don't advertise where I keep important financial documents or what our bank account passcodes are or when we are going out of town. The best protection is to keep your mouth shut instead of handing people information that could allow access.

 

 

Not sure I'm reading you correct.

The laws says person A has the right to concealed carry anywhere the law permits when they were licensed. The only person they have to disclose they are carrying to is law enforcement.

The law also says person B, upon finding out someone has a gun on their premises, has the right to tell that person to leave said premises.

Person A must comply with the order to leave of face law enforcement for trespassing.

You don't have to let anyone in your home.

But who you let in your home is under no obligation to be honest with you about anything, including whether they have anything on their possession that you do not want in your home, even if it's a gun.

That said, I don't know any gun owner who wouldn't respect your request unless they felt it wasn't safe to do so. I can't really think of why. Worst case scenario, they would just turn around and go home.

 

 

That depends on state.

In MY state not only would ignoring a "no guns" sign not be a charge, it will not result in getting your license revoked or even looked at. Bc no law was broken. There's nothing to charge someone with.

Trespass *might* sorta depending on the situation.

 

These posts by Martha seem to indicate that, at least in her state, it could be very difficult to keep someone with a gun out of your home.  You could post a sign, but it would "not carry the force of the law".  You could ask a person to not bring a gun in your home, but they are "under no obligation to be honest with you".  If you found out they were carrying a gun in your home despite your "no guns" sign nothing would be done because "no law was broken".

 

Clearly I need to follow the public schools' example and install metal detectors at the door if I really don't want guns in my home.  Sheesh.   :glare:

 

Wendy

[frogger]

I don't think anyone has said anything close to ban all guns.

 

 

Frogger, your family members whose lives were saved by guns..... We they saved after being threatened with a firearm? Just curious.

 

No, they were not being threatened by a firearm but rather 4" claws and large canines. :) 

 

 

I don't know what difference it would have made though if they were being threatened by a gun. It is illegal to threaten people with a gun so only a criminal who doesn't abide by laws would do so.

 

 

 

 

 

I understand why people would want to know if the home they are sending their children to has guns.  Honestly my children only stay with certain family members and one particularly close family that I really really trust. Until they are teens then they are allowed to visit for set times. I guess I'm wondering why people entrust their child's care to just anyone. It really has little to do with guns.  We have discussed what to do if another child messes with a gun even though I don't know where they would be exposed to that kind of behavior because we are restrictive of where they go and we tend to hang with more responsible people but you never know.  We don't even want them to confront the child but make a quick quiet escape and tell an adult. The last thing I want is some child saying to mine "What are you scared or something and pointing a gun at them". My children know that "All guns are loaded guns" ALL, even if they are not they are treated as they are. Anyone who treats a gun otherwise is stupid. 

 

I know that I am the only one who can really protect my child and by the time they are a teen that starts to transition to them so they must be taught accordingly. I have tried to figure out what to do with the more ignorant and less capable of the world. Most laws in our country are silly at best. Why is a suppressor taxed and registered to such a great extent?  It does nothing but protect someone's hearing. What is wrong with a barrel shroud? Will keeping someone from burning their hands really prevent deaths? So I don't think most legislation has anything to do with common sense. I love the thought supporting education. No teenager should be so stupid as to point a gun at someone anymore than they should play chicken with a vehicle or joking swing a heavy chain around in a playground full of kids (I had to put a stop to that once) or play with a chain saw or make those little bombs out of pop bottles and foil. They should know that by the time they are a teen that that will result in homicide charges. Why shouldn't it?  The only problem I see is that the sub-culture that thinks it's so "bad" tends to down play education and have no respect for anyone or anything. That is what really needs to change.  

 

We just went camping a couple of weekends ago. Many long term Alaskans had quit burning long before but there was finally a burn ban put in effect because we had about 400,000 acres burned by then. We camped between a bunch of partying military folk who didn't mind throwing cigarette butts everywhere and starting a fire (while drinking) and some Canadians who also didn't seem to care though we politely explained it wasn't a good idea to have a fire as even a little flaming ash floating through the air (which typically wouldn't harm anything) will set off a fire when the whole state is a box of tinder.  We talked as politely as possible to both groups but do you think they cared. No Nada. Laws are meaningless without enforcement and we already have the highest incarceration rates in the world. We don't need to bring the whole topic of drugs into play but it IS an obvious example that if you make something illegal you don't make it go away.

[Murphy101]

I'll bite.  A local 12 year old boy was shot by a friend because his friend took out his father's gun that was loaded, unlocked, and easily assessable.  It was an accident.  They were playing around with it.  Nobody was held responsible.  I suppose what is the point, the boy is dead either way.  His parents had to bury their 12 year old child.  They were told they had no right to know the family had unsecured guns.  They also weren't required to secure them.  They can leave the loaded unlocked gun on the kitchen table. 

 

HOWEVER, had the 12 year old drowned in their swimming pool because he climbed the fence to use it, the parents would have had their @$$ dragged through the mud.

 

Amendmentshmendment.  That is not the end of the story.  It's one thing to allow gun ownership.  It's another to not require responsible behavior so stuff like that does not happen.  And to add insult to injury the family has been working to change some of these rules.  They are not against gun ownership even after what happened, but they believe some of the rules should be changed.  While the woman was meeting with officials at government offices, someone stole her car.  Someone who was angry that she was trying to get laws changed.  What monster does crap like that.  She has every right to lobby for that and it is completely understandable. 

 

I think it is nuts that if someone of any age trespasses without my knowledge or permission, i could be held accountable for what happens to them.  I think it is crazy that a homeowner would be held accountable for someone sneaking into their pool.  or my bedroom closet. or my pantry. or...

 

So again, I think unreasonable laws in one area does not at all validate the creation of unreasonable laws in another area.

[Chelli]

I live in Texas and as CC person my dh does not, by law, have to inform you he is carrying before entering your home. That is why I suggested if you live in a state whose CC law is like this you need to post on your house or ask someone at the door or when you invite guests tell them that you do not wish people to CC in your home. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be polite on the part of the person carrying to ask before they enter. In fact, I think that's a great idea, but most people who CC in a state that doesn't require it will probably not do it.

 

As to the negligent homicides that result from people not practicing gun safety, such as leaving loaded guns lying around their house or loose in a purse that they have set down somewhere, I absolutely 1,000% think those people should be held responsible by the law. IMO, that's common sense. As the example was given earlier with someone not enclosing their pool properly, how much more important is it to protect access to your gun?!? IMO, these people are absolutely at fault for the death or injury of someone who uses their gun to do harm. That absolutely makes me furious that they are not. My dh would NEVER leave his firearms lying around in such a way, nor would he have the slightest wish to protect someone from prosecution who did so. 

[frogger]

Someone also mentioned circumstances in which children died due to negligence of adults. I do think that if a young child shoots another that a culpable adult should be able to be charged with negligence, child endangerment, and accessory although I will not say this about specific case. I do agree with the previous poster that this does not include criminal behavior such as someone attempting to steal stuff or sneaking onto your property but leaving a gun in a place a toddler can grab would be different.

[Guest]

In other words, data from an older source you can easily access (NRA?) indicates that 70% of accidental or criminal discharges come from legally acquainted and owned firearms.... how is that good?

No. the data from a text I own specifically relating to this subject, with data amassed and analyzed from multiple studies.

 

If you are interested in doing a data crawl beyond the CDC page I provided, scroll down on this page and examine the links. It's the easiest and simplest conglomeration of the data and not just reviews of it.

http://www.johnlott.org

[Murphy101]

Like I said earlier. There are a whole lot of people who think gun accidents involving children are an acceptable risk.

 

It's also worth noting that the debate about the numbers exists because of the extremely powerful gun lobby and the legislators who put barriers in place so that it's really really hard to track injuries and deaths. It's very much by design.

 

 

I agree the numbers debate is a problem, but it is not just gun lobbyist on either side.  What about race demographics?  Or income demographics? or region demographics?

 

The key question when gathering data is what will the data be used for?

 

If it is to destroy a core law of the founding of our government that many hold to be important - yeah, they are not going to be supportive of doing that.

 

And what if it were to show that some of us are right?  That people with CC are very safe and rarely a problem compared to say giving a black guy a gun in the ghetto?  (I am NOT saying that btw.)  What would be the point of gather that data unless the goal would then be to pass laws that either black men or people in ghettos or those between 18-25 can't own guns?

 

So if you are saying you want better numbers because you want to use them to stop licensed cc?  Of course people are going to be against that.

If you say you want better demographics to target who should not be permitted to exercise their 2nd amendment rights without due process - such a anyone who is ___ profile?  Yep.  That's probably not going to fly either.

 

I'm aware data is politics.  I don't like it or hate it, but I agree it's often frustrating when all a person wants are cold hard nonpartisan facts.

 

And that's not even getting into lies, damned lies, and statistics. :)

[Murphy101]

I recall being surprised at how much strength it requires to rack the slide.

 

When I go to the shooting range, I rent a gun and I almost always go for a small revolver because I cannot rack any of the automatics and some of them my dh struggles with too.  Especially if they are newer.  The newer or less used they are, the tighter.

[Guest]

Amen, Martha. Well stated.

[poppy]

I agree the numbers debate is a problem, but it is not just gun lobbyist on either side.  What about race demographics?  Or income demographics? or region demographics?

 

The key question when gathering data is what will the data be used for?

 

If it is to destroy a core law of the founding of our government that many hold to be important - yeah, they are not going to be supportive of doing that.

 

And what if it were to show that some of us are right?  That people with CC are very safe and rarely a problem compared to say giving a black guy a gun in the ghetto?  (I am NOT saying that btw.)  What would be the point of gather that data unless the goal would then be to pass laws that either black men or people in ghettos or those between 18-25 can't own guns?

 

So if you are saying you want better numbers because you want to use them to stop licensed cc?  Of course people are going to be against that.

If you say you want better demographics to target who should not be permitted to exercise their 2nd amendment rights without due process - such a anyone who is ___ profile?  Yep.  That's probably not going to fly either.

 

I'm aware data is politics.  I don't like it or hate it, but I agree it's often frustrating when all a person wants are cold hard nonpartisan facts.

 

And that's not even getting into lies, damned lies, and statistics. :)

 

No, I am not saying the CDC should use data for the purpose of creating laws to make guns illegal.  I am saying it should be allowed to collect data and research ways to have fewer people get hurt or killed annually. 

 

That should not be a controversial proposition.  Imagine if there was a political battle over whether or not the CDC should be allowed to collect information on household poisons. People have the right to purchase legal chemicals. The vast majority of people who buy nail polish remover, cleaning products, prescription medicines, antifreeze, etc are responsible adults.  It is intrusion for the CDC to do education programs on poison control, to suggest lead abatement, to do surveillance against healthcare workers who break the laws for prescription meds,  to offer guidelines for disponsal of chemicals and medications ? Who knows. It unquestionably saves lives and a lot of heartache.  It would be also save lives and prevent a lot of heartache if firearms, a leading cause of injury and accidents, was treated similarly.

[Murphy101]

These posts by Martha seem to indicate that, at least in her state, it could be very difficult to keep someone with a gun out of your home.  You could post a sign, but it would "not carry the force of the law".  You could ask a person to not bring a gun in your home, but they are "under no obligation to be honest with you".  If you found out they were carrying a gun in your home despite your "no guns" sign nothing would be done because "no law was broken".

 

Clearly I need to follow the public schools' example and install metal detectors at the door if I really don't want guns in my home.  Sheesh.   :glare:

 

Wendy

 

Not quite accurate.  If you find out they have a gun and you tell them to get off your property, they like anyone else you might ever tell to get off your property, MUST comply or risk you calling the cops and them being faced with trespass charges.

 

You always have the right to revoke or deny anyone access to your property who has no legal right to be there.

 

I do believe licensed gun owners are a matter of public records?  Not sure though.

 

And really this is true for anything you might not want in your home.

 

Even if marijuana is legal or cigarettes or porn or alcohol - a person is not legally obligated to tell me they have a something I morally disagree with but is legal on their person when entering my home.  But yeah, if I find out, I'm well within my rights to tell them to not let the door hit them in the arse on the way out and call the cops to help them out if necessary.

[poppy]

Wanted to share this story re: whether or not people are prosecuted if a child dies by accidental shooting:

 

 

A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities.

 

Medical records sometimes call them accidents, sometimes homicides, occasionally suicides. One of the reasons proper data collection would be helpful.  We all  want to prevent this kind of tragedy. Data is not the enemy.

[Guest]

No, I am not saying the CDC should use data for the purpose of creating laws to make guns illegal. I am saying it should be allowed to collect data and research ways to have fewer people get hurt or killed annually.

 

That should not be a controversial proposition. Imagine if there was a political battle over whether or not the CDC should be allowed to collect information on household poisons. People have the right to purchase legal chemicals. The vast majority of people who buy nail polish remover, cleaning products, prescription medicines, antifreeze, etc are responsible adults. It is intrusion for the CDC to do education programs on poison control, to suggest lead abatement, to do surveillance against healthcare workers who break the laws for prescription meds, to offer guidelines for disponsal of chemicals and medications ? Who knows. It unquestionably saves lives and a lot of heartache. It would be also save lives and prevent a lot of heartache if firearms, a leading cause of injury and accidents, was treated similarly.

I agree with you in theory. I worry in practice what would happen if and when they identify the risk factors specifically, and they end up being regional, ethnic, cultural, or something else that has the potential to run directly afoul of constitutional rights of the individuals, just because their group identity has been indicated to be a risk factor. I don't trust the government in that regard and I'm about the lowest risk demographic for crime there is, by existing data. Crime data has always been political because it intertwined very much with substance abuse, poverty, and the like. I wouldn't want some frightened woman in Cleveland to not have a gun to defend herself against a crazy ex just because she lives in an area with a high murder rate, you know?

 

If this was just used to aggregate a 'best practices' document I'd be thrilled. That's actually something the NRA has been doing for years in their firearms education, to try and guide people from okay to great in terms of safety and security. The CDC could have the potential to do that much more effectively, but expecting them to stop short of being used in legislative inquiries seems unlikely.

[Murphy101]

No, I am not saying the CDC should use data for the purpose of creating laws to make guns illegal.  I am saying it should be allowed to collect data and research ways to have fewer people get hurt or killed annually. 

 

That should not be a controversial proposition.  Imagine if there was a political battle over whether or not the CDC should be allowed to collect information on household poisons. People have the right to purchase legal chemicals. The vast majority of people who buy nail polish remover, cleaning products, prescription medicines, antifreeze, etc are responsible adults.  It is intrusion for the CDC to do education programs on poison control, to suggest lead abatement, to do surveillance against healthcare workers who break the laws for prescription meds,  to offer guidelines for disponsal of chemicals and medications ? Who knows. It unquestionably saves lives and a lot of heartache.  It would be also save lives and prevent a lot of heartache if firearms, a leading cause of injury and accidents, was treated similarly.

 

 

I understand what your goal was.  I am saying much of that we already know.  Guns used responsibly and safely by their owners are rarely a problem.  

 

When that happens, I think they should face charges most of the time.

 

The crime and pointless deaths issue is not a concealed carry issue for the most part.  The vast majority of gun deaths are from illegal and improper gun use.  We can mention news we have heard, but the reason it is in the news is because it really does not happen very often.

 

So why all this animosity to the few legally licensed and responsible gun owners?

 

If it matters, I would be 100% for legislation that required gun safety information come with every gun purchase or at least the first one and again every 5-10 years.  

 

Side note:  In my state no license or safety course is required to own a gun.  ONLY if you want to conceal carry.  I think thats nuts.  Keep the license, I don't care about that.  But the safety course and background check with a wait period is very good in my opinion. 

[Caroline]

Actually, aren't the vast majority of gun deaths suicides?

 

I understand what your goal was. I am saying much of that we already know. Guns used responsibly and safely by their owners are rarely a problem.

 

When that happens, I think they should face charges most of the time.

 

The crime and pointless deaths issue is not a concealed carry issue for the most part. The vast majority of gun deaths are from illegal and improper gun use. We can mention news we have heard, but the reason it is in the news is because it really does not happen very often.

 

So why all this animosity to the few legally licensed and responsible gun owners?

 

If it matters, I would be 100% for legislation that required gun safety information come with every gun purchase or at least the first one and again every 5-10 years.

 

Side note: In my state no license or safety course is required to own a gun. ONLY if you want to conceal carry. I think thats nuts. Keep the license, I don't care about that. But the safety course and background check with a wait period is very good in my opinion.

[poppy]

Actually, aren't the vast majority of gun deaths suicides?

 

 

It is over 60%. I linked to a map earlier that showed there are five states where suicide by gun deaths exceeds death by car accident.

[ktgrok]

When I go to the shooting range, I rent a gun and I almost always go for a small revolver because I cannot rack any of the automatics and some of them mydh struggles with too.  Especially if they are newer.  The newer or less used they are, the tighter.

 

Yup, that's why my rule for the guns is they are never chambered. It's my last fail safe, after the actual gun safe. Now, my teen can rack the slide, but he's taken hunter education classes, has his hunting license, and goes shooting. He knows that you never point a gun anywhere you don't wish to destroy, he knows to consider what is behind the thing you are shooting, and he knows I'd kill him if he ever touched our guns without permission.  The littles could never ever manage to rack the slide. Someday I might want a revolver, as my hands get more arthritic but not until the kids are grown, or at least grownish. 

[luuknam]

Actually, aren't the vast majority of gun deaths suicides?

 

 

Which some people would consider to be "improper gun use".

 

Regardless, who cares? If you don't have a gun, there are more ways than I can think of of killing yourself if you're so inclined. My occasionally recurring suicidal thoughts feature a knife, not a gun, and are more likely to be lethal than a gun suicide attempt would be (slicing throat with sharp knife... smaller odds of missing).

[Murphy101]

Actually, aren't the vast majority of gun deaths suicides?

 

 

Suicide and attempted suicide was illegal in 6 states as late as the 1990s, one of which I live in. Since then, it's been repealed, tho it is still a common law crime. So suicide *can* come under illegal use in my state.

 

I don't think you'll hear much argument about it being a misuse of a gun.

[wendyroo]

Not quite accurate.  If you find out they have a gun and you tell them to get off your property, they like anyone else you might ever tell to get off your property, MUST comply or risk you calling the cops and them being faced with trespass charges.

 

You always have the right to revoke or deny anyone access to your property who has no legal right to be there.

 

I do believe licensed gun owners are a matter of public records?  Not sure though.

 

And really this is true for anything you might not want in your home.

 

Even if marijuana is legal or cigarettes or porn or alcohol - a person is not legally obligated to tell me they have a something I morally disagree with but is legal on their person when entering my home.  But yeah, if I find out, I'm well within my rights to tell them to not let the door hit them in the arse on the way out and call the cops to help them out if necessary.

 

It just worries me that I could post a "no guns" sign and someone could legally ignore it.  I could ask them if they were carrying a gun and they could legally withhold that information from me.  My only recourse is to verbally announce to every guest, "Do not enter if you are carrying a gun," and even then, if I found they had not complied with my request it would be a he said, she said as to whether I actually told them to stay out.

 

And then, if my autistic child gets into their unlocked purse unnoticed and kills himself with their gun, I will have lost a child despite doing everything in my power to keep guns out of my home, and the gun's owner will get a slap on the wrist if that.

 

Wendy

[Murphy101]

Yup, that's why my rule for the guns is they are never chambered. It's my last fail safe, after the actual gun safe. Now, my teen can rack the slide, but he's taken hunter education classes, has his hunting license, and goes shooting. He knows that you never point a gun anywhere you don't wish to destroy, he knows to consider what is behind the thing you are shooting, and he knows I'd kill him if he ever touched our guns without permission. The littles could never ever manage to rack the slide. Someday I might want a revolver, as my hands get more arthritic but not until the kids are grown, or at least grownish.

The only time we ever shoot is at the gun range. My teen can load the clip, but it takes considerable effort even for him. I knit while he target practices. I don't know if I'll ever own a gun. Just not high on my to buy list right now. I wouldn't be against it though I'd probably not tell anyone even if wasn't cc. Because I do think advertising a gun on the premises or person it is not particuliarly wise.

[luuknam]

It just worries me that I could post a "no guns" sign and someone could legally ignore it.  I could ask them if they were carrying a gun and they could legally withhold that information from me.  My only recourse is to verbally announce to every guest, "Do not enter if you are carrying a gun," and even then, if I found they had not complied with my request it would be a he said, she said as to whether I actually told them to stay out.

 

And then, if my autistic child gets into their unlocked purse unnoticed and kills himself with their gun, I will have lost a child despite doing everything in my power to keep guns out of my home, and the gun's owner will get a slap on the wrist if that.

 

You could have a "no purses (or other bags)" policy. Would probably be unpopular with guests though. Realistically though, if you request visitors don't bring guns, prescription meds or illegal drugs into your home because you have an autistic child who may get into their purse, would probably reduce the very low odds of there ever being an issue to even lower odds of there ever being an issue. No, it doesn't reduce the odds to 0%. And people should get more than a slap on the wrist if they purposely ignore your request not to bring those things on to your property and they do and things go wrong.

[Clear Creek]

For those in Texas that do not wish for anyone carrying a concealed weapon to bring it into your home, you can legally post a sign and they are required by law to follow it. Part of the CHL training is recognizing the signs and understanding the consequences for not obeying.

 

From the TXDPS website:

 

 

 

36. Do private property/business owners have the right to exclude license holders from their property?

 

Yes.  Private property owners may exclude license holders from carrying concealed handguns on their property by providing notice as provided in Section 30.06, Texas Penal Code.  If you wish to prohibit license holders from carrying concealed handguns on your property, §30.06, Texas Penal Code requires you to post specific signage.  The sign must be in both English and Spanish, must include the specific language described by law, must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public. 

DPS does not furnish or sell these signs. You may print or purchase the signs from your local printing company. See Texas Penal Code §30.06, for the exact required language.

 

Print a sign (you can Google for exact wording and Spanish translation), laminate it, and stick it on your front door. Not exactly decorative, but it removes the issue of visitors carrying a concealed weapon without your knowledge.

 

I am sure other states have a similar sign that can be posted.

 

[Guest]

Yup, that's why my rule for the guns is they are never chambered. It's my last fail safe, after the actual gun safe. Now, my teen can rack the slide, but he's taken hunter education classes, has his hunting license, and goes shooting. He knows that you never point a gun anywhere you don't wish to destroy, he knows to consider what is behind the thing you are shooting, and he knows I'd kill him if he ever touched our guns without permission. The littles could never ever manage to rack the slide. Someday I might want a revolver, as my hands get more arthritic but not until the kids are grown, or at least grownish.

That's our rule as well. The only exception is when we are hiking or camping with food in a bear area. Then we each have two firearms of heavy caliber with a round chambered and safety on, as it is a different readiness situation and bear maulings are real. We change that back up to no round chambered/safety on when we get back home, though. I can barely move my slide, I know my kids couldn't! The only revolver we own is one we use specifically for these bear situations and it is one of the guns we lock up with the hunting rifles, not one that hangs around for CC.

 

Bravo to your teen. I love hunter ed classes, they are awesome and useful.

[Chess Dad]

You always have the right to refuse to have people on your private property (not including LEOs with a search warrant of course).  It doesn't matter why you want them to leave.  It doesn't matter if they have a weapon or not.  It's always your choice.  If they refuse to leave, they are trespassing.

 

:iagree: Agreed!  Your statement should end this thread.  If you don't want someone in your home with a concealed weapon then post it on your door and/or ask everyone that comes into your home not too carry.  Simple.

[Word Nerd]

:iagree: Agreed! Your statement should end this thread. If you don't want someone in your home with a concealed weapon then post it on your door and/or ask everyone that comes into your home not too carry. Simple.

And if you CC, have the courtesy to ask for permission before entering a person's home with your weapon--regardless of whether your state requires it.

[redsquirrel]

And as of yesterday, Kansas got rid of 'concealed carry' and replaced it with something called "constitutional carry" Now 6 states have these laws.

 

As near as I can tell, it means that anyone over the age of 21 can carry a concealed weapon, without permit or training.

 

The Kansas Rifle association says it's next goal is to lower the age to 18

[8circles]

For my dh it's just something he puts on every day as part of getting dressed. He goes all over Houston and our small town outside of Houston with it on his person. If he showed up to visit you for some reason, he would walk in with it on because he wouldn't even think about asking you about it. Nor would it mean that he thought something shady was going to happen at your home. To him it would be like saying, "Should I remove my underwear before I enter your home?" It's just part of his normal state of "attire" (not the right word, but I'm not sure what I'm looking for). You wouldn't even know he had it unless someone busted in your house while he was there and tried to harm you or dh. 

 

Except, I assume his underwear isn't a deadly weapon.

[Murphy101]

And as of yesterday, Kansas got rid of 'concealed carry' and replaced it with something called "constitutional carry" Now 6 states have these laws.

 

As near as I can tell, it means that anyone over the age of 21 can carry a concealed weapon, without permit or training.

 

The Kansas Rifle association says it's next goal is to lower the age to 18

I'm torn on the age thing. I find it interesting that my family aged 18 and up can carry a gun in Iraq but not on homeland. Like it or not, 18 is a legal adult with full rights of citizenship. I'm not big on age discrimination.

 

I don't care about the permit, but I am okay with a background check and safety course with a purchase, whether they conceal carry or not. I'd also be okay with mandating refresher safety courses every 5-10 years. Because at that point, it's not age discrimination, it's safety discrimination, which is less legally grey.

[Orthodox6]

It appears that many states allow concealed carry on private property, including homes, unless the owner posts a sign stating otherwise or verbally states that guns aren't allowed.  Even if it is legal for someone to carry a concealed weapon into someone else's home without asking, do you think it's appropriate to do so?

 

NEVER APPROPRIATE TO DO THIS WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION.

 

I don't budge on this one.  My son's violent-tempered friend was required to "park" his knives on the front porch when he visited here.  My home is a weapons-free zone.

[Orthodox6]

 

For those in Texas that do not wish for anyone carrying a concealed weapon to bring it into your home, you can legally post a sign and they are required by law to follow it. Part of the CHL training is recognizing the signs and understanding the consequences for not obeying.

 

From the TXDPS website:

 

 

 

Print a sign (you can Google for exact wording and Spanish translation), laminate it, and stick it on your front door. Not exactly decorative, but it removes the issue of visitors carrying a concealed weapon without your knowledge.

 

I am sure other states have a similar sign that can be posted.

 

 

Thank you so much for posting this information.  It is flatly ludicrous that I must place such a sign on my personal property.  Gun slingers make such a racket about "personal rights" that they ought to respect the personal rights of others.

 

[Tanaqui]

If you don't have a gun, there are more ways than I can think of of killing yourself if you're so inclined.

 

We find that if you can prevent somebody from killing themselves RIGHT NOW, they frequently don't try again. So yes, fences on bridges help, because that little bit of extra effort is enough to cause some of them to give it up and go home. And yes, stricter gun control helps because people choose the path of least resistance - and or a lot of people, that means guns.

[texasmama]

Thank you so much for posting this information.  It is flatly ludicrous that I must place such a sign on my personal property.  Gun slingers make such a racket about "personal rights" that they ought to respect the personal rights of others.

 

I am not a gun slinger, but I think that the vast majority of people who CC would respect your rights not to have a gun on your property if they are aware of those wishes.  If someone showed up at my house, I asked them to leave their gun in the car, and they refused, they are not folks I want to associate with to begin with, forget the gun piece of it.  

 

I do own guns, but I do not CC.  

[Orthodox6]

I am not a gun slinger, but I think that the vast majority of people who CC would respect your rights not to have a gun on your property if they are aware of those wishes. If someone showed up at my house, I asked them to leave their gun in the car, and they refused, they are not folks I want to associate with to begin with, forget the gun piece of it.

 

I do own guns, but I do not CC.

You are right about the courteous behaviour of many people. I am so appreciative of it.

 

I just think it absurd to require a sign on private property when the default behaviour ought to be no gun unless expressly authorized. This law provides for the reverse.

[Murphy101]

You are right about the courteous behaviour of many people. I am so appreciative of it.

 

I just think it absurd to require a sign on private property when the default behaviour ought to be no gun unless expressly authorized. This law provides for the reverse.

Well I might agree with you if I didn't have to have a sign about my dogs, no solicitations, alarm systems and no trespassing. And still need a padlock bc they will ignore the dog sign. And still the gas guy can jump my gate and use a taser stick on my dog and I have no recourse. And still someone could dive in my 4 ft pool and hurt themselves and I be held to blame even if I never told them to enter property much less the pool. And so forth and so on situations where we should not need to post a sign, but do.

[poppy]

You have to post about your dog and alarm system? I have neither, I don't know.

 

'No solicitation' and 'no trespassing' are optional,  and they are meant to ward off strangers, not friends.

 

Having to post a sign or put up with random firearms ..... bananas.  I do trust my friends to have common sense, but sometimes we have a BBQ or similar gathering. Usually involving alcohol.

 

Is it legal to CC if you are drinking?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well I might agree with you if I didn't have to have a sign about my dogs, no solicitations, alarm systems and no trespassing. And still need a padlock bc they will ignore the dog sign. And still the gas guy can jump my gate and use a taser stick on my dog and I have no recourse. And still someone could dive in my 4 ft pool and hurt themselves and I be held to blame even if I never told them to enter property much less the pool. And so forth and so on situations where we should not need to post a sign, but do.

 

Why do you believe that? It isn't true.

 

Andy why do you think you have to post a sign about an alarm system?  Or a dog?

[Murphy101]

You have to post about your dog and alarm system? I have neither, I don't know.

 

'No solicitation' and 'no trespassing' are optional, and they are meant to ward off strangers, not friends.

 

Having to post a sign or put up with random firearms ..... bananas. I do trust my friends to have common sense, but sometimes we have a BBQ or similar gathering. Usually involving alcohol.

 

Is it legal to CC if you are drinking?

In my city, if you have an alarm system, it has to be registered with the city and there has to be a sign in a door or window. The logic being that if the siren goes off, the cops need to know what alarms system to call if the alarm system hasn't already called them or if it is a noise only system. (I sure wish they had that for cars. The guy two houses down really needs to reset the sensitivity of his car alarm.)

 

The theory of the dog sign is that moderately intelligent people will stop at the gate and think, "huh, maybe I should go around and knock on the door first so I don't let their dog out or have to taser it to check the gas meter." In reality the fool just started jumping my fence after I also padlocked it.

 

It is also to serve as a warning that maybe possibly hey dogs of any size tend to not like strangers on their property so maybe knocking to be sure it's safe to go back there is a good idea. Instead said moron just claimed he isn't scared of no dog, even a big one bc he has a big bad taser stick with enough force to drop a 100lbs dog. Said moron laughed at me when I pointed out my 220lb dog isn't going to care much about his little stick bc "there's no such thing as a 220 lb dog, lady". so I introduced him to my English mastiff. Sitting on her haunches she is still bit over 4 feet tall. And I complained to the gas company too. There is no reason he can't knock on the door or even come around on a certain day/time frame so I can be sure he can one: not trash my fence jumping it tyvm and two, never have to confront my dogs.

 

And no, no trespassing signs are not just to ward off strangers. You don't get to say for example, oh I live up the road, I'm a neighbor, or oh hey we attend the same church or whatever else as an excuse for trespassing. Trespassing means you do not have explicit permission to be there. Doesn't matter if you are family, friends, neighbors, or any old joe. Trespassing signs mean unless you got clear permission otherwise, stay off.

 

Same goes for solicitation. If I post a sign saying no solicitation and my neighbor comes over selling something, I'm going to be at least a bit irked at their comprehension skills.

 

That's why the signs don't also say, "And this means YOU!"

 

Because it's understood it means everyone.

 

Problem is exactly that everyone thinks that of course that sign does not pertain to them. :/

[Word Nerd]

Why do you believe that? It isn't true.

 

 

You must not be familiar with attractive nuisance doctrine.

[Murphy101]

There is HAVE to or face legal problems and there is "have" because people are morons.

 

The alarms system is city code, so law unless someone fights it. Most seem to think it helpful though.

 

The dog sign is simply helpful FYI and also suggested by homeowners insurance. Basicly it means he can't claim he had no knowledge of a dog back there when he entered the yard. I don't suspect any problems even if he did, but then again, I didn't expect to be prepping my French press for some coffee early one morning and see a grown man jump my padlocked 6ft private fence with a 3ft long taser stick either.

 

We have always had a dog sign, even just for the miniature poodle bc I don't want some yahoo letting my dog out of the yard regardless of size or aggression.

[AMJ]

I would be very unhappy with someone bringing a gun into my house without permission. I'm not anti-gun but that's still not cool.

 

Same here.  Consider -- the gun-toter might not know the background of everyone else who might be there, and having the weapon there might become highly problematic.  The person with the weapon should ALWAYS ask the person/people whose home it is, and then abide by the decision given.

[AMJ]

I was thinking people might have had them on their person for some other reason and made a stop at my house.  Once you have a gun on your person, as you go about your day, it's not like there are lots of good places to stash it while you go on a friendly visit.  It could be much more unsafe for a person to take out the gun and put it somewhere outside of his custody/view.

 

But this is a circumstance in which the carrier can notify the homeowner and if they object, either postpone the visit or ask for a safe location to put said firearm during the visit.

 

I am not anti-gun, but I want to know about each and every firearm that comes on my property or near my kids, known law enforcement officers excluded.  I trust SOME people, but not others, and if I don't know you well enough to trust you with a gun then I don't want your firearm on my property.

[AMJ]

Please also consider:  You might not be fully aware of restrictions placed on a household, and carrying a firearm onto the property might violate some of those unknown restrictions.  For instance, if CPS is involved, especially if foster care is a possibility (even kinship foster) firearms on the property become a very big deal.

 

ASK FIRST because you can't know everything.

[Aelwydd]

Please also consider: You might not be fully aware of restrictions placed on a household, and carrying a firearm onto the property might violate some of those unknown restrictions. For instance, if CPS is involved, especially if foster care is a possibility (even kinship foster) firearms on the property become a very big deal.

 

ASK FIRST because you can't know everything.

I agree, but this type of forethought is not something I associate with certain gun-slinging groups. Among them, there are many that won't be happy until even the church nursery boasts a gun-wielding child minder.