The material in this article is general legal information for educational use only. It should not be treated as legal, financial, or tax advice, and reading it does not form an attorney-client relationship. Legal rules vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Questions about a specific matter belong with a qualified professional. The author and publisher disclaim liability for actions taken in reliance on this content.
Key Facts
- National overview: The American Bar Association House of Delegates adopted ABA Policy 07M107 on Feb. 12, 2007 supporting private employers and other private property owners’ traditional right to exclude people in possession of firearms or other weapons from the workplace and other private property while opposing federal, state, territorial, and local legislation that abrogates those rights.
- Federal level: In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that New York’s “proper-cause requirement” for public carry violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Federal level: Bruen states that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the government must show the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- Federal level: Bruen describes how courts can use analogies to longstanding laws forbidding carrying firearms in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”.
- Federal level: 18 U.S.C. § 930 generally makes it a federal crime to knowingly possess or cause the presence of a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a “Federal facility,” and it sets out a notice-posting requirement at public entrances.
- State level: The Texas State Law Library’s guide describes how Texas private property owners can prohibit firearms on their property using notice and signage frameworks.
- State level: The Texas guide notes that, as described for 2021, Texas removed the license-to-carry (LTC) requirement to carry a handgun in Texas.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- A 2007 ABA resolution framed “exclusion” as a property right
- The ABA’s “forced entry” framing focused on entry terms and control of access
- Bruen supplied a later constitutional method for firearm regulations
- Federal “place” rules can apply on federal facilities and require posted notice
- Texas as an example of how states discuss notice and signage for private property restrictions
- How these sources fit together without mixing categories
- A practical takeaway for interpreting older policy archives
- Bottom line from the archive record and current legal structure
- Sources
A 2007 ABA resolution framed “exclusion” as a property right
This archive recovery item centers on a 2007 American Bar Association (ABA) action: ABA Policy 07M107, “Exclude Firearms from the Workplace.” The ABA page states it was “Adopted by the House of Delegates February 12, 2007,” and it “RESOLVED” that the ABA supports the traditional property rights of private employers and other private property owners to exclude from the workplace and other private property “persons in possession of firearms or other weapons,” while opposing “federal, state, territorial and local legislation” that would abrogate those rights (ABA Policy 07M107).
Because the ABA resolution is a professional-policy statement rather than a statute or court holding, it provides historical context for how legal organizations described property-based approaches to firearms access rather than a direct rule that controls criminal or civil outcomes.
Related archive reading is available through ABA statement on the Supreme Court gun-control decision.
The ABA’s “forced entry” framing focused on entry terms and control of access
The ABA Policy 07M107 page characterizes certain legislative efforts as “forced entry” laws that, in the ABA’s view, override “the traditional right of a private property owner to exclude” people from property and to “determine the terms of entry on their land and property.” In other words, the policy page treated private-property firearm exclusion as part of a broader property-access debate about who sets the entry conditions and whether government can remove that control.
Bruen supplied a later constitutional method for firearm regulations
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that New York’s “proper-cause requirement” violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also stated that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation (Bruen slip opinion).
The Bruen opinion also discusses analogies to “longstanding” laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”
Federal “place” rules can apply on federal facilities and require posted notice
Federal law provides a location-based firearms rule through 18 U.S.C. § 930. The GovInfo U.S. Code text provides that, with stated exceptions, “whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present any firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility” shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both (18 U.S.C. § 930(a)) (18 U.S.C. § 930 (GovInfo)).
Section 930 also includes a notice requirement: “Notice … shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility” (18 U.S.C. § 930(h)).
Texas as an example of how states discuss notice and signage for private property restrictions
A key theme in ABA Policy 07M107 is who controls entry on private property, but states often describe private-property firearm exclusion through notice and signage frameworks rather than through the kind of federal “place” statute used for federal facilities.
For a state example, the Texas State Law Library’s guide on “Businesses & Private Property” describes that private properties like businesses can prohibit firearms on their property, and it explains that Texas notice and signage approaches rely on concepts tied to Texas Penal Code sections 30.06 and 30.07, which allow property owners to use signs to prohibit certain license-carrying conduct on the property (Texas State Law Library guide).
The guide also notes a 2021 change in Texas law: it removed the license-to-carry (LTC) requirement to carry a handgun in Texas, while the guide continues to describe how the sign-based frameworks relate to handgun restrictions.
How these sources fit together without mixing categories
ABA Policy 07M107, Bruen, 18 U.S.C. § 930, and the Texas guide address different questions: the ABA resolution is a policy statement about private-property access, Bruen supplies a constitutional method for evaluating government firearm regulations, 18 U.S.C. § 930 sets a federal offense tied to federal facilities and requires conspicuous posted notice, and the Texas guide describes a state-specific private-property notice and signage approach.
| Source | What it addresses | Where it typically fits in a firearms controversy |
|---|---|---|
| ABA Policy 07M107 | A professional organization’s policy stance on property owners’ right to exclude | Historical framing of the private-property debate |
| Bruen | The Supreme Court’s constitutional method for evaluating firearm regulations | Court analysis when government regulation is challenged |
| 18 U.S.C. § 930 | Federal criminal law for firearms in “Federal facility” locations, including posting | Federal “place” restrictions on federal facilities |
| Texas State Law Library guide | A Texas description of notice and signage concepts on private property | State-level mechanisms for private-property exclusion |
A practical takeaway for interpreting older policy archives
Reading the archive item with later legal sources highlights distinctions that often get blurred: (1) policy resolution language versus statutes and court holdings, (2) constitutional methodology for assessing government firearm rules versus statutory “place” restrictions, and (3) federal rules tied to federal facilities versus state-described notice and signage frameworks for private property.
Bottom line from the archive record and current legal structure
Taken together, the archive record and the later legal sources reflect a consistent theme across legal layers: firearms restrictions repeatedly depend on the “where” of the regulation and on who controls entry and access. The ABA’s 2007 resolution supplies historical framing about property control, while Bruen and 18 U.S.C. § 930 supply later constitutional and federal statutory frameworks for firearms regulation tied to government authority and defined locations, and the Texas guide illustrates a state-specific notice and signage approach for private property.
