We can agree to disagree. IMHO rights are granted by our creator. The state may say that they will allow a private property owner to infringe on some rights. But that does not mean those rights no longer exist. It also does not mean that those rights are not being infringed upon. It just means that the state is OK with the infringement. The infringement may be legal, but it is still infringement.thetexan wrote:STOP already!
They are not infringing on our rights. The state of Texas says our right ends at the door of a owner who wishes to exercise HIS right to prohibit guns on his property. I have a right to mow my grass but my next door neighbor has the right to prohibit me from mowing HIS grass. He is not infringing on my right to mow my grass or to mow grass in general. Are we going to not be neighborly because he is "infringing" on our God given constitutional right to mow grass?
Our right to carry a handgun in this state is limited, lawfully, by statute and supported by SCOTUS. If one wants to exercise more of their rights and take their business elsewhere then they can have at it.
This is a compromise of equally entitled rights as is so many other things. If an owner posts and someone feels the owner is undeserving of patronage then he might just as logically keep someone out even without a gun because he doesn't want the business of someone who likes guns...as is HIS right.
I will go into a business and carry, lawfully, no matter what I perceive the owner's feelings about me are...if I choose...if it PLEASES me or serves MY purpose at the time...or is at or for MY convenience at the time. I don't change my actions because the owner indicates he doesn't like guns with a 30.07 sign. I will then carry concealed, lawfully and by statute.
What I do insist on is that the owner exercise his rights in any prohibition by abiding completely by the same statutes I have to live by.
And if he does so then God bless him. He has the right to exercise his right. Just as I do in the reverse...lawfully. None of this is about right infringement. This is all about personality conflicts or disagreements in philosophies.
tex
Search found 5 matches
- Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:10 pm
- Forum: New to CHL?
- Topic: 30.07 ?
- Replies: 24
- Views: 10331
Re: 30.07 ?
- Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:07 pm
- Forum: New to CHL?
- Topic: 30.07 ?
- Replies: 24
- Views: 10331
Re: 30.07 ?
There is an AG opinion that basically says any "no ___" sign carries force of law. I believe that this has never actually been tried, however. The exact wording matters a lot here. If the sign says "no shirt, no shoes, no service" then you are not trespassing because they never said you couldn't come in without a shirt, just that you shouldn't expect to get any service. "No fat chicks" is more clear that they don't want you there, but the term "fat" could be subjective. Obviously, if you are in the 98th percentile for body fat, and you are female, you probably meet the prohibition and would therefore be guilty of trespassing per that previous Texas AG's opinion, but like I said, such a case has not actually been prosecuted I believe. And that person is no longer the AG for this state.FCH wrote:If the place also has a no weapons sign, doesn't that also make a concealed rifle illegal?
In your case, the term "weapon" is pretty broad. When encountering such a sign it is probably advisable to strip naked before entering so you do not accidentally bring anything in that could be deemed a "weapon". That or just go somewhere else.
- Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:44 am
- Forum: New to CHL?
- Topic: 30.07 ?
- Replies: 24
- Views: 10331
Re: 30.07 ?
You are correct. They are not actually oppressing our rights. I am reading into their signage that they would like to suppress our rights, but they are not succeeding. This is like a polling place putting up a sign that says "no Blacks allowed to vote, here or anywhere else" and then sneering at any Black person who gets in line, but ultimately giving them a ballot and letting them vote. Attempted oppression, but not actual oppression.warnmar10 wrote:If you can legally carry a rifle are your 2A rights really oppressed? Inconvenient, yes. Oppressed, no. At that point isn't it really just a dress code?Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm not Scott, but I do sometimes carry a concealed rifle past a valid 30.06 sign.
I agree that the first choice is to not give any patronage to a business that is openly against our civil rights, including our right to keep and bear arms. But unfortunately, there are some locations where I must still visit even though they believe in this type of oppression. A classic case would be to visit a relative in a hospital that is posted.
In these limited cases, I believe that it would be completely and totally irresponsible for me to willingly give up the means to defend myself and my loved ones from a potential violent assault. So I do what I am legally allowed to do to defend myself. I agree that a concealed rifle is not the best choice. I would much rather have a 1911 on my hip. But my Sub 2000 fits nicely into a computer bag, and I can have it deployed and ready to act in a matter of seconds. So I have decided that it is my next best option.
And to answer your follow on post, yes it is rare.
Regardless, I still try to avoid giving such places my patronage if at all possible. It's just that if I really need to go there for some reason I will be armed wherever I am legally allowed to do so.
- Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:57 am
- Forum: New to CHL?
- Topic: 30.07 ?
- Replies: 24
- Views: 10331
Re: 30.07 ?
I'm not Scott, but I do sometimes carry a concealed rifle past a valid 30.06 sign.Abraham wrote:ScottDLS ,
Hhhmmm, I've got a couple questions: Do you do that,carry a concealed rifle into 30.06 businesses or are you simply stating one can legally do that?
Plus, why (and certainly it's your choice) give a 30.06 your business or do you do this only when you can't avoid a 30.06 posted business like maybe your doctor's office or someplace similar?
I agree that the first choice is to not give any patronage to a business that is openly against our civil rights, including our right to keep and bear arms. But unfortunately, there are some locations where I must still visit even though they believe in this type of oppression. A classic case would be to visit a relative in a hospital that is posted.
In these limited cases, I believe that it would be completely and totally irresponsible for me to willingly give up the means to defend myself and my loved ones from a potential violent assault. So I do what I am legally allowed to do to defend myself. I agree that a concealed rifle is not the best choice. I would much rather have a 1911 on my hip. But my Sub 2000 fits nicely into a computer bag, and I can have it deployed and ready to act in a matter of seconds. So I have decided that it is my next best option.
And to answer your follow on post, yes it is rare.
- Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:38 pm
- Forum: New to CHL?
- Topic: 30.07 ?
- Replies: 24
- Views: 10331
Re: 30.07 ?
And you can conceal carry a rifle past a valid 30.06 sign. 30.06 / 30.07 signs only prohibit the licensed carry of handguns. They have no bearing on the legality of carrying a rifle.Alf wrote:You can also open carry a rifle.