What I would like to see

What should be on the 2007 agenda for CHL's?

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

Re: gov restrictions on business

Postby KBCraig » Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:49 pm

switch wrote:The 2nd says 'shall not be infringed'. Right now, they just apply that to the Feds (let's not even talk about the NFA :cry: )

Why does it NOT apply to private citizens? Why can my boss/neighbor etc. infringe my God - given right?


Your neighbor has no authority over you. How exactly would he go about denying your 2A rights? Or do you mean a neighbor who doesn't want you on his property or in his house while armed? In that case, he has every right to declare who may enter and under what terms. If you want to carry anyway, you're seeking to deny his right to control his property.

Unless you are somehow compelled by law to go to his house, then doing so is voluntary. If you don't want to go unarmed, then don't go!

Same with your boss: a private entity --even your boss-- has no authority over you that you have not voluntarily agreed to. You're free to change neighbors or bosses at any time. You're not free to dictate to them that you're going to carry on their property whether they like it or not.

Kevin
KBCraig
Banned
 
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

discrimination

Postby switch » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:21 pm

We restrict discrimination against race, religion, sex, weight, etc. etc.

Why do we allow discrimination against a constitutional guarantee of a god given right?
switch
Senior Member
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:06 am
Location: Venus, TX

Re: discrimination

Postby KBCraig » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:19 pm

switch wrote:We restrict discrimination against race, religion, sex, weight, etc. etc.


And those restrictions are unconstitutional, and contrary to a free society.


Why do we allow discrimination against a constitutional guarantee of a god given right?


Wrong question. The question should be, "Why do we deny property owners their right to discriminate?" Are you only concerned with carrying a gun on private property? Because if you are, there is a long list of the government actually denying people their rights. Property owners can't deny you any rights, because they can't compel you to obey. Government can, and does.

Racism and bigotry and evil and repugnant, but laws forbidding them are even more evil and repugnant.

Kevin
KBCraig
Banned
 
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Postby Venus Pax » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:26 am

I do not like the idea of controlling a private business, and especially a private family/individual's right to choose with regard to lifestyle and self-defense choices.
My sister, as many of you know, does not want me entering her house with my handgun. I disagree, but I will honor her wishes, as it is her house.
I know that I certainly don't want the govt telling me what I should allow in MY house. In both of our families, we have unmarried couples living together. In our home, they aren't allowed to stay in the same bedroom overnight. We would both have our drawers in a knot if the govt tried to tell us that WE were taking away their rights by having this rule in our home.
We also don't allow smoking in our house. Yes, everyone has a right to smoke, but as an asthmatic, I also have a right to breathe. (As a homeowner, I also have the right to choose my own potpourri, and cigarette smoke just isn't my thing.)
When it comes to businesses, it's THEIR property. I can also exercise MY right to take my business elsewhere (and I do).

What I have a problem with is tax-payer funded entities that are off-limits. (Ex: schools, postoffices). MY tax dollars pay for those places. They should not be restricted.
"If a man breaks in your house, he ain't there for iced tea." Mom & Dad.

The NRA & TSRA are a bargain; they're much cheaper than the cold, dead hands experience.
Image
Venus Pax
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3079
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:27 pm
Location: SE Texas

Postby kw5kw » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:58 am

Venus Pax wrote:I do not like the idea of controlling a private business, and especially a private family/individual's right to choose with regard to lifestyle and self-defense choices.
My sister, as many of you know, does not want me entering her house with my handgun. I disagree, but I will honor her wishes, as it is her house.
I know that I certainly don't want the govt telling me what I should allow in MY house. In both of our families, we have unmarried couples living together. In our home, they aren't allowed to stay in the same bedroom overnight. We would both have our drawers in a knot if the govt tried to tell us that WE were taking away their rights by having this rule in our home.
We also don't allow smoking in our house. Yes, everyone has a right to smoke, but as an asthmatic, I also have a right to breathe. (As a homeowner, I also have the right to choose my own potpourri, and cigarette smoke just isn't my thing.)
When it comes to businesses, it's THEIR property. I can also exercise MY right to take my business elsewhere (and I do).

What I have a problem with is tax-payer funded entities that are off-limits. (Ex: schools, postoffices). MY tax dollars pay for those places. They should not be restricted.


Once again, Venus, well said!

I agree, any public place a person who has the right to carry should be able to carry.

A business who is open to the public should have the right to restrict, but they must have a convient place located next to each entrance that would have appropiate storage facilities for our weapons if they desire us not to have them upon our person---knowing full well that they are then 100% liable for our wellbeing whilest upon their property.

And, so that our privicy and the law is not circumvented, much like a private dressing room, must be provided for us to arm and disarm ourselves, if not allowed to do this in private would constitue us breaking the law for falure to conceal.

Russ
Russ
kw5kw
kw5kw
Senior Member
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:18 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Postby Venus Pax » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:10 pm

I don't like the idea of putting stipulations on the 30.06 businesses. I would rather put economic pressure on them by taking my business elsewhere.
I don't like the govt getting too involved in the everyday lives of people. I think that is the reason that we have been stripped of so many of our 2A rights.
"If a man breaks in your house, he ain't there for iced tea." Mom & Dad.

The NRA & TSRA are a bargain; they're much cheaper than the cold, dead hands experience.
Image
Venus Pax
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3079
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:27 pm
Location: SE Texas

Postby Flatland2D » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:21 pm

How would the storage locker system work? I would be afraid to leave my gun behind in something like that. How are they really going to know who's who?

This reminds me of a recent occurance at school. The student store (of all places) restricted the carry of backpacks inside. You have to leave your backpack in a cubbyhole outside the door. They don't have anyone watching the storage and anyone could walk by and take a backpack without anyone noticing or caring. Needless to say, I don't shop there much anymore. When I do, I wear my backpack unless asked to leave.

Storage lockers would presumably required that someone watch the lockers constantly. And even so, how would they know that the person taking the gun out is the same one who left it? And I'd really like to not have to carry around a padlock in addition to everything else I have in my pockets.

I'm still on the fense for this one. But, I think there's more to it than simply requiring storage lockers. The cost of the lockers, security, and cameras would be a lot for a small business to afford. Maybe it really should be that hard to prohibit legal carry, I don't know.
Flatland2D
Member
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Hill Country

Postby KBCraig » Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:11 pm

Flatland2D wrote:Storage lockers would presumably required that someone watch the lockers constantly. And even so, how would they know that the person taking the gun out is the same one who left it?


Key-retaining locks. Just like airports used to have. The key can't be removed until the locker is closed and locked, then the person takes the key. Only the person with the key can open the locker.

Kevin
KBCraig
Banned
 
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Postby Liberty » Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:39 am

KBCraig wrote:
Flatland2D wrote:Storage lockers would presumably required that someone watch the lockers constantly. And even so, how would they know that the person taking the gun out is the same one who left it?


Key-retaining locks. Just like airports used to have. The key can't be removed until the locker is closed and locked, then the person takes the key. Only the person with the key can open the locker.

Kevin

Didn't they get rid of them in airports and bus stations because people could keep bombs in the lockers? It looks like a great means to do drug deals also.
User avatar
Liberty
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4294
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston

Postby Trainman » Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:11 am

Airport Locker info:
Rental lockers can only be located in the sterile side after clearing TSA screening. Then they must be capable of being opened ONLY by the person renting it. (read: no key that can be passed from one person to another).
Smart-Cart corp. developed a biometric lock based upon fingerprint scanning. I believe they are being used in a limited fashion at some airports. I am not sure of the status beyond that.
Trainman
Member
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:17 am
Location: North Central TX

Postby Roger Howard » Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:07 pm

Venus Pax wrote:I don't like the idea of putting stipulations on the 30.06 businesses. I would rather put economic pressure on them by taking my business elsewhere.
I don't like the govt getting too involved in the everyday lives of people. I think that is the reason that we have been stripped of so many of our 2A rights.


I agree with you 100%
18 Wheels and a 9 mil
If guns kill people, then I can blame mispelled words on my pencil

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
User avatar
Roger Howard
Senior Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:36 pm
Location: Texas City, TX

Previous

Return to Goals for 2007

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests