Poll, PC 30.06 in "Private Businesses"

[A-R]

This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

Unfortunately still invalid as the turban is part of their religious clothing and would be protected.

I would liken the example to the 1st amendment. You have the right to free speech, and without previous reason I can't ban you physically from my store. However, I can prohibit what you say in my store and have the right to ban profanity if I so choose.

And - I think - that may be all that we (those who don't like publicly accessible businesses posting 30.06) are really asking for ... the ability to enter and utilize said businesses UNLESS we do something that creates a nuisance.

I go back-n-forth on this one a lot, but I always come back to why can a "public accommodation" (short for a business open to the general public) ban an otherwise law-abiding person who is creating no problem other than a tool you don't even realize he has under his clothing?

The pre-emptive nature of 30.06 is what bothers so many. It's like saying you can't walk into my store with your mouth because your mouth has the potential to say something I don't want it to say.

Sorta reminds me of this ol' joke:

One morning the husband returns after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, and reads her book.

Along comes a game warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside the woman and says, "Good morning Ma'am. What are you doing?"

Woman Joke Reading in Boat - Funny Clean Joke"Reading a book," she replies, (thinking, "Isn't that obvious?")

"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informs her.

"I'm sorry officer, but I'm not fishing, I'm reading."

"Yes, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up."

"If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says the woman.

"But I haven't even touched you," says the game warden.

"That's true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment."

"Have a nice day ma'am," and he left.

[A-R]

This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

Unfortunately still invalid as the turban is part of their religious clothing and would be protected.

OK, what about a person with a cross necklace or a cross tattoo? That's not an essential part of the religious clothing.

[txglock21]

This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

Unfortunately still invalid as the turban is part of their religious clothing and would be protected.

I would liken the example to the 1st amendment. You have the right to free speech, and without previous reason I can't ban you physically from my store. However, I can prohibit what you say in my store and have the right to ban profanity if I so choose.

And - I think - that may be all that we (those who don't like publicly accessible businesses posting 30.06) are really asking for ... the ability to enter and utilize said businesses UNLESS we do something that creates a nuisance.

I go back-n-forth on this one a lot, but I always come back to why can a "public accommodation" (short for a business open to the general public) ban an otherwise law-abiding person who is creating no problem other than a tool you don't even realize he has under his clothing?

The pre-emptive nature of 30.06 is what bothers so many. It's like saying you can't walk into my store with your mouth because your mouth has the potential to say something I don't want it to say.

Sorta reminds me of this ol' joke:

One morning the husband returns after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, and reads her book.

Along comes a game warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside the woman and says, "Good morning Ma'am. What are you doing?"

Woman Joke Reading in Boat - Funny Clean Joke"Reading a book," she replies, (thinking, "Isn't that obvious?")

"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informs her.

"I'm sorry officer, but I'm not fishing, I'm reading."

"Yes, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up."

"If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says the woman.

"But I haven't even touched you," says the game warden.

"That's true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment."

"Have a nice day ma'am," and he left.

Exactly!!! and funny joke,too!

[Keith B]

This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

Unfortunately still invalid as the turban is part of their religious clothing and would be protected.

OK, what about a person with a cross necklace or a cross tattoo? That's not an essential part of the religious clothing.

If the tattoo or cross necklace was actually deemed part of your religious attire (i.e nun's habit or Amish bonnet), then I would say you would have an argument that it could not be banned. But when you get down that low a leve, you would have to say all necklaces or all people with tattoos were banned. The military is now doing it for tattoos totally, where it was just that they couldn't show in uniform.

[gthaustex]

#1> Private property rights are not absolute. In both our home and our business we must maintain certain standards that we as the public have decided are needed.

#2> I think a private property owner should be able to ASK anyone, at anytime, to leave their property for any reason.


#3> I don't think that it should be an offense to just enter any ones business, doing anything, without first being asked to leave. In other words, why do we have a sign that criminalizes trespass by a CHL with no other notice than just that sign? Think about how ridiculous it would seem if we attached the same standards to any other activity?

"Is this 911"

"Yes, it is."

" I need to report a gentleman who walked right passed by no shirt, no shoes sign."

"We are on our way."

I'm a "property rights" kind of guy.

If I start a business, on the property I own, I HAVE NOT given up the right to TELL anyone to leave my property.

Certainly, the state may have the right to pull my business license. And the public has the right to boycott my business. But they DO NOT have the right to force themselves onto my property against my will -- that's called trespassing.

Starting a business DOES NOT automatically convert private property to public property. It may in the Soviet Union or North Korea.

A public business has, by it's nature, extended an open invitation to the public. However; they can quickly revoke that information for a customer that misbehaves. An invited guest that mistreats my home or family will quickly find himself out on the sidewalk. That is the property owner's right.

City parks, schools, libraries, etc are all considered public property, paid for by public funds. Microsoft and General Motors are still PRIVATE property, and both have armed security guards to forcibly evict unwanted clients. Walmart is also private property, they are just to cheap to hire security. But many other stores do have security staff.

Bars and nightclubs are "open to the public", but just make a nuisance of yourself in one that has a mean bouncer. You may be trying to explain your "public" right to his bar to Mr. T. They don't have to call a LEO to tell the customer to leave, Mr. T will take care of that task.

I pity the fool.....

[steveincowtown]

#1> Private property rights are not absolute. In both our home and our business we must maintain certain standards that we as the public have decided are needed.

#2> I think a private property owner should be able to ASK anyone, at anytime, to leave their property for any reason.


#3> I don't think that it should be an offense to just enter any ones business, doing anything, without first being asked to leave. In other words, why do we have a sign that criminalizes trespass by a CHL with no other notice than just that sign? Think about how ridiculous it would seem if we attached the same standards to any other activity?

"Is this 911"

"Yes, it is."

" I need to report a gentleman who walked right passed by no shirt, no shoes sign."

"We are on our way."

I'm a "property rights" kind of guy.

If I start a business, on the property I own, I HAVE NOT given up the right to TELL anyone to leave my property.

I didn't communicate my point very well. As a private property owner I think you should be able to tell anyone, at anytime, for any reason, to leave your property.


I think if you see something (heck, even suspect something) for any reason that you don't like, you should be able to tell a person to leave and they should do so immediately. I just don't think there should be a sign for it.

[chasfm11]

I see this matter differently.

Governments, including the State, regulate things. Alcohol, for example, cannot be consumed in places that sell it unless they have a bar type of license. It is a State regulation. It is imposed, in part, by the decision that the store owner made by the type of business that they operate. But it remains a State regulation, not a business owner option, just because they made the choice on the type of business that they want to run.

30.06 is a State regulation. Like a lot of State regulations, I don't like it. But it is not a business owner decision about its existence, only its application. A business does or does not choose to invoke the State regulation. Unlike the alcohol regulations, this one is optional by the store.

Businesses make a lot of choices about regulations. Pest control companies have to have certain types of licenses in order for their technicians to apply certain types of chemicals. A bug guy is not licensed to apply lawn fertilizer without the proper certification. The same business can employ people with different certifications and those individuals are regulated about what they can apply, not the business itself. There are 100s of other examples about what businesses can and cannot do, all of them tied up, to some extent, by the decisions that business wants to make about how and to the extent that it conducts business. The State then mandates the regulations and sometimes the penalties for non-compliance. It is the State that can fine or take away the license from a business for selling to minors who are prohibited from buying certain products from spray paint to alcohol. I also don't like being carded when I buy any sort of fluid that is on the State regulated list but the stores who sell those fluid are obligated to follow the State regulation for doing so.

The State provides a lot of different kinds of regulations, some of them mandatory, some of them optional, depending on the business owner choices. It is the State, not the business owner who applies the punishment for violation of them. Campus Carry is simply a mandatory restriction while 30.06 is an optional one.

[RPBrown]

I voted yes you should be able to manage the store the way you want to. As a business owner, I have enough restrictions on what I can and can't do without someone telling me I have to be able to allow CHL's (although I do and have a sign posted that they are welcome) but it is my choice.

With that said, if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

Just my .02

Your .02 means a lot and I agree. We don't have a chl to be macho ( I hope) but to protect ourselves in the event that force is needed. When I go into a place that forbids me to protect myself with a firearm I expect them to provide some kind of protection either a security guard or whatever. A 30.06 sign takes away my ability to self defend and at my age that does not mean my fists. You post a 30.06 then you should have the obligation to defend me if need be. I own a business and I don't care if you open or conceal. I also own the real estate and the business which is mre than most "business" do. Even your post offices, most are leased and not actually owned by the feds.

Wrong. The business owner has the right to post 30.06 or not to. You have the right to patronize that business or not in response. The posting of 30.06 does not obligate the owner to provide extra security any more than not posting 30.06 obligate you to carry when you do patronize. Nor should it.

So the answer is "Wrong" you say. I know what the business owner can and can't do. I know I have the right to go in or not. But if a business owner knowingly increases the risk of my being harmed by his actions I would think that a lawyer could use that as means for a successful case. I am not a lawyer and anyone can sue for anything but if I go into a store with a 30.06 and am harmed by a BG because I have left my weapon in my car.... gee whiz- isn't that how we got to have concealed carry in Texas in the first place- Luby's cafeteria. It was illegal to carry that gun into Luby's, not by a 30.06 but by state law. So, there is always the potential that a store that outlaws you from defending yourself might some day be involved with a negligence suit. Time will tell. If you are on someones private property, even illegally, and you injure yourself there have been succesful lawsuits against the property owners in civil courts.

Posting an enforceable 30.06 sign wouldn't be ground for negligence since the current chl law contains the provision. Yes you can file suit for anything, but most lawyers don't like to work for free. So you'd most likely go it alone. And the case would probably be immediately dismissed because of the legal provision for disallowing concealed carry.

I agree that it is a provision. I never said that the business owners would be held liable. I said they should be.
Same as in my wifes business. She owns a dog grooming salon. They have dogs on the floor all day long and there is a half door between the lobby and the grooming area that is locked from the inside but can be opened just by reaching over. This door has (and always has had) a sign on it that states "Employees Only Beyond This Point. Do Not Enter Unless Accompanied by an Employee ". This is to protect not only the dogs and them not getting out, but also the customers from getting bitten or knocked down. Now, they had to settle (actually our insurance settled) with a lady (first time customer) that decided to open the door anyway and come back. Just so happens the only dog on the floor was a very large Mastiff. Although friendly, the dog decided that this lady was a new person to play with and jumped on her knocking her down. Although she had nothing more than a bruised backside and a bruised ego, she decided to sue. Our attorney said it would be cheaper in the long run to just settle with her. Against my wishes, my wife decided to allow the insurance company settle for $12,800.00.
What I am saying here is that if they can be held liable with a sign posted, then IMHO, the provision protecting businesses from liability should be removed from the CHL statute. Or at least make a level play ground so to speak.

[android]

This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

Unfortunately still invalid as the turban is part of their religious clothing and would be protected.

I would liken the example to the 1st amendment. You have the right to free speech, and without previous reason I can't ban you physically from my store. However, I can prohibit what you say in my store and have the right to ban profanity if I so choose.

Would that make turbans, burqas, yarmulkes and clerical collars the equivalent of religious open carry?

[jnichols2]

#1> Private property rights are not absolute. In both our home and our business we must maintain certain standards that we as the public have decided are needed.

#2> I think a private property owner should be able to ASK anyone, at anytime, to leave their property for any reason.


#3> I don't think that it should be an offense to just enter any ones business, doing anything, without first being asked to leave. In other words, why do we have a sign that criminalizes trespass by a CHL with no other notice than just that sign? Think about how ridiculous it would seem if we attached the same standards to any other activity?

"Is this 911"

"Yes, it is."

" I need to report a gentleman who walked right passed by no shirt, no shoes sign."

"We are on our way."

I'm a "property rights" kind of guy.

If I start a business, on the property I own, I HAVE NOT given up the right to TELL anyone to leave my property.

I didn't communicate my point very well. As a private property owner I think you should be able to tell anyone, at anytime, for any reason, to leave your property.


I think if you see something (heck, even suspect something) for any reason that you don't like, you should be able to tell a person to leave and they should do so immediately. I just don't think there should be a sign for it.

I agree with the sign. I have no idea why it was written into the law the way it was, but I bet Charles Cotton could tell us.

My first experience was yesterday, the first full day with my new CHL.

At the entrance to the Saxett Gun Show in Austin was a 30.06 sign I had walked past without seeing for two years.
I just shrugged my shoulders, walked back to the parking lot, and secured my gun in the car.
They already had LEOs at the entrance to enforce it.
I never "saw" the sign before because I didn't know what it was then.

"The Law is for the Protection of the People." Kris Kristofferson

[JP171]

#1> Private property rights are not absolute. In both our home and our business we must maintain certain standards that we as the public have decided are needed.

#2> I think a private property owner should be able to ASK anyone, at anytime, to leave their property for any reason.


#3> I don't think that it should be an offense to just enter any ones business, doing anything, without first being asked to leave. In other words, why do we have a sign that criminalizes trespass by a CHL with no other notice than just that sign? Think about how ridiculous it would seem if we attached the same standards to any other activity?

"Is this 911"

"Yes, it is."

" I need to report a gentleman who walked right passed by no shirt, no shoes sign."

"We are on our way."

I'm a "property rights" kind of guy.

If I start a business, on the property I own, I HAVE NOT given up the right to TELL anyone to leave my property.

I didn't communicate my point very well. As a private property owner I think you should be able to tell anyone, at anytime, for any reason, to leave your property.


I think if you see something (heck, even suspect something) for any reason that you don't like, you should be able to tell a person to leave and they should do so immediately. I just don't think there should be a sign for it.

I agree with the sign. I have no idea why it was written into the law the way it was, but I bet Charles Cotton could tell us.

My first experience was yesterday, the first full day with my new CHL.

At the entrance to the Saxett Gun Show in Austin was a 30.06 sign I had walked past without seeing for two years.
I just shrugged my shoulders, walked back to the parking lot, and secured my gun in the car.
They already had LEOs at the entrance to enforce it.
I never "saw" the sign before because I didn't know what it was then.

"The Law is for the Protection of the People." Kris Kristofferson

it is in a county owned facility its not enforceable but there is no case law as of yet proving that, there have been many discussions about it, some think that a short term rental of the hall negates the fact the building is owned by the county though no where in any law does it say that. me I walk past them when I go and that is rarely as you don't save a dime on anything in there

[jnichols2]

#1> Private property rights are not absolute. In both our home and our business we must maintain certain standards that we as the public have decided are needed.

#2> I think a private property owner should be able to ASK anyone, at anytime, to leave their property for any reason.


#3> I don't think that it should be an offense to just enter any ones business, doing anything, without first being asked to leave. In other words, why do we have a sign that criminalizes trespass by a CHL with no other notice than just that sign? Think about how ridiculous it would seem if we attached the same standards to any other activity?

"Is this 911"

"Yes, it is."

" I need to report a gentleman who walked right passed by no shirt, no shoes sign."

"We are on our way."

I'm a "property rights" kind of guy.

If I start a business, on the property I own, I HAVE NOT given up the right to TELL anyone to leave my property.

I didn't communicate my point very well. As a private property owner I think you should be able to tell anyone, at anytime, for any reason, to leave your property.


I think if you see something (heck, even suspect something) for any reason that you don't like, you should be able to tell a person to leave and they should do so immediately. I just don't think there should be a sign for it.

I agree with the sign. I have no idea why it was written into the law the way it was, but I bet Charles Cotton could tell us.

My first experience was yesterday, the first full day with my new CHL.

At the entrance to the Saxett Gun Show in Austin was a 30.06 sign I had walked past without seeing for two years.
I just shrugged my shoulders, walked back to the parking lot, and secured my gun in the car.
They already had LEOs at the entrance to enforce it.
I never "saw" the sign before because I didn't know what it was then.

"The Law is for the Protection of the People." Kris Kristofferson

it is in a county owned facility its not enforceable but there is no case law as of yet proving that, there have been many discussions about it, some think that a short term rental of the hall negates the fact the building is owned by the county though no where in any law does it say that. me I walk past them when I go and that is rarely as you don't save a dime on anything in there

When you rent a home or place of business, you do acquire certain rights "as if you owned the property". Even the landlord can't just walk in.
Not sure if a 2 day short term rental counts. But the question was actually trumped by 3 armed LEOs prepared to enforce the sign.
The legal questions count in court among the lawyers, they do not count at the point of arrest among the arresting officers. The lawyers are later required.
Another sign stated that the LEOs performed "spot checks". I thought it best not to enter while carrying.

[krieghoff]

Anybody here old enough to remember these old signs:

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT
TO REFUSE SERVICE
TO ANYONE

What's the difference between these signs and a 30.06 sign? (I know the answer)

Not only am I old enough to remember that sign, but know where some still reside to this day..

[JP171]

#1> Private property rights are not absolute. In both our home and our business we must maintain certain standards that we as the public have decided are needed.

#2> I think a private property owner should be able to ASK anyone, at anytime, to leave their property for any reason.


#3> I don't think that it should be an offense to just enter any ones business, doing anything, without first being asked to leave. In other words, why do we have a sign that criminalizes trespass by a CHL with no other notice than just that sign? Think about how ridiculous it would seem if we attached the same standards to any other activity?

"Is this 911"

"Yes, it is."

" I need to report a gentleman who walked right passed by no shirt, no shoes sign."

"We are on our way."

I'm a "property rights" kind of guy.

If I start a business, on the property I own, I HAVE NOT given up the right to TELL anyone to leave my property.

I didn't communicate my point very well. As a private property owner I think you should be able to tell anyone, at anytime, for any reason, to leave your property.


I think if you see something (heck, even suspect something) for any reason that you don't like, you should be able to tell a person to leave and they should do so immediately. I just don't think there should be a sign for it.

I agree with the sign. I have no idea why it was written into the law the way it was, but I bet Charles Cotton could tell us.

My first experience was yesterday, the first full day with my new CHL.

At the entrance to the Saxett Gun Show in Austin was a 30.06 sign I had walked past without seeing for two years.
I just shrugged my shoulders, walked back to the parking lot, and secured my gun in the car.
They already had LEOs at the entrance to enforce it.
I never "saw" the sign before because I didn't know what it was then.

"The Law is for the Protection of the People." Kris Kristofferson

it is in a county owned facility its not enforceable but there is no case law as of yet proving that, there have been many discussions about it, some think that a short term rental of the hall negates the fact the building is owned by the county though no where in any law does it say that. me I walk past them when I go and that is rarely as you don't save a dime on anything in there

When you rent a home or place of business, you do acquire certain rights "as if you owned the property". Even the landlord can't just walk in.
Not sure if a 2 day short term rental counts. But the question was actually trumped by 3 armed LEOs prepared to enforce the sign.
The legal questions count in court among the lawyers, they do not count at the point of arrest among the arresting officers. The lawyers are later required.
Another sign stated that the LEOs performed "spot checks". I thought it best not to enter while carrying.

no it doesn't give you any renters rights at all, you get no keys you get nothing from the gubbermint that rented the space to you for 2 days. you still have to follow the rules as they see them, wee the saxet vs Austin thread. for an individual it is different when renting a room at the local motel 6 than a business renting from a county or city. also if you rent a house or apartment the landlord or owner can walk right in any time they want and you can't do squat about it, sorry you are mis informed, if its commercial property not only can the landlord walk in anytime they want they can lock you out and not allow you in anytime they want

[2firfun50]

I used to believe that "business" could do whatever it wants on private property, but after a lot of thought, I have decided that is an anarchistic position that has no place in civilized society.

First, it is legal for the state, via power given to it by the people, to regulate business and commerce. The US Constitution does not forbid this power to the states and every state constitution in some way creates laws and statutes regulating business.

When you open a business "TO THE PUBLIC" with no controlled access and with the intention of providing goods to the public, it is not a unilateral ultimatum, but rather an agreement between the business owner AND the public as to the terms of how that commerce will occur.

For example, the public gets to decide how many rats you have in your freezer if you run a restaurant (it better be zero) and the public gets to decide that you call a "gallon" of gas the same thing the rest of the public calls a gallon of gas. The public also tells business owners to collect sales tax, safety and occupancy laws and a myriad of other requirements that exist in order to do business with the public. Oh and they get to decide that your employees MUST WASH HAND BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK.
In general, I am for these regulations as they allow the public to buy and sell safely and efficiently.

As a society, we have decided that discrimination by business is not desired. As a white, middle aged guy who has never been turned away from a restaurant or hotel for being the "wrong color" or wrong religion, I agree with public accommodation as it exists in the US. Renting a room to a Jew, or selling gas to a black person is NOT enough of a violation of your right to free association to allow it to trump the rights of all in the US to be treated equally with respect to commerce.

Therefore, I think business should have no more right to refuse those of the PUBLIC that carry concealed than they do blacks or Baptists or Bill who is wearing his wife's underwear because he "likes how it feels." What you believe, your sexuality or what is under your clothing is, quite frankly, none of the shop keepers business. If a person has no interest in agreeing to the terms the public has created, then that person has no business opening their doors.

completely. Let me add one more point. If the business receives any public monetary support, in any fashion, is it really a private business? Examples include low interest loans for the SBA, tax breaks from the city/county, tax breaks for creating employment, or any other public tax assistance from the laundry list, is it truly a privately owned business? If one penny of my tax money, including higher taxes to finance the tax breaks, is used to enable the creation of a business with unrestricted public access, then it is no longer a privately owned business, but a government co-op where an individual or corporation is the majority stakeholder.