ScottDLS wrote:No, Texas does not have a significantly greater respect for property owners than many states, especially business property owners. It earned is reputation as a debtor friendly state making it easy to stiff creditors, and for an out of control trial bar that screwed owners out of their property by ignoring 100s of years of common law (see Pennzoil Texaco). Only as Republicans began to gain control in the legislature in the 90's did it start changing. There's nothing "balanced" about allowing off duty LEO exemption from (weapon) trespass law on all private property including private homes not open to the public. And forcing employers to allow unlicensed firearms "carry" in their parking lots without criminal or civil recourse...how is that different than not allowing "signs" to carry criminal penalty in a publicly open building.mojo84 wrote:ScottDLS wrote:Or so the legislature keeps telling us...as they pass MPA, parking lot law, LEO exemption from 30.05 for weapons, etc. all of which I support, but seem to belie their concern for BUSINESS property owner's rights. Then they suddenly rediscover their support for "big bidness" property owners when the crony capitalists come callin' with their checkbooks. How am I supposed to know the "wishes" of the owners of a publicly held corporation? Or a big private equity fund? Do they poll all the shareholders? Or does the management just decide for us, regardless of our wishes as "owners"?mojo84 wrote:Texas holds private property rights in high regard. Other states may not be as concerned about protecting private property rights and balancing them with people's right to bear arms.
You may want to look up the word balance. Very few things are without some restrictions. That goes for where we can carry and what a property owner can do with their property.
Your analogy using large publicly traded companies is ridiculous and immature. You can research what day to day control and decision making authority shareholders have,
For diffuse ownership entities (corps, LLC, partnerships) with publicly open stores....How is it juvenile to ask what the owners actual wishes are, when speaking of criminal trespass? The shareholders are the owners, not the management and yet the management can invoke criminal trespass regardless of the "wishes" of the owners. Also, collectively, we can be sure that if you polled a majority of "owners" of companies that DO allow carry, they would probably be against it...so that's where you say it's a publicly open business...and deal with it...like 25 odd other states already do.
I am pointing out the way people invoke our great Texan respect for "private property" rights on commercial businesses, as if they were sole proprietorships where the "wishes" of the owner knowable and worthy of respect, which in the case of hidden conduct (carry) that affects no one, they are not.
Texas is probably around 10 out of 50 in respecting 2nd amendment rights, which is very good and getting better, but there are blue states like Vermont and "purple" like Pennsylvania that are ahead of us. That's always somewhat surprised me since I moved here 25 years ago.
You seem to be struggling with understanding the roles of shareholders when it comes to day to day management and operations of a publicly traded company. It's the job of the executives to run the day to day operations with oversight and direction of the board of directors. You continuing to convolude the roles diminishes your credibility in this issue.
If you're going to go berserk, LTC or cop or not, you'll be breaking the law.