TexasCHLforum.com

Vol Texan wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I don't see 30.06 as a sacred property right but rather a public accommodation issue.

Anyone who opens their property to the public must agree to not discriminate against various classes, which in my opinion should include legal carriers.

Along with that, property owners who don't post should be shielded from liability over actions of a legal carrier on their property, but being exposed to liability for the death and injury of a disarmed legal carrier if they choose to post. Note that this would provide a crucial upside to not posting which is missing now.

You have a choice to carry, the supposed various legal classes did not. I support individual property owners rights over the rights of the public, don't do business with them if you don't like the way they run their business. If you come in and tell me that I have to let legal carriers in my place of business, I would have to tell you I do not have to do so, I allow them to do so. Then I would tell you to leave because of I have enough stupidity for the whole place and you need to take yours elsewhere.

On this forum, this topic is rehashed often, and it usually ends up at a point where it's perceived as a binary issue: "Which is more important, private property rights or our rights to carry?" I suggest that reducing it to A vs B is a good way to kill the discussion, rather than enable it.

But what has been highlighted here on this thread is there is a middle ground that allows both to be respected. Private property is (and should be) sacrosanct, but it already has some limitations in place. You can post signs that say, "No red shoes", "No shirt no service", "No earrings", etc., but those signs do NOT have the force of law unless you then offer an oral notification as well.

Those of us that advocate the middle ground do not ask for private property rights to be subordinate to carry rights. We simply ask that the 3006 sign have the same legally binding status as do the other signs listed in the previous paragraph. We believe that one sign, for that one choice, for one class of people who voluntarily do one thing, having legal force of law as something we'd like to see evened out with all other signs.

But we're not suggesting that we should come in and tell you that you have to let legal carriers in your place of business. That's extending our position further than what we're stating.

Just to make it clear, I do not have a problem with any legal carry on my property. However, even tho I may disagree with most of the reasons to post the .06.07 sign, I will defend the rights of the property owner to do so and defend the right that they should not be forced to middle ground because on their property all ground is theirs.

ScottDLS wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I don't see 30.06 as a sacred property right but rather a public accommodation issue.

Anyone who opens their property to the public must agree to not discriminate against various classes, which in my opinion should include legal carriers.

Along with that, property owners who don't post should be shielded from liability over actions of a legal carrier on their property, but being exposed to liability for the death and injury of a disarmed legal carrier if they choose to post. Note that this would provide a crucial upside to not posting which is missing now.

You have a choice to carry, the supposed various legal classes did not. I support individual property owners rights over the rights of the public, don't do business with them if you don't like the way they run their business. If you come in and tell me that I have to let legal carriers in my place of business, I would have to tell you I do not have to do so, I allow them to do so. Then I would tell you to leave because of I have enough stupidity for the whole place and you need to take yours elsewhere.

What about the classes that the State doesn't let you exclude? Off duty cops, emergency volunteers, special investigators, your employees carrying in your parking lot, etc....

What about them? I thought this was about LTC holders. (which BTW, I have no problem with anyone legally carrying on my property, but I do defend the notion that private property rights are sacrosanct) As far as parking lots are concerned, if you read the laws, even unlicensed carry in privately owned vehicles cannot be restricted. (except for the few noted exceptions)

rp_photo wrote:I don't see 30.06 as a sacred property right but rather a public accommodation issue.

Anyone who opens their property to the public must agree to not discriminate against various classes, which in my opinion should include legal carriers.

Along with that, property owners who don't post should be shielded from liability over actions of a legal carrier on their property, but being exposed to liability for the death and injury of a disarmed legal carrier if they choose to post. Note that this would provide a crucial upside to not posting which is missing now.

You have a choice to carry, the supposed various legal classes did not. I support individual property owners rights over the rights of the public, don't do business with them if you don't like the way they run their business. If you come in and tell me that I have to let legal carriers in my place of business, I would have to tell you I do not have to do so, I allow them to do so. Then I would tell you to leave because of I have enough stupidity for the whole place and you need to take yours elsewhere.

After reading this thread, there are several things that flagged in the back of my mind. The OP said that he was new to LTC, so I would think that the OP had taken the course fairly recent. Did the OP pay attention in class or did the instructor not sufficiently cover the material? No one ever becomes "automatically" a criminal when they set foot past a posted door. They must be charged and go to trial and then be convicted. The charge would be made only after you refuse to immediately leave after being asked to do so. I cannot understand why one would not immediately leave when legally asked to do so for any legal reason.
It is the right for the property owner to post his property for anything that he has the legal right, no matter how misguided his understanding or thinking is.
It is my understanding that an LEO does not have to disarm because of the .06/07 signs. If he is off duty, (off the clock) he can be asked to leave just like any other citizen but not because he is armed, the business can still legally refuse service. The Conroe Police Chief, knew that the reason he was asked to leave was not legal (it turned out to be a misinformed employee), I applaud his restraint.
I would encourage the OP to read or reread his CHL 16 and regularly participate in the very good forum. OH and welcome to the forum.