TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:You are the one that keeps talking about unrelated issues such as pollution and such. Now you've introduced another off-topic issue such as "needs".

Bottom line, you do not have a right to enter my privately owned property unless you agree to meet with my terms of entry. I can set the terms as I wish with the exception of a few protected classes.

You are entitled to enter my property as long as you meet my terms. Therefore, it is a privilege and not a right to enter my business. Entitlements and privileges can be revoked by others, rights cannot.

Nothing says you have to enter my property. It's not my problem you may be inconvenienced.

Can we drop the grammar argument?

Once again. Here is my position -
You have a right to do what you want with your property, as long as you are not harming others or infringing on their rights. And just because you invite me to come on to your property does not mean that you get to control what I have under my clothing. If you find out that I have something under my clothing that makes you uneasy, or you want me to leave for any other reason, then ask me to leave.

You are right. Nothing says that I have to enter your property. In fact, you don't have to let anyone onto your property. Trespass laws cover that topic well. But if you open a store, and put out a general invitation for the public to visit your property, you should not get to set "conditions for entry" and then use the arrest powers of the state when someone violates one of your conditions and still enters your property.

You keep talking about grammar and then you post what you want the laws to be and not what they are. That right there is the crux of the fallacy in your argument.

You have no RIGHT (there's that important word again) to wear green underwear on my property if I don't want you to. However, you can get away with it as long as I don't find out. Once I find out, you will be sent on your way regardless how inconvenient it may be for you.

Let me ask you this. If you opened a nice little cafe and a person enters and he stinks to high heaven. He hasn't bathed in weeks. The stink it's emanating from under his clothes where his concealed carry gun is located. It's not going to hurt anyone but it is offensive. Do you as the property owner have a right to set the condition of entry that one must not stink?

The whole discussion is about how we think the law should be. This would be a MUCH shorter thread if we limited it to whether someone in Texas can restrict the RKBA of others on their property (spoiler alert - they can).

And yes, I believe that a property owner should be able to ask anyone to leave for any reason they want. So if the person with BO bothers you and you want them to leave, ask them to do so. If they refuse, call the cops and they should help you. Again, this is how I think the law should work. Property owners rights are much more limited by the actual law. I do not think that you should be able to post a sign saying "no one can enter here if their smell bothers me" and then have the cops arrest that person without you first asking them to leave. That is the crux of our disagreement. If someone's presence bothers you, then put on your big boy pants and ask them to leave. But you should not be able to have them arrested because there is something that would bother you about them if you knew about it only you don't actually know about it, so you can't figure out that they are bothering you.

mojo84 wrote:You are the one that keeps talking about unrelated issues such as pollution and such. Now you've introduced another off-topic issue such as "needs".

Bottom line, you do not have a right to enter my privately owned property unless you agree to meet with my terms of entry. I can set the terms as I wish with the exception of a few protected classes.

You are entitled to enter my property as long as you meet my terms. Therefore, it is a privilege and not a right to enter my business. Entitlements and privileges can be revoked by others, rights cannot.

Nothing says you have to enter my property. It's not my problem you may be inconvenienced.

Can we drop the grammar argument?

Once again. Here is my position -
You have a right to do what you want with your property, as long as you are not harming others or infringing on their rights. And just because you invite me to come on to your property does not mean that you get to control what I have under my clothing. If you find out that I have something under my clothing that makes you uneasy, or you want me to leave for any other reason, then ask me to leave.

You are right. Nothing says that I have to enter your property. In fact, you don't have to let anyone onto your property. Trespass laws cover that topic well. But if you open a store, and put out a general invitation for the public to visit your property, you should not get to set "conditions for entry" and then use the arrest powers of the state when someone violates one of your conditions and still enters your property.

srothstein wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I for one would love to see 30.06 signage language stricken from Texas statutes. I continue to believe that we should just rely on general trespass laws for this. If a business owner does not want me on their property and tells me to leave, then I should leave. But it is none of their business what I have beneath my clothing.

I am glad of the wording of the 30.06 law and its application instead of the general trespass law applying. If we did not have 30.06 (and 30.07), then an owner could ban guns with just a little sticker that says no guns, your traditional pistol with a red slash sticker would do. OK, the sticker might need to be posted in a more conspicuous manner than most did, but it would be legal and enforceable. This would not be nearly as good for LTCs.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. IANAL, but I do not think that such a sign would be legal or enforceable. I know that there was a random AG opinion that tried to twist the law on this a long time ago. That was an AG disguising their personal agenda as law. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been prosecuted for trespassing at a privately owned business simply because they walked past a sign that "banned" something they were carrying. A cop walking past a "no cops" sign while wearing his uniform is not breaking the law unless he refuses to leave after being told to do so by the property owner. Same goes for "no fat chicks", "no guns", "no Aggies", "no Yankees", or whatever. Any lawyers on the board, please feel free to educate me with the relevant code sections on trespassing.

Regardless, if this is a real risk, then perhaps we should also clarify the trespass laws to explicitly state that trespass at a business open to the public only occurs when someone is told to leave and they refuse to do so, or when they are told to never come back and they show up at a later date. We can keep the part about marking fence posts and the like for private property that is not open to the public.

mojo84 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

KLB wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc

Oops, you've crossed the line between negative rights and positive rights. The constitution protects only negative rights, things that the government cannot do to you. Positive rights, such as a right to clean air and water, are things the government must give to you. The only way government can give stuff to you is by taking from others, which makes positive rights a sucker bet.

Now I'm all for reasonable environmental regulation. I like clean air and water, but I don't consider them constitutional rights. Pollution laws are statutory, not constitutional.

I never said these were rights that are mentioned in the constitution. Not sure where you are getting that from.

Are they Rights or entitlements? You may find the article I posted just before your last post of interest.

My personal opinion? It's a matter of degree. You have the right to life, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. If a company is poisoning your well water with toxic chemicals, and poisoning the air you breath, then they are infringing on that right to life. At some point, the risk to your life crosses from an imminent threat of impending death to merely a threat of health issues, so maybe at that point, it is more of an entitlement. I'm not sure why you are so focused on this distinction. Maybe I am missing the relevance to this discussion on rights / interests / entitlements that might be in conflict with those of someone else.

I would also note that, in common usage, the word "rights" can be used to convey legal rights to access or use something, such as water rights, intellectual property rights, etc.

Just more evidence of the "entitlement" society in which we live today. Because words have meaning.

I agree that words have meaning, and I also agree that the word "entitlement" is abused. Personally, I dislike that word because it implies that we collectively have no choice to deny the entitlement. I also dislike the word "need" because it implies that one cannot choose to do without the thing they "need". Needs can only exist if one first makes a choice. Do you need food, water, or oxygen? Only if you want to live. If there were a limited supply of any of those things, you could choose to not use them (so your kids might have a better shot at survival, etc)., so they are not in fact needs. Just things that facilitate a want.

I just honestly don't fully see how this discussion relates to the topic of the thread, or even the side track on finding a balance between people's interests that are in conflict. Clean air may not technically be a right, and it dang sure ain't a need, but I still think that we should restrict a private property owner from polluting the heck out of the air we all breath. We still need to find a balance, regardless of the terminology that we choose to use.

I for one would love to see 30.06 signage language stricken from Texas statutes. I continue to believe that we should just rely on general trespass laws for this. If a business owner does not want me on their property and tells me to leave, then I should leave. But it is none of their business what I have beneath my clothing.

I'm not sure that I really care about punishing a business that then posts a sign which is then invalid. Sure, they are making a false statement since the sign would say it is illegal for an LTC holder to carry there, when it would not in fact be illegal to do so, but we have that exact same situation now and I don't view it as a major problem. There are plenty of businesses posting signs with full 30.06 wording but with letters that are too small. Aren't they also making a false statement by doing so? Same thing for businesses that still have signs up with the "old" wording.

mojo84 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

KLB wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc

Oops, you've crossed the line between negative rights and positive rights. The constitution protects only negative rights, things that the government cannot do to you. Positive rights, such as a right to clean air and water, are things the government must give to you. The only way government can give stuff to you is by taking from others, which makes positive rights a sucker bet.

Now I'm all for reasonable environmental regulation. I like clean air and water, but I don't consider them constitutional rights. Pollution laws are statutory, not constitutional.

I never said these were rights that are mentioned in the constitution. Not sure where you are getting that from.

Are they Rights or entitlements? You may find the article I posted just before your last post of interest.

My personal opinion? It's a matter of degree. You have the right to life, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. If a company is poisoning your well water with toxic chemicals, and poisoning the air you breath, then they are infringing on that right to life. At some point, the risk to your life crosses from an imminent threat of impending death to merely a threat of health issues, so maybe at that point, it is more of an entitlement. I'm not sure why you are so focused on this distinction. Maybe I am missing the relevance to this discussion on rights / interests / entitlements that might be in conflict with those of someone else.

I would also note that, in common usage, the word "rights" can be used to convey legal rights to access or use something, such as water rights, intellectual property rights, etc.

KLB wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc

Oops, you've crossed the line between negative rights and positive rights. The constitution protects only negative rights, things that the government cannot do to you. Positive rights, such as a right to clean air and water, are things the government must give to you. The only way government can give stuff to you is by taking from others, which makes positive rights a sucker bet.

Now I'm all for reasonable environmental regulation. I like clean air and water, but I don't consider them constitutional rights. Pollution laws are statutory, not constitutional.

I never said these were rights that are mentioned in the constitution. Not sure where you are getting that from.

bblhd672 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc.,

I must have missed in the constitution the rights to clean air and water.

You didn't miss it. These rights are not in the constitution and, IMHO at least, they are much less important than the RKBA. But we should note that there are rights which are not listed in the constitution.

I agree with those saying that we need to balance two potentially conflicting rights. A property owner's right to have absolute control over everything that happens on their property will frequently be in conflict with the rights of others. A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc., could all be in conflict with property owner's rights. Where we have these conflicts, wise men and women should establish laws and regulations that strike an appropriate balance or compromise. Sometimes, they err, in my personal opinion, but I do understand the need for such compromise.

But I disagree that the carrying of a gun, in a locked vehicle, which is sitting in a parking lot, infringes in any material way on the parking lot owners property rights. How is the mere presence of this gun negatively impacting the parking lot owner's ability to enjoy and profit from the ownership of their property? An unseen, and completely harmless item, inside a locked vehicle, is about the most extreme example of something that does not harm anyone or infringe on anyone's rights. I think the idea that I should be able to ban such items, from such places, is taking "property rights" to an illogical extreme. I don't like Hillary Clinton, but I also don't think I should be able to ban Hillary for President signs from people's cars if they keep them locked up and unseen. It is illogical to think that the mere presence of something I personally dislike harms me somehow.

I think this is just an example of some people trying to have control over the personal decisions and behavior of other people. If those decisions and behaviors do not harm you in some real way, then I'm sorry, but you should just mind your own business, IMHO.