Search found 6 matches

by Soccerdad1995
Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:29 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit
Replies: 56
Views: 13288

Re: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit

G40yes wrote:
We have a conflict of some extremely fundamental rights here. The right to life (means for self defense) vs the right to the pursuit of happiness (which was originally stated as the right to private property ownership). It is clear that neither right cannot be summarily disregarded, given the underlying importance of each. Rather, a balance needs to be struck ...
Soccerdad, I like the thoughts that you laid out. Since IANAL there could be many complications that I don't see right now, but I still like what you described.
The more I think about it, I really struggle to understand how the property owners rights are infringed at all by one of their guests having a concealed handgun. The property owner has the right to the enjoyment and profit from ownership of their home, store, factory, etc. I really struggle to understand how these rights are diminished in any way by the presence of a handgun that they cannot see. To me, this is on the same level as having a guest in your home who didn't vote in the last election, likes to wear inappropriate swimming attire, or the other examples I noted. Since there is no infringement of rights to the property owner, as long as the handgun is concealed, I just have a hard time justifying an infringement on the rights of their guests to keep and bear arms.

Now if the gun is openly displayed, then the math potentially changes significantly. In that case, there is a possibility that a store owner would not be able to profit as much from their property ownership as some customers could be scared away, or a homeowner could have a panic attack and not feel secure in their home. Yes, the underlying "harm" would be dependent on irrational phobias being present in others, but at least there would be some potential for harm / infringement of private property rights. Of course, even then a simple request for the person to leave could still eliminate any potential harm, unless the armed person refused to leave.

This lack of any real harm to the property owner makes it really hard for me to justify infringement of basic human rights in response.
by Soccerdad1995
Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:22 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit
Replies: 56
Views: 13288

Re: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit

Here are my thoughts on the "property rights vs RKBA" topic.

We have a conflict of some extremely fundamental rights here. The right to life (means for self defense) vs the right to the pursuit of happiness (which was originally stated as the right to private property ownership). It is clear that neither right cannot be summarily disregarded, given the underlying importance of each. Rather, a balance needs to be struck.

I propose that we grant private property owners the right to restrict access to their property to only invited guests, and further that if the property owner changes their mind after inviting someone and wants them to leave at any time, they should have the right to insist that the offending person does exactly that, and leaves in an expeditious manner.

But I don't think that a property owner should be able to restrict the fundamental freedoms of their guests while the guest is on their property. I disagree with the notion that a private property owner should be able to limit access only to those who have (or have not) voted in the last election, through signage or otherwise. If that fact is discovered by the property owner after the person is on their property, he/she can ask the guest to leave, but we should not be allowing business owners to have people arrested simply because they exercised their right to vote. I feel the same way about not being able to have a guest arrested because you discover that they tweeted something negative about your business, even if you warn them with a clearly worded sign, that this behavior means they are not welcome. Same thing with finding out that one of your guests likes to put Ketchup on their hot dogs. Ask them to leave if it bothers you, but you shouldn't be able to have them arrested, no matter how much this culinary abomination offends your very sensibilities. Find out that your friends dad wore a speedo on his summer vacation? Kick him the heck out of your house. But, again, you should not be able to have him arrested. Even if you have a sign by your front door that clearly says "anyone who has ever wore a speedo in public is forbidden from entering this building".

And of course, the same goes for someone who is exercising their right to keep and bear arms. If you discover that they have the gall to not want to be a defenseless victim, and it rightly bothers you, then ask your guest to leave. But no, you should not be able to have them arrested for this, anymore than any of the other things I listed above, which have equal impact to a property owner as someone who is carrying a concealed weapon. Apart from potentially offending one's sensibilities, there is essentially no real impact at all.

Now of course, if you insist that someone leave and they refuse to do so, then and only then should you be able to use our tax payer dollars to have LEO's take care of the situation.
by Soccerdad1995
Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:52 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit
Replies: 56
Views: 13288

Re: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit

CZp10 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
It's a good thing that 30.06 signs don't apply to VESP's.
Well, we don’t really know what a VESP is, the law is so vague. Also a VESP is not exempt nor can they say the sign does not apply. It does apply and you are not exempt, language like that would have to be spelled out in the law, you can still be arrested and charged. The law simply gives you a “defense to prosecution” that your lawyer can use. Most importantly it does not give you any actual immunity from the state or any civil litigation. HB435 is brand new and hasn’t been tested in court, so no one can say what it means. I just can’t believe we just accept that fact that states like California don’t allow no gun signs to carry the force of law but Texas does. If you pull out a gun in a 30.06 establishment, then claim VESP, don’t be surprised if the prosecutor goes after you anyway, and the store as well as any customers can sue you and point to the 30.06 sign as a reason. I would very much hope you prevail in court, but don’t assume it.
A lot to address in such a short post. I'll start with the last part. If anyone "pulls out a gun" without an immediate justification for the use of deadly force, or at a gun range, then that person should be taking a trip to the local PD regardless of whether there is any sign. Hopefully you weren't referencing actually drawing a weapon. While technically, not a 30.06 violation since the gun wouldn't be concealed, this is nevertheless a very bad idea and would run afoul of other laws. I'm actually not sure what you meant by that part since you say 30.06 and not 30.07. Did you really mean to refer to someone drawing their weapon?

Personally, I don't think the law on VESP's is vague. It very clearly says that a VESP has a defense to prosecution. Are you referring to the definition of a VESP as being vague? I agree that this could be seen as a bit vague since it references someone who "performs services for the public good" (going from memory here). How often do you need to have provided services, what exactly qualifies as a "service for the public good"? There definitely could be some questions here if the only "service" one ever performed was to make a $10 donation to the Red Cross. But I think you could see clear cut cases here. It does seem pretty clear that the law isn't referencing someone who is paid for performing such services (not to say that same person couldn't also volunteer in their spare time).

As far as exempt vs defense to prosecution, yes you do have a point there. I suppose one could be arrested, face a grand jury, and held without bail pending trial for a suspected 30.06 violation. That could happen whether one was exempt, or had a defense to prosecution, or even if there was no evidence of any crime at all. It could happen. But the likelihood of any type of a "ride" for an offense that carries a max $200 fine is so low as to be approaching non-existent. When the DA is considering whether it makes sense to mount a full prosecution including an extensive investigation to disapprove your claims of volunteer service acts, hopefully someone will remind him/her that they are prosecuting the equivalent of a speeding ticket, and they will realize they are being an idiot. In the extremely unlikely event that you are discovered to be carrying and you are confronted by LEO's, I would guess that you will either be asked to leave, as we saw recently in the Austin bakery incident, or a citation will be issued, which you will then decide whether to fight in court.

My whole point is that 30.06 signage applies to a very small segment of the population who might be carrying defensive weapons, and for that segment, it only applies to certain weapons (handguns). With the passage of recent legislation, the affected sub-segment has gotten even smaller.
by Soccerdad1995
Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:28 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit
Replies: 56
Views: 13288

Re: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit

rotor wrote:VESP's. What's that? Someone forced this woman to shop at IKEA? Abraham is right.
VESP = Voluntary Emergency Service Personnel. One of many categories of folks that 30.06 signs do not apply to. This criminal was probably in another excluded class (non-LTC holders). The signs also don't apply to anyone who is carrying something other than a handgun. And in full disclosure, the sign at this particular business didn't apply to anyone because apparently it is non-compliant in the first place. I'm just saying that 30.06 signs are not a complete ban on the carrying of defensive weapons for a lot of folks. Yes that would hurt the legal argument if you were to file suit.

And I agree with you and Abraham that we should not give our business to store owners who care so little for our well being that they would intentionally put their customers at increased risk of injury / death by posting any type of sign that discourages self defense while encouraging criminal assaults.
by Soccerdad1995
Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:02 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit
Replies: 56
Views: 13288

Re: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit

TreyHouston wrote:
GreenMan0352 wrote:
John Galt wrote:
Salty1 wrote:
CZp10 wrote:This is why everyone should sue any business with a 30.06 sign. They are intentionally drawing crime to their businesses, and they choose to provide no security even though they have stopped you from defending yourself. Enough law suits will change that.
What makes you think one would be sucessful with such a suit?

Probably not, but it would at least it would draw attention that the business is putting their customers in harm's way.
I can understand a business putting up a 3007 sign, but a 3006 is a sore spot with me. I can look for another place to spend my money.
Same here. Some people are uncomfortable with firearms so I can understand a business putting up a 30.07 bulletin but 30.06 really? How can they get offended if they don't know?
Buisness owners who make this decision offend me, can I ban THEM if I want to shop there?
:iagree: It's a good thing that 30.06 signs don't apply to VESP's.
by Soccerdad1995
Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:01 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit
Replies: 56
Views: 13288

Re: Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit

GreenMan0352 wrote:
John Galt wrote:
Salty1 wrote:
CZp10 wrote:This is why everyone should sue any business with a 30.06 sign. They are intentionally drawing crime to their businesses, and they choose to provide no security even though they have stopped you from defending yourself. Enough law suits will change that.
What makes you think one would be sucessful with such a suit?

Probably not, but it would at least it would draw attention that the business is putting their customers in harm's way.
I can understand a business putting up a 3007 sign, but a 3006 is a sore spot with me. I can look for another place to spend my money.
Same here. Some people are uncomfortable with firearms so I can understand a business putting up a 30.07 bulletin but 30.06 really? How can they get offended if they don't know?
IANAL, but I think the argument would be that by requiring customers to disarm, the store took away the means for the customer to prevent or minimize injury from a foreseeable risk. It would be a better case if the victim actually had an LTC, had left their gun in the car before being assaulted in the store / parking lot, and the store had a documented history of these types of crimes but did not hire sufficient security.

Basically, the store owners should be liable if they choose to do something that increases the likelihood of injury / death from a forseeable risk and then do nothing to mitigate that risk. Kind of like if I invite you into my home, and require you to remove your shoes if you want to stay, then have you follow me across the newly waxed kitchen floor. By taking away your shoes (with traction), I have increased the likelihood of you falling on my newly waxed floor (forseeable risk). Or if I tell your kid that he can't wear his protective helmet before getting on the trampoline in my back yard, and he proceeds to crack open his skull.

The key would be getting a jury to see that banning guns increases the customer's risk. A tall order, especially in a city like Houston where we have a lot of people believing that the presence of any guns always increases risk.

Return to “Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit”