TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:

tbrown wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I agree with you, but I find no moral obligation for the People (through the government) to grant a criminal sanction, on someone carrying on your property. Especially if you don't even notice and it therefore has no bearing on your enjoyment or exercise of your right to do what you wish thereon. That's why there is no 30.06 criminal equivalent in most states. And even in Texas, you can't exercise your private property "rights" if the person "violating" them is a cop, or Fed, or your Employee in a car on your parking lot.

If the property owner tells an individual to leave, the individual should be legally obligated to depart. In addition, the penalty should be the same for all trespassers, including police if they don't have a valid warrant or exigent circumstances.

A person carrying a concealed gun should have no more or less rights than a person carrying a concealed rosary, a concealed cell phone, or with a concealed piercing.

A person openly carrying a gun should have no more or less rights than a person openly wearing the hijab, openly wearing an Obama shirt, or openly displaying their toes.

A person carrying a concealed gun has no more or less rights than a person carrying a concealed rosary, or cell phone or concealed piercing. But those rights do not exist on the property of an owner who has prohibited a concealed handgun, rosary or piercings on his property. There is no right to violate. In other words, those rights are limited with respect to the ownership sovereignty doctrine.

tex

thetexan wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Where in the Federal Constitution does it require that a State make it a criminal offense for you to do something that a property owner is not even aware of?

Natural (God given) rights? Most can be summed up by the Ten Commandments, and I don't recall the one about Thou Shall Not Carry a Hidden Sword... Maybe Moses dropped that one when he saw his People worshiping the golden calf.

You're confusing a belief that God has endowed you with certain rights and that those divinely endowed rights are what gives you the right to carry a gun (I also believe that, but it is just that, my belief and carries no legal weight in our democracy nor is it a part of the construction of the constitution. It may be the inspiration for but it is not the statutory language of it). It is the piece of paper called the constitution, as revealed to us by the venerable mystics sitting on the Supreme Bench, that gives us our defendable (in our democracy) rights.

The "what they don't know won't hurt them" argument is disingenuous if law abidance is the moral of the goal. You have no intrinsic right, divinely endowed or constitutionally bestowed, to enter upon another man's private property against his consent. And if "I'll have what I believe are my God given rights despite what any one says" is the mentality then that doesn't belong in a constitutional democracy. The battle was fought and won already, over 200 years ago....and the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC version of government won. I'm sure it was in all of the newspapers.

"One's right can not be claimed to have been infringed if one does not possess that right in the first place. ...", The Many Sayings of TheTexan, Vol. 2, pg 304