TexasCHLforum.com

infoman wrote:I disagree with your post. you as the consumer shouldn't shop there/eat there if you don't like them posting a 30.06/30.07 sign.

No, it's very often infeasible to simply "go somewhere else." I hate it when people say this.

Ruark,

I don't understand your perspective.

When I encounter a 30.06 posted business, where I have a choice, (not to include voting places, hospitals, etc.) my alternative is to go elsewhere.

Right?

Not right?

Please elaborate.

I'm not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand, as seeking an alternative business that's not posted is, as far as I know, my only other choice if I won't disarm.

So, what am I not understanding?

Or, perhaps, you're saying businesses shouldn't have the right to post 30.06?

O.K., color me confused.

Thanks!

Abraham wrote:Ruark,

I don't understand your perspective.

When I encounter a 30.06 posted business, where I have a choice, (not to include voting places, hospitals, etc.) my alternative is to go elsewhere.

Right?

Not right?

Please elaborate.

I'm not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand, as seeking an alternative business that's not posted is, as far as I know, my only other choice if I won't disarm.

So, what am I not understanding?

Or, perhaps, you're saying businesses shouldn't have the right to post 30.06?

O.K., color me confused.

Thanks!

Sigh... some people take it upon themselves to be confused. A good place to start would be reading my post. I said it's not always feasible to just "go somewhere else," like you just drove 20 miles with your wife to eat, and there's an 06 sign and the only other choice is on the other side of town, or it's 110 degrees outside and traffic's jammed and you're exhausted and hungry. So if you want to get back into your car and drive around "seeking an alternative business," knock yourself out.

I think we need to strike a balance between property rights and individual rights. The real question we are all debating is about where we draw that line.

There are those who assert that property rights should be absolute. That I should be able to tell visitors that they can only come onto my property if they are willing to give up certain of their rights. Taken to its' extreme, this position would allow me to compel a handyman to submit to a strip search (to ensure that he does not steal anything) as a condition of entry into my home. If he agrees (by walking past a sign giving notice, or otherwise), presumably I could use agents of the state to compel the search under threat of arrest. Another example would be forcing visitors to give up their RKBA as a condition of entry to my property, again under the threat of arrest. I'm sure we could all come up with other examples besides these from the fourth and second amendments.

Personally, I think we should try for a balance between these competing rights instead on treating the rights of one party as absolute to the detriment of the rights of another party. I advocate that a property owner should have the absolute right to limit entry to their property to only those people they choose. I further believe that a property owner should be able to later change their mind and order any previously invited visitor to leave, for any reason whatsoever. If anyone eithers enters after being told not to, or stays after being told to leave, then the property owner should be able to seek the assistance of LEO to help enforce their wishes. I think this strikes a balance that is very much in favor of the rights of property owners.

Where I disagree with current law is that I do not believe a property owner should be able to preemptively restrict the rights of people they have invited onto their property, under threat of arrest, when the exercise of those rights does not directly harm the property owner, or anyone else, and isn't even evident to anyone other than the visitor themselves. This applies to more than just the RKBA. I also should not be able to have you arrested because you have previously exercised your first amendment rights by speaking in favor of something I oppose. If I discover this, maybe because you are wearing an "I'm with her" button, then I should be able to tell you to leave, but you should only be subject to arrest if you refuse to actually leave.

Russell wrote:

Ruark wrote: Sigh... some people take it upon themselves to be confused. A good place to start would be reading my post. I said it's not always feasible to just "go somewhere else," like you just drove 20 miles with your wife to eat, and there's an 06 sign and the only other choice is on the other side of town, or it's 110 degrees outside and traffic's jammed and you're exhausted and hungry. So if you want to get back into your car and drive around "seeking an alternative business," knock yourself out.

Get the 30.06 app and you'll no longer have to be surprised at signage. Problem solved AND you get to vote with your dollars.

http://www.texas3006app.com

That app is extremely useful.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I think we need to strike a balance between property rights and individual rights. The real question we are all debating is about where we draw that line.

There are those who assert that property rights should be absolute. That I should be able to tell visitors that they can only come onto my property if they are willing to give up certain of their rights. Taken to its' extreme, this position would allow me to compel a handyman to submit to a strip search (to ensure that he does not steal anything) as a condition of entry into my home. If he agrees (by walking past a sign giving notice, or otherwise), presumably I could use agents of the state to compel the search under threat of arrest. Another example would be forcing visitors to give up their RKBA as a condition of entry to my property, again under the threat of arrest. I'm sure we could all come up with other examples besides these from the fourth and second amendments.

Personally, I think we should try for a balance between these competing rights instead on treating the rights of one party as absolute to the detriment of the rights of another party. I advocate that a property owner should have the absolute right to limit entry to their property to only those people they choose. I further believe that a property owner should be able to later change their mind and order any previously invited visitor to leave, for any reason whatsoever. If anyone eithers enters after being told not to, or stays after being told to leave, then the property owner should be able to seek the assistance of LEO to help enforce their wishes. I think this strikes a balance that is very much in favor of the rights of property owners.

Where I disagree with current law is that I do not believe a property owner should be able to preemptively restrict the rights of people they have invited onto their property, under threat of arrest, when the exercise of those rights does not directly harm the property owner, or anyone else, and isn't even evident to anyone other than the visitor themselves. This applies to more than just the RKBA. I also should not be able to have you arrested because you have previously exercised your first amendment rights by speaking in favor of something I oppose. If I discover this, maybe because you are wearing an "I'm with her" button, then I should be able to tell you to leave, but you should only be subject to arrest if you refuse to actually leave.

This is of course the question. I don't have the answer but in my mind I believe the right to self defense far outweighs a property owners right to decide who can or can not enter private property. After all, we live by the term Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. If you can not protect your life you have nothing. Property rights are important but not above the right to life, therefore the ability to defend ones self. So, in my mind if a property owner takes away my right to self defense he/she should provide for my defense.

rotor wrote:
This is of course the question. I don't have the answer but in my mind I believe the right to self defense far outweighs a property owners right to decide who can or can not enter private property. After all, we live by the term Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. If you can not protect your life you have nothing. Property rights are important but not above the right to life, therefore the ability to defend ones self. So, in my mind if a property owner takes away my right to self defense he/she should provide for my defense.

I have a novel idea. How about property owner's retain 100% of their rights to ask you to leave, but that the TX government quits providing a sign that makes it an automatic crime.

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I think we need to strike a balance between property rights and individual rights. The real question we are all debating is about where we draw that line.

There are those who assert that property rights should be absolute. That I should be able to tell visitors that they can only come onto my property if they are willing to give up certain of their rights. Taken to its' extreme, this position would allow me to compel a handyman to submit to a strip search (to ensure that he does not steal anything) as a condition of entry into my home. If he agrees (by walking past a sign giving notice, or otherwise), presumably I could use agents of the state to compel the search under threat of arrest. Another example would be forcing visitors to give up their RKBA as a condition of entry to my property, again under the threat of arrest. I'm sure we could all come up with other examples besides these from the fourth and second amendments.

Personally, I think we should try for a balance between these competing rights instead on treating the rights of one party as absolute to the detriment of the rights of another party. I advocate that a property owner should have the absolute right to limit entry to their property to only those people they choose. I further believe that a property owner should be able to later change their mind and order any previously invited visitor to leave, for any reason whatsoever. If anyone eithers enters after being told not to, or stays after being told to leave, then the property owner should be able to seek the assistance of LEO to help enforce their wishes. I think this strikes a balance that is very much in favor of the rights of property owners.

Where I disagree with current law is that I do not believe a property owner should be able to preemptively restrict the rights of people they have invited onto their property, under threat of arrest, when the exercise of those rights does not directly harm the property owner, or anyone else, and isn't even evident to anyone other than the visitor themselves. This applies to more than just the RKBA. I also should not be able to have you arrested because you have previously exercised your first amendment rights by speaking in favor of something I oppose. If I discover this, maybe because you are wearing an "I'm with her" button, then I should be able to tell you to leave, but you should only be subject to arrest if you refuse to actually leave.

This is of course the question. I don't have the answer but in my mind I believe the right to self defense far outweighs a property owners right to decide who can or can not enter private property. After all, we live by the term Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. If you can not protect your life you have nothing. Property rights are important but not above the right to life, therefore the ability to defend ones self. So, in my mind if a property owner takes away my right to self defense he/she should provide for my defense.

The problem with this argument, is that you are/were not compelled by law to enter the private property in question. Even if it a condition of employment, the argument could be made, that you could get another job. Therefore you always have the option of walking away.
Even agent's of the state are forbidden to enter private property without either the consent of the property owner, or after obtaining a warrant.

A person should have the option to decide what behavior, is tolerated on their property. That includes the carrying of firearms. The problem with the argument of having the right to life outweighing the rights of the property owner, comes down to the fact that, by not entering the property, your life is in no danger, so the property owner is under no obligation to protect you, if you choose to enter and follow the rules, by disarming.

The only place that I go where I really have no choice, is when I visit someone in a hospital. There is not another posted business, that I have run across, that I didn't have another option to take my money.

Jusme wrote:

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I think we need to strike a balance between property rights and individual rights. The real question we are all debating is about where we draw that line.

There are those who assert that property rights should be absolute. That I should be able to tell visitors that they can only come onto my property if they are willing to give up certain of their rights. Taken to its' extreme, this position would allow me to compel a handyman to submit to a strip search (to ensure that he does not steal anything) as a condition of entry into my home. If he agrees (by walking past a sign giving notice, or otherwise), presumably I could use agents of the state to compel the search under threat of arrest. Another example would be forcing visitors to give up their RKBA as a condition of entry to my property, again under the threat of arrest. I'm sure we could all come up with other examples besides these from the fourth and second amendments.

Personally, I think we should try for a balance between these competing rights instead on treating the rights of one party as absolute to the detriment of the rights of another party. I advocate that a property owner should have the absolute right to limit entry to their property to only those people they choose. I further believe that a property owner should be able to later change their mind and order any previously invited visitor to leave, for any reason whatsoever. If anyone eithers enters after being told not to, or stays after being told to leave, then the property owner should be able to seek the assistance of LEO to help enforce their wishes. I think this strikes a balance that is very much in favor of the rights of property owners.

Where I disagree with current law is that I do not believe a property owner should be able to preemptively restrict the rights of people they have invited onto their property, under threat of arrest, when the exercise of those rights does not directly harm the property owner, or anyone else, and isn't even evident to anyone other than the visitor themselves. This applies to more than just the RKBA. I also should not be able to have you arrested because you have previously exercised your first amendment rights by speaking in favor of something I oppose. If I discover this, maybe because you are wearing an "I'm with her" button, then I should be able to tell you to leave, but you should only be subject to arrest if you refuse to actually leave.

This is of course the question. I don't have the answer but in my mind I believe the right to self defense far outweighs a property owners right to decide who can or can not enter private property. After all, we live by the term Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. If you can not protect your life you have nothing. Property rights are important but not above the right to life, therefore the ability to defend ones self. So, in my mind if a property owner takes away my right to self defense he/she should provide for my defense.

The problem with this argument, is that you are/were not compelled by law to enter the private property in question. Even if it a condition of employment, the argument could be made, that you could get another job. Therefore you always have the option of walking away.
Even agent's of the state are forbidden to enter private property without either the consent of the property owner, or after obtaining a warrant.

A person should have the option to decide what behavior, is tolerated on their property. That includes the carrying of firearms. The problem with the argument of having the right to life outweighing the rights of the property owner, comes down to the fact that, by not entering the property, your life is in no danger, so the property owner is under no obligation to protect you, if you choose to enter and follow the rules, by disarming.

The only place that I go where I really have no choice, is when I visit someone in a hospital. There is not another posted business, that I have run across, that I didn't have another option to take my money.

Just to be devil's advocate, let's say you were concealed carrying outside a store that was posted and the sirens went off as a tornado was coming. You are on foot and have no car. The only shelter was that store. You have to make an immediate decision to save your life. Run into the store with your gun concealed and violate the property owner's rights, leave your gun on the street where little kids can play with it, stay outside and face the tornado. Doesn't your right to live exceed the property owner's rights in this case? I know it is a dumb example but one doesn't always have the ability to disarm before entering. Same with emergency entrance into a posted hospital, you may not have the ability to disarm before entering. The right to live exceeds all property rights. The state has already mandated that the rights of a property owner are definitely limited, disability act, gay-lesbians, etc. The mark for the state taking a human life though is much higher. Execution by the state is much harder to do than restricting property rights. Let's not even talk about eminent domain and property rights. All as devil's advocate as I bloviate.

Jusme wrote: The problem with this argument, is that you are/were not compelled by law to enter the private property in question. Even if it a condition of employment, the argument could be made, that you could get another job. Therefore you always have the option of walking away.
Even agent's of the state are forbidden to enter private property without either the consent of the property owner, or after obtaining a warrant.

A person should have the option to decide what behavior, is tolerated on their property. That includes the carrying of firearms. The problem with the argument of having the right to life outweighing the rights of the property owner, comes down to the fact that, by not entering the property, your life is in no danger, so the property owner is under no obligation to protect you, if you choose to enter and follow the rules, by disarming.

The only place that I go where I really have no choice, is when I visit someone in a hospital. There is not another posted business, that I have run across, that I didn't have another option to take my money.

Why must the State be obligated to use violence (police power) to enforce the property owner's wishes. If you don't want me to enter carrying concealed, put up a metal detector, and physically bar me from entry.

Cops carrying and employees carrying in their cars are already exempt from property owners wishes, at least as a matter of criminal law. If we can do it for employees, why not for the public otherwise invited to enter?

steveincowtown wrote:

rotor wrote:
This is of course the question. I don't have the answer but in my mind I believe the right to self defense far outweighs a property owners right to decide who can or can not enter private property. After all, we live by the term Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. If you can not protect your life you have nothing. Property rights are important but not above the right to life, therefore the ability to defend ones self. So, in my mind if a property owner takes away my right to self defense he/she should provide for my defense.

I have a novel idea. How about property owner's retain 100% of their rights to ask you to leave, but that the TX government quits providing a sign that makes it an automatic crime.

Property owners have never had 100% of their rights to ask you to leave. There are protected classes that will scream foul at the first hint of a violation of their rights. Unfortunately the ability to use a firearm to save your life does not put you into one of those protected classes. If Texas did not provide sign language than any gunbuster sign might be valid.

rotor wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

rotor wrote:
This is of course the question. I don't have the answer but in my mind I believe the right to self defense far outweighs a property owners right to decide who can or can not enter private property. After all, we live by the term Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. If you can not protect your life you have nothing. Property rights are important but not above the right to life, therefore the ability to defend ones self. So, in my mind if a property owner takes away my right to self defense he/she should provide for my defense.

I have a novel idea. How about property owner's retain 100% of their rights to ask you to leave, but that the TX government quits providing a sign that makes it an automatic crime.

Property owners have never had 100% of their rights to ask you to leave. There are protected classes that will scream foul at the first hint of a violation of their rights. Unfortunately the ability to use a firearm to save your life does not put you into one of those protected classes. If Texas did not provide sign language than any gunbuster sign might be valid.

Let's not confuse what the law should be with what the law is.

I support property rights going above and beyond current law, and agree with Steve that I should be able to ask anyone I want to leave my home, or my business as long as I actually own the property (not leased government owned property). I agree with you that various "protected" groups of special snowflakes will whine and cry about any attempts to change the law in this manner.

But I also think that property owners should not be able to use the government resources that we all jointly fund (LEO) to arrest me for trespass unless they have told me to leave. They should not be able to use these resources to limit how I exercise my rights when I am doing nothing offensive or harmful to them or anyone else (CC for one example). IMHO, current law gives property owners too many rights in this one regard.

I 100% agree with buisness owners rights. If a 30.06 sign is posted then ALL guns should not be alowed to enter, this should include LTC,LEOs and the owner himself. A gun is a gun is a gun....

rotor wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

rotor wrote:
This is of course the question. I don't have the answer but in my mind I believe the right to self defense far outweighs a property owners right to decide who can or can not enter private property. After all, we live by the term Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. If you can not protect your life you have nothing. Property rights are important but not above the right to life, therefore the ability to defend ones self. So, in my mind if a property owner takes away my right to self defense he/she should provide for my defense.

I have a novel idea. How about property owner's retain 100% of their rights to ask you to leave, but that the TX government quits providing a sign that makes it an automatic crime.

Property owners have never had 100% of their rights to ask you to leave. There are protected classes that will scream foul at the first hint of a violation of their rights. Unfortunately the ability to use a firearm to save your life does not put you into one of those protected classes. If Texas did not provide sign language than any gunbuster sign might be valid.

We've got lots of protected classes in the current 30.06/7 law, why not expand them. Right now 30.06/7 doesn't apply to cops, special investigators (Feds), or anyone else not carrying under LTC (MPA, traveling, sporting activities, hunting, etc.) It doesn't apply to employees, or anyone else carrying concealed in their car.

The only reason the criminal offense of 30.06/7 can't be eliminated is because the business lobby will oppose it in the Legislature. Similar to the Volunteer Church Security being opposed by the Private Security crony capitalists. There's really no legitimate property rights argument to criminalize concealed carry. Unless an "owner" takes action to prevent concealed carry like frisking, wanding, and metal detectors, why make a "sign" violation a criminal act. And as I've said before, 99% of the places that are off limits are "owned" by large diverse groups who likely couldn't even come to a consensus about CCW even if they cared. Why must I be concerned about what someone "with apparent authority" to act for the owners of ExxonMobil thinks? I'm a shareholder/owner and I never got a vote. And for the record, as an owner, I wish everyone to open and/or conceal carry on Exxon property should you so desire.