Employers banning guns in parking lots

[Jim Beaux]

A tangent regarding the tentative rights to 'ownership of property'.

Though you may believe you have clear title to your homestead, actually we dont, the state does; we must pay for the privilege to keep our property and ward off politicians wishing to seize it under imminent domain (for public/private development )

In Texas we dont own our property, but merely lease it via taxes.

And how in the name of private property rights can it be justified for a small business owner be forced to reserve 30% of his available parking for handicapped, and yet for a large retailer less than 10%?

[Keith B]

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.

I'm sorry, how is that different? If you are a true follower of the 2nd amendment, it states the right 'shall not be infringed'. How can you infringe on my right to bear arms in any method I choose? Sounds like you want it to be the way you want it, not per the constitution?

[TXBO]

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.

I'm sorry, how is that different? If you are a true follower of the 2nd amendment, it states the right 'shall not be infringed'. How can you infringe on my right to bear arms in any method I choose? Sounds like you want it to be the way you want it, not per the constitution?

Not at all. Requiring concealment denies neither the right to "keep" or "bear" arms.

[Keith B]

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.

I'm sorry, how is that different? If you are a true follower of the 2nd amendment, it states the right 'shall not be infringed'. How can you infringe on my right to bear arms in any method I choose? Sounds like you want it to be the way you want it, not per the constitution?

Not at all. Requiring concealment denies neither the right to "keep" or "bear" arms.

But trying to dictate my method of carry DOES infringe on my right. The 2nd amendment doesn't state 'licensed' individuals, so if I don't have a license I can't carry a pistol per state law. But I am allowed to carry my AR-15 without a license, so are you going to prohibit me carrying that on your porperty? That would infringe on my 2A right if you do. Dress code requirements are only legally enforceable in the manner that it violates health codes, so your logic doesn't stand. Sorry.

[bblhd672]

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.

[mojo84]

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.

Don't forget healthcare.

These discussions of which of one's rights trumps those of others.

[TXBO]

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.

I'm sorry, how is that different? If you are a true follower of the 2nd amendment, it states the right 'shall not be infringed'. How can you infringe on my right to bear arms in any method I choose? Sounds like you want it to be the way you want it, not per the constitution?

Not at all. Requiring concealment denies neither the right to "keep" or "bear" arms.

But trying to dictate my method of carry DOES infringe on my right. The 2nd amendment doesn't state 'licensed' individuals, so if I don't have a license I can't carry a pistol per state law. But I am allowed to carry my AR-15 without a license, so are you going to prohibit me carrying that on your porperty? That would infringe on my 2A right if you do. Dress code requirements are only legally enforceable in the manner that it violates health codes, so your logic doesn't stand. Sorry.

LOL! The lack of logic comes from laws that require licensing for law abiding citizens to carry a reasonable practical side arm while allowing the carry of long arms.

Dress codes may not be legally enforceable but service can certainly be denied for lack of compliance.

[bblhd672]

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.

Don't forget healthcare.

These discussions of which of one's rights trumps those of others.

And the nutcases, I mean professors, down at UT who are decrying the loss of their "right" to education.

[TXBO]

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.

I'm sorry, how is that different? If you are a true follower of the 2nd amendment, it states the right 'shall not be infringed'. How can you infringe on my right to bear arms in any method I choose? Sounds like you want it to be the way you want it, not per the constitution?

Not at all. Requiring concealment denies neither the right to "keep" or "bear" arms.

But trying to dictate my method of carry DOES infringe on my right. The 2nd amendment doesn't state 'licensed' individuals, so if I don't have a license I can't carry a pistol per state law. But I am allowed to carry my AR-15 without a license, so are you going to prohibit me carrying that on your porperty? That would infringe on my 2A right if you do. Dress code requirements are only legally enforceable in the manner that it violates health codes, so your logic doesn't stand. Sorry.

BTW... You do realize that a 30.07 has absolutely no bearing on your AR 15?

[Keith B]

LOL! The lack of logic comes from laws that require licensing for law abiding citizens to carry a reasonable a practical side arm while allowing the carry of long arms.

Dress codes may not be legally enforceable but service can certainly be denied for lack of compliance.

But you still seem to want it both ways. You want to restrict what you don't like, but want to force your view of what you believe is proper on your customers. Do you refuse service to someone who is wearing jeans, but allow only someone who is wearing slacks? How about refusing Wrangler jeans, but allow those wearing Levi's? It still falls down to what is allowed by law and what is not. Most times when people are refused service, they just go on and take their business elsewhere where they are welcomed. However, that does not mean they were not unjustly and maybe illegally refused service.

I for one am a very squeaky wheel. A recent example was when I purchased a specific brand of stain for my deck because of a manufacturer's rebate. I ended up buying the product at a big box store because they also had a store rebate on it. When I went to fill out the rebate form online from the manufacturer, it seemed to only allow one option of product purchased from a privately owned merchandiser, even when the rebate form never mentioned anything about it. i called the number for the rebate center and was 'rudely' informed they didn't honor the rebate on products that were purchased from chain stores and that NO company did. Well, I quickly decided to call the corporate customer service department and luckily got a very helpful rep who agreed with me that the rebate form was valid and that she would personally take care of processing my rebate outside of the center, as well as make sure they supervisor was informed that the rebate was valid for any retailer.

In the end, everyone has their opinions on what the 2nd means and doesn't, but any form of restriction of carrying firearms is IMO is an infringement for someone who legally owns and possesses such firearm.

[Keith B]

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.

I'm sorry, how is that different? If you are a true follower of the 2nd amendment, it states the right 'shall not be infringed'. How can you infringe on my right to bear arms in any method I choose? Sounds like you want it to be the way you want it, not per the constitution?

Not at all. Requiring concealment denies neither the right to "keep" or "bear" arms.

But trying to dictate my method of carry DOES infringe on my right. The 2nd amendment doesn't state 'licensed' individuals, so if I don't have a license I can't carry a pistol per state law. But I am allowed to carry my AR-15 without a license, so are you going to prohibit me carrying that on your porperty? That would infringe on my 2A right if you do. Dress code requirements are only legally enforceable in the manner that it violates health codes, so your logic doesn't stand. Sorry.

BTW... You do realize that a 30.07 has absolutely no bearing on your AR 15?

Uh, yeah, i am an instructor and have been a moderator on this and the Texas3006.com forum way longer than you have been a member here. 30.06 or 30.07 has no impact on any firearm period unless you are licensed, and the license only applies to handguns.

[TXBO]

LOL! The lack of logic comes from laws that require licensing for law abiding citizens to carry a reasonable a practical side arm while allowing the carry of long arms.

Dress codes may not be legally enforceable but service can certainly be denied for lack of compliance.

But you still seem to want it both ways. You want to restrict what you don't like, but want to force your view of what you believe is proper on your customers. Do you refuse service to someone who is wearing jeans, but allow only someone who is wearing slacks? How about refusing Wrangler jeans, but allow those wearing Levi's? It still falls down to what is allowed by law and what is not. Most times when people are refused service, they just go on and take their business elsewhere where they are welcomed. However, that does not mean they were not unjustly and maybe illegally refused service.

I for one am a very squeaky wheel. A recent example was when I purchased a specific brand of stain for my deck because of a manufacturer's rebate. I ended up buying the product at a big box store because they also had a store rebate on it. When I went to fill out the rebate form online from the manufacturer, it seemed to only allow one option of product purchased from a privately owned merchandiser, even when the rebate form never mentioned anything about it. i called the number for the rebate center and was 'rudely' informed they didn't honor the rebate on products that were purchased from chain stores and that NO company did. Well, I quickly decided to call the corporate customer service department and luckily got a very helpful rep who agreed with me that the rebate form was valid and that she would personally take care of processing my rebate outside of the center, as well as make sure they supervisor was informed that the rebate was valid for any retailer.

In the end, everyone has their opinions on what the 2nd means and doesn't, but any form of restriction of carrying firearms is IMO is an infringement for someone who legally owns and possesses such firearm.

1) I don't want it both ways. I merely have no problem with a 30.07 personally as long as there is no 30.06. I similarly would have no problem with a 30.06 as long as there is no 30.07 or verbal notice.

2) I've been many places that don't allow jeans. Been many places that require a jacket. I've never felt the need to challenge those rules legally. Probably never will. I have no intention of discussing the legality of them. That borders on the ridiculous to me.

3) I the end, I agree with you. I'm against all infringements on the grounds that they are useless laws that do nothing to stop crime.

[TXBO]

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.

I'm sorry, how is that different? If you are a true follower of the 2nd amendment, it states the right 'shall not be infringed'. How can you infringe on my right to bear arms in any method I choose? Sounds like you want it to be the way you want it, not per the constitution?

Not at all. Requiring concealment denies neither the right to "keep" or "bear" arms.

But trying to dictate my method of carry DOES infringe on my right. The 2nd amendment doesn't state 'licensed' individuals, so if I don't have a license I can't carry a pistol per state law. But I am allowed to carry my AR-15 without a license, so are you going to prohibit me carrying that on your porperty? That would infringe on my 2A right if you do. Dress code requirements are only legally enforceable in the manner that it violates health codes, so your logic doesn't stand. Sorry.

BTW... You do realize that a 30.07 has absolutely no bearing on your AR 15?

Uh, yeah, i am an instructor and have been a moderator on this and the Texas3006.com forum way longer than you have been a member here. 30.06 or 30.07 has no impact on any firearm period unless you are licensed, and the license only applies to handguns.

Then why bring up an AR15 when I mention 30.07?

Does my measured level of experience only begin with my registration here?

[gljjt]

Dress code requirements are only legally enforceable in the manner that it violates health codes, so your logic doesn't stand. Sorry.

I believe this is incorrect. An establishment can ask a person to leave for any reason that is not because they are a member of a protected class. Attire is not protected. Refuse to leave....criminal trespass. So, dress codes are enforceable. Try wearing a swimsuit to a fine dining establishment and see what happens.

[Txtension]

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.

The founding fathers thought about things like this and wrote the 9th amendment accordingly, to check the government.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.