Employers banning guns in parking lots

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 21
Posts: 9004
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#61

Post by mojo84 » Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:22 pm

Many do not make a distinction between rights and entitlements. We seem to be living in the most entitled times which I can recall.

Rights, like morals, ethics and principles, shouldn't be subject to change based upon the culture or circumstances.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#62

Post by KLB » Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:23 pm

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.

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 21
Posts: 9004
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#63

Post by mojo84 » Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:34 pm

Here's a good piece that may help.

https://fee.org/articles/rights-versus-entitlements/

Here is a snippet. The advise piece odd worth reading.
Many people today speak of rights. We hear of rights not just to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but to a host of other things as well, including rights to employment, education, a certain level of income, a certain quality of housing, race and gender representation in the workplace, freedom from economic insecurity, and health care. Often these claims are made on behalf of some group; thus we hear of women’s rights, the rights of minorities qua minorities, the rights of gays and lesbians, the elderly, children, the handicapped, and sometimes even the rights of animals. Usually a careful appraisal of what the advocates for these various groups are saying indicates their belief that their rights can be fulfilled only by acts of government. Hence they petition the government for new laws or other favors.

If we consider the original rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it should be clear that there are massive differences between those rights and these new ones. The original rights were rights to live by one’s personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government. That is what the founders of the United States were declaring independence from, after all. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the right to pursue happiness; it does not offer a guarantee that one will achieve happiness. This makes all the difference in the world; for in a free society there can be no guarantee that effort will meet with success.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 3903
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#64

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:34 pm

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.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 21
Posts: 9004
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#65

Post by mojo84 » Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:36 pm

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.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

User avatar

mloamiller
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:49 pm
Location: Grand Prairie, TX

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#66

Post by mloamiller » Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:39 pm

TXBO wrote:
So if the TX legislature proposed a bill that forbid commercial businesses from posting 30.06 but still allowed 30.07, would you support it?
I certainly would. Assuming a license is required, I would like to see all restrictions on concealed carry removed. If Texas ever moves to constitutional carry (i.e. no license required), I might re-think that, however.
LTC/SSC Instructor
NRA Pistol Instructor, RSO
IDPA SO


gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#67

Post by gljjt » Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:41 pm

TXBO wrote:
So if the TX legislature proposed a bill that forbid commercial businesses from posting 30.06 but still allowed 30.07, would you support it?
We should differentiate between "forbid" and "unenforceable". I would never support forbidding a sign, that's a slippery slope I don't want to travel.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 3903
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#68

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:45 pm

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.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


TXBO
Banned
Posts in topic: 27
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:02 pm

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#69

Post by TXBO » Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:47 pm

gljjt wrote:
TXBO wrote:
Keith B wrote:
TXBO wrote:
Keith B wrote:
TXBO wrote:
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? :confused5
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.
So if the TX legislature proposed a bill that forbid commercial businesses from posting 30.06 but still allowed 30.07, would you support it?
We should differentiate between "forbid" and "unenforceable". I would never support forbidding a sign, that's a slippery slope I don't want tho travel.
Forbid. Just like publicly owned property. The signs without the penal code are meaningless. What's the peril?


gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#70

Post by gljjt » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:03 pm

TXBO wrote:
gljjt wrote:
TXBO wrote:
Keith B wrote:
TXBO wrote:
Keith B wrote:
TXBO wrote:
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? :confused5
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.
So if the TX legislature proposed a bill that forbid commercial businesses from posting 30.06 but still allowed 30.07, would you support it?
We should differentiate between "forbid" and "unenforceable". I would never support forbidding a sign, that's a slippery slope I don't want tho travel.
Forbid. Just like publicly owned property. The signs without the penal code are meaningless. What's the peril?
Do you really want the government tho tell you what you can't say? We can forbid, under penalty of law, on public property. We shouldn't forbid on private property. We should be able to post whatever we want on private property, it just may not be enforcable. "Forbidding" the contents on a sign on private property is a violation of 1st amendment rights. Making the sign unenforceable is not.

The peril is government control of free speech, the precedent.


gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#71

Post by gljjt » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:05 pm

As Antonin Scalia said, "words have meaning". Forbid is the wrong word.


TXBO
Banned
Posts in topic: 27
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:02 pm

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#72

Post by TXBO » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:12 pm

gljjt wrote:

Do you really want the government tho tell you what you can't say? We can forbid, under penalty of law, on public property. We shouldn't forbid on private property. We should be able to post whatever we want on private property, it just may not be enforcable. "Forbidding" the contents on a sign on private property is a violation of 1st amendment rights. Making the sign unenforceable is not.

The peril is government control of free speech, the precedent.
I'm ok with the government telling commercial business that they can't post dishonest, intimidating signs on private property.

30.06 lists concealed carry on that premise as trespassing. Unless the trespass is removed, the sign can't be considered unenforceable. It would then be a dishonest sign meant to intimidate.


TXBO
Banned
Posts in topic: 27
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:02 pm

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#73

Post by TXBO » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:14 pm

gljjt wrote:As Antonin Scalia said, "words have meaning". Forbid is the wrong word.
Should gas stations be allowed to advertise .99/gal and then charge you $2.49?


gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#74

Post by gljjt » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:19 pm

TXBO wrote:
gljjt wrote:

Do you really want the government tho tell you what you can't say? We can forbid, under penalty of law, on public property. We shouldn't forbid on private property. We should be able to post whatever we want on private property, it just may not be enforcable. "Forbidding" the contents on a sign on private property is a violation of 1st amendment rights. Making the sign unenforceable is not.

The peril is government control of free speech, the precedent.
I'm ok with the government telling commercial business that they can't post dishonest, intimidating signs on private property.

30.06 lists concealed carry on that premise as trespassing. Unless the trespass is removed, the sign can't be considered unenforceable. It would then be a dishonest sign meant to intimidate.
The point is, you don't outlaw the sign, you make it unenforcible by statute. It then has the same power as the gun buster sign has today. Or an 8.5x11 30.06 sign. So the sign is meaningless. And you haven't infringed on my right to say what I want. I don't want the government controlling what I can and cannot post.


gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#75

Post by gljjt » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:24 pm

TXBO wrote:
gljjt wrote:As Antonin Scalia said, "words have meaning". Forbid is the wrong word.
Should gas stations be allowed to advertise .99/gal and then charge you $2.49?
Of course not. You are comparing apples and oranges. If they advertise .99 and charge 2.49 you have been defrauded and wronged. If you don't like what I post on my property, if it is not legally enforceable, you haven't been harmed. Ignore it.

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”