Employers banning guns in parking lots

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


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

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#76

Post by TXBO » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:29 pm

gljjt wrote:
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.
The point is, commercial business shouldn't be allowed to intimidate law abiding citizens with penal code that doesn't exist.

Freedom of speech doesn't give you immunity from accountability from dishonest statements. If you want to post a similar sign that lets people know that concealed carry is not welcome, that's just fine. But you can't use a threat of penal code that doesn't exist.


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

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#77

Post by TXBO » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:32 pm

gljjt wrote:
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.
So you're ok with public property posting unenforceable signs to intimidate concealed carriers from carrying? Ignore it.....No harm, right?


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

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#78

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:42 pm

I for one would love to see 30.06 signage language stricken from Texas statutes. I continue to believe that we should just rely on general trespass laws for this. If a business owner does not want me on their property and tells me to leave, then I should leave. But it is none of their business what I have beneath my clothing.

I'm not sure that I really care about punishing a business that then posts a sign which is then invalid. Sure, they are making a false statement since the sign would say it is illegal for an LTC holder to carry there, when it would not in fact be illegal to do so, but we have that exact same situation now and I don't view it as a major problem. There are plenty of businesses posting signs with full 30.06 wording but with letters that are too small. Aren't they also making a false statement by doing so? Same thing for businesses that still have signs up with the "old" wording.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


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

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#79

Post by gljjt » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:44 pm

TXBO wrote:
gljjt wrote:
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.
The point is, commercial business shouldn't be allowed to intimidate law abiding citizens with penal code that doesn't exist.

Freedom of speech doesn't give you immunity from accountability from dishonest statements. If you want to post a similar sign that lets people know that concealed carry is not welcome, that's just fine. But you can't use a threat of penal code that doesn't exist.
If the 30.06 is unenforceable by statute, it is no different than any other unenforceable no guns sign or symbol. You haven't been harmed. You know the code. Ignore the sign. Just because it has more "official" looking words than a no guns sign, doesn't make it any more valid for a LTC holder. And yes, free speech does give me immunity from dishonest statements (not that I intentionally make any) that don't cause harm. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech, or...". Nothing in there limiting what I say. If it doesn't truly harm others it's permitted.

I don't want Uncle Sam telling me what I can't say on my own property, commercial or otherwise. If you don't agree, then we disagree.


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

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#80

Post by gljjt » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:50 pm

TXBO wrote:
gljjt wrote:
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.
So you're ok with public property posting unenforceable signs to intimidate concealed carriers from carrying? Ignore it.....No harm, right?
No, I'm not. Public property doesn't have a constitutional right to free speech. I do. Owners make property decisions. Public property is owned by all the people and the decision on what is posted / happens with that property is collective. The public doesn't have a say on private property speech if it doesn't harm the public.

You are ok with the government telling you what you can't say? So your church has to take down its Jesus saves sign in front of the church if the city council says so?


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

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#81

Post by TXBO » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:53 pm

gljjt wrote:
TXBO wrote:
gljjt wrote:
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.
The point is, commercial business shouldn't be allowed to intimidate law abiding citizens with penal code that doesn't exist.

Freedom of speech doesn't give you immunity from accountability from dishonest statements. If you want to post a similar sign that lets people know that concealed carry is not welcome, that's just fine. But you can't use a threat of penal code that doesn't exist.
If the 30.06 is unenforceable by statute, it is no different than any other unenforceable no guns sign or symbol. You haven't been harmed. You know the code. Ignore the sign. Just because it has more "official" looking words than a no guns sign, doesn't make it any more valid for a LTC holder. And yes, free speech does give me immunity from dishonest statements (not that I intentionally make any) that don't cause harm. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech, or...". Nothing in there limiting what I say. If it doesn't truly harm others it's permitted.

I don't want Uncle Sam telling me what I can't say on my own property, commercial or otherwise. If you don't agree, then we disagree.
You're assuming that financial loss is the only harm that should be punished. I don't agree with that. Following your philosophy, we shouldn't fine municipalities for nonenforceable 30.06's because nobody was harmed.


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

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#82

Post by TXBO » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:58 pm

gljjt wrote:
TXBO wrote:
gljjt wrote:
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.
So you're ok with public property posting unenforceable signs to intimidate concealed carriers from carrying? Ignore it.....No harm, right?
No, I'm not. Public property doesn't have a constitutional right to free speech. I do. Owners make property decisions. Public property is owned by all the people and the decision on what is posted / happens with that property is collective. The public doesn't have a say on private property speech if it doesn't harm the public.

You are ok with the government telling you what you can't say? So your church has to take down its Jesus saves sign in front of the church if the city council says so?
No, you're litmus test was "harm". Nobody has been harmed.


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

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#83

Post by TXBO » Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:03 pm

gljjt wrote:
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.
As long as you were informed of the new price before you fueled up, there was no harm. Get in your car and drive on..... Ignore it.

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

#84

Post by mojo84 » Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:30 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
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.
Just more evidence of the "entitlement" society in which we live today. Because words have meaning.
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.


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

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#85

Post by gljjt » Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:47 pm

TXBO wrote:
gljjt wrote:
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.
As long as you were informed of the new price before you fueled up, there was no harm. Get in your car and drive on..... Ignore it.
I wasnt clear on this one. I DO have a problem with the pricing example. You would be harmed. When I said "if it is not legally enforceable, you haven't been harmed. Ignore it." I was referring to the 30.06 sign part of the discussion. Sorry, my English language conjugation wasnt clear! The 30.06 example, the harm, if any is too difficult to quantify, to subjective.

BTW, some people feel "harmed" if they see anything religious. I think they need thicker skin. But that's a discussion for another day.


glock27
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:18 pm

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#86

Post by glock27 » Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:50 pm

they can make a policy saying that your not allowed to wear green underwear, but unless I go around telling everyone that I'm wearing green underwear or my green underwear shows cause I want to play poke'mon and sag my pants, then no one will know the better. ps I only read page 1
"Dont rush me, i get paid by the hour"
Mailed 7-5-10
9-16-10 PLASTIC!


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#87

Post by srothstein » Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:04 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I for one would love to see 30.06 signage language stricken from Texas statutes. I continue to believe that we should just rely on general trespass laws for this. If a business owner does not want me on their property and tells me to leave, then I should leave. But it is none of their business what I have beneath my clothing.
I am glad of the wording of the 30.06 law and its application instead of the general trespass law applying. If we did not have 30.06 (and 30.07), then an owner could ban guns with just a little sticker that says no guns, your traditional pistol with a red slash sticker would do. OK, the sticker might need to be posted in a more conspicuous manner than most did, but it would be legal and enforceable. This would not be nearly as good for LTCs.
Steve Rothstein


Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#88

Post by Scott Farkus » Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:20 pm

srothstein wrote:I am glad of the wording of the 30.06 law and its application instead of the general trespass law applying. If we did not have 30.06 (and 30.07), then an owner could ban guns with just a little sticker that says no guns, your traditional pistol with a red slash sticker would do. OK, the sticker might need to be posted in a more conspicuous manner than most did, but it would be legal and enforceable. This would not be nearly as good for LTCs.
Why does a gunbuster sign have to be legally enforceable absent 30.06/30.07? Why can't we carve out a trespassing exception for licensed carriers? Or, if you prefer, don't make carrying, or anything for that matter, become criminal trespassing unless you have been asked to leave and refuse.


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

Re: Employers banning guns in parking lots

#89

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:40 pm

mojo84 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
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.
Just more evidence of the "entitlement" society in which we live today. Because words have meaning.
I agree that words have meaning, and I also agree that the word "entitlement" is abused. Personally, I dislike that word because it implies that we collectively have no choice to deny the entitlement. I also dislike the word "need" because it implies that one cannot choose to do without the thing they "need". Needs can only exist if one first makes a choice. Do you need food, water, or oxygen? Only if you want to live. If there were a limited supply of any of those things, you could choose to not use them (so your kids might have a better shot at survival, etc)., so they are not in fact needs. Just things that facilitate a want.

I just honestly don't fully see how this discussion relates to the topic of the thread, or even the side track on finding a balance between people's interests that are in conflict. Clean air may not technically be a right, and it dang sure ain't a need, but I still think that we should restrict a private property owner from polluting the heck out of the air we all breath. We still need to find a balance, regardless of the terminology that we choose to use.
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

#90

Post by mojo84 » Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:49 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
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.
Just more evidence of the "entitlement" society in which we live today. Because words have meaning.
I agree that words have meaning, and I also agree that the word "entitlement" is abused. Personally, I dislike that word because it implies that we collectively have no choice to deny the entitlement. I also dislike the word "need" because it implies that one cannot choose to do without the thing they "need". Needs can only exist if one first makes a choice. Do you need food, water, or oxygen? Only if you want to live. If there were a limited supply of any of those things, you could choose to not use them (so your kids might have a better shot at survival, etc)., so they are not in fact needs. Just things that facilitate a want.

I just honestly don't fully see how this discussion relates to the topic of the thread, or even the side track on finding a balance between people's interests that are in conflict. Clean air may not technically be a right, and it dang sure ain't a need, but I still think that we should restrict a private property owner from polluting the heck out of the air we all breath. We still need to find a balance, regardless of the terminology that we choose to use.
You are the one that keeps talking about unrelated issues such as pollution and such. Now you've introduced another off-topic issue such as "needs".

Bottom line, you do not have a right to enter my privately owned property unless you agree to meet with my terms of entry. I can set the terms as I wish with the exception of a few protected classes.

You are entitled to enter my property as long as you meet my terms. Therefore, it is a privilege and not a right to enter my business. Entitlements and privileges can be revoked by others, rights cannot.

Nothing says you have to enter my property. It's not my problem you may be inconvenienced.
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.

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”