The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
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.Soccerdad1995 wrote:A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc
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.
I never said these were rights that are mentioned in the constitution. Not sure where you are getting that from.KLB wrote: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.Soccerdad1995 wrote:A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc
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.
Are they Rights or entitlements? You may find the article I posted just before your last post of interest.Soccerdad1995 wrote:I never said these were rights that are mentioned in the constitution. Not sure where you are getting that from.KLB wrote: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.Soccerdad1995 wrote:A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc
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 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.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.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?
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.mojo84 wrote:Are they Rights or entitlements? You may find the article I posted just before your last post of interest.Soccerdad1995 wrote:I never said these were rights that are mentioned in the constitution. Not sure where you are getting that from.KLB wrote: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.Soccerdad1995 wrote:A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc
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.
Forbid. Just like publicly owned property. The signs without the penal code are meaningless. What's the peril?gljjt wrote: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.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?Keith B wrote: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.TXBO wrote:Not at all. Requiring concealment denies neither the right to "keep" or "bear" arms.Keith B wrote: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 wrote:
I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.
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.TXBO wrote:Forbid. Just like publicly owned property. The signs without the penal code are meaningless. What's the peril?gljjt wrote: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.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?Keith B wrote: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.TXBO wrote:Not at all. Requiring concealment denies neither the right to "keep" or "bear" arms.Keith B wrote: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 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 ok with the government telling commercial business that they can't post dishonest, intimidating signs on private property.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.
Should gas stations be allowed to advertise .99/gal and then charge you $2.49?gljjt wrote:As Antonin Scalia said, "words have meaning". Forbid is the wrong word.
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.TXBO wrote:I'm ok with the government telling commercial business that they can't post dishonest, intimidating signs on private property.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.
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.
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.TXBO wrote:Should gas stations be allowed to advertise .99/gal and then charge you $2.49?gljjt wrote:As Antonin Scalia said, "words have meaning". Forbid is the wrong word.
