TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:In some ways, "Gun Free" business's work in "gun folks" favor as the probability of criminals attempting to rob a "Guns Are Welcome" (if you will) business is considerably lowered.

Given this perspective, perhaps a few scattered "Gun Free" business's
are a good thing - it helps keep robbers localized to the anti-zone.

That's certainly food for thought.....

anygunanywhere wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I also don't believe that it shoud be the given right of a business owner to post 30.06 or otherwise ban legallly-carried guns. Instead, they should have to provide a compelling reason.

In other words, 30.06 on a may-issue basis.

Your rights don't trump their rights on THEIR property. Sorry.

Their rights do not override my right to carry whatever I want on my person concealed. It is none of their business, especially when the property is a business open to the general public. If you think they do, then they can tell me what I can and can't carry in my wallet. This overarching so called property rights are supreme concept can be used to negate any and all individual rights. I do not buy into this argument with respect to public businesses.

Anygunanywhere

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I also don't believe that it shoud be the given right of a business owner to post 30.06 or otherwise ban legallly-carried guns. Instead, they should have to provide a compelling reason.

In other words, 30.06 on a may-issue basis.

Your rights don't trump their rights on THEIR property. Sorry.

Since when? This might have been true 80 years ago, but it's not true now. The government limits private property rights when a business is open to the public. If a Christian business can't turn away two men holding hands and kissing, why should we concede our right to self-defense?

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I also don't believe that it shoud be the given right of a business owner to post 30.06 or otherwise ban legallly-carried guns. Instead, they should have to provide a compelling reason.

In other words, 30.06 on a may-issue basis.

Your rights don't trump their rights on THEIR property. Sorry.

Since when? This might have been true 80 years ago, but it's not true now. The government limits private property rights when a business is open to the public. If a Christian business can't turn away two men holding hands and kissing, why should we concede our right to self-defense?

Please correct me if I am wrong. Is sexual orientation a protected right? I assumed public perception by the news media was way ahead of the law. Has the law changed or have judges changed it for the legislature?

Just for the record, I could care less what consenting people do in the privacy of their bedrooms as long as it does not involve underage persons.

BTW a friend owns a bar. If a man and woman begin kissing at the bar. They are warned once, second time they are thrown out.

rp_photo wrote:I also don't believe that it shoud be the given right of a business owner to post 30.06 or otherwise ban legallly-carried guns. Instead, they should have to provide a compelling reason.

In other words, 30.06 on a may-issue basis.

I don't believe that it shoud be the given right to carry a gun in the homes and businesses of those who fear guns. Instead, they should have to provide a compelling reason. Being a cop is not a compelling reason without a warrant or exigent circumstances.