TexasCHLforum.com

Austinrealtor,

We can always agree to disagree, and a polite discussion never hurts anyone. But you might have misunderstood one of my points slightly. I was not saying or implying in any way that discrimination is right, even for a person on private property. It is not even right for what you call truly private property, such as a home. But it is the right of the property owner to be as stupid and as wrong as he can be, if it does not directly harm another. To me, the government interference in private property is the bigger harm to society than the bigotry is.

For proof, I will point out that one of the ways they justified the equal rights laws applying to such things as Lester Maddox's restaurant in Atlanta was by using the Interstate Commerce Clause. The logic was that the restaurant might be serving someone who traveled interstate to get there, so it was affecting interstate commerce and was therefore legally regulated. This stretch of the law has been abused more and more and leads us to many bad things.

And freedom to be stupid and morally wrong is important to me because protecting other people is the only way I protect my freedoms. I don't care for the government telling me what to do, so I try to protect even those I strongly disagree with, if it is an overreach of the government.

(no surprise) I'm in agreement with the way Mr. Cotton and Mr. Rothstein are reading this -

It actually helps the CHL holder. There is no "compliant sign" to ban a smoker, or a shirtless person, or a whatever you want to keep out. To "notify" a CHL holder that they are trespassing you have to post EXACTLY a certain sign, that is at least a certain size, and that a reasonable person would find conspicuous, etc.

To my knowledge no other "no XXXXXXXX allowed" sign carries such specific conditions. The 30.06 posting requirement works FOR CHL holders, even if the idea of preventing a CHL holder on the premises is STUPID - which I think almost all on this forum think it would be.

Think about how many businesses post gunbusters signs in ignorance thinking they are actually keeping CHL holders out. If I follow this right, without 30.06 these would all of a sudden become valid.

srothstein wrote:Austinrealtor,

We can always agree to disagree, and a polite discussion never hurts anyone. But you might have misunderstood one of my points slightly. I was not saying or implying in any way that discrimination is right, even for a person on private property. It is not even right for what you call truly private property, such as a home. But it is the right of the property owner to be as stupid and as wrong as he can be, if it does not directly harm another. To me, the government interference in private property is the bigger harm to society than the bigotry is.

For proof, I will point out that one of the ways they justified the equal rights laws applying to such things as Lester Maddox's restaurant in Atlanta was by using the Interstate Commerce Clause. The logic was that the restaurant might be serving someone who traveled interstate to get there, so it was affecting interstate commerce and was therefore legally regulated. This stretch of the law has been abused more and more and leads us to many bad things.

And freedom to be stupid and morally wrong is important to me because protecting other people is the only way I protect my freedoms. I don't care for the government telling me what to do, so I try to protect even those I strongly disagree with, if it is an overreach of the government.

Steve, thank you for clarifying. And hope you didn't think I was directly accusing you of advocating discrimination. I think we both agree discrimination is wrong, we just disagree on how to go about correcting the problem. I very much understand your constructionist interpretation of the Constitution etc in this matter. And I wish the generations that came before me had found a "better" way to correct the social injustices of racism etc. At some point, maybe we'll have the willpower in this country to affect these changes properly through Constitutional amendment and stop falling back on the old standby of "interstate commerce".

But, as you can likely read between the lines above, I still disagree with you that property rights are sacrosanct. I believe in very strong rights for property owners, but not absolute rights. 999 times out of 100 I'll side with a property owners and say to the offended party "if you don't like it, leave" But when I feel the property owner's exercise of his rights violates a more important right of an individual, I side with the individual. The right to utilize an open-to-the-public facility despite ones race, color, creed etc is more important than a property owners rights to be stupid (to use your words ) The right to self defense trumps the right of the property owner to be a hoplophobe (LOVE that word, TAM - thanks )

But these are philosophical differences of opinion; thus I proposed "agree to disagree" because I think we are at a philosophical impasse on this subject - we've debated each other down to our core beliefs, which differ, and aren't likely to change.

Of course, the simple solution to balancing the rights of property owner vs. individuals is that if a property owner wishes to be "stupid" then he just closes his business to the general public - make your business a "club" or "lodge" or "membership only" organization and then prohibit whomever you want from entering. Heck, it works for Costco et al. I often like to reduce a disagreement over two core beliefs down to who had the first "choice". Obviously it's easy to say the individual customer has a right to choose to shop somewhere else. But if you take it back a step further, the property owner has the choice to not open his property to the general public. Once you make the choice to open your property to the general public, then you have to follow the rules of such. If the property owner doesn't like the rules - then they are free to open a private membership-only business on their property.

Again, many thanks for the spirited debate. Great respect for you and your beliefs, even those with which I disagree.

Weeeeellll, I've learned alot. I understood the inclusion of 30.06 requirements as a deterrent but was also of the opinion there was a distinctive difference between passing a 30.06 sign and any other sign barring (fill in the blank) while not complying. Thank you Charles for illuminating the concept of "effective consent" and "criminal trespass". I am experiencing a feeling to which I am not accustomed, that of a shift in opinion. Don't get used to it though

austinrealtor wrote:Charles, I concede the point to your superior wisdom on this subject. Thank you for correcting the flaws in our reasoning on this subject. I honestly did not think there was anything "criminal" about merely ignoring a "no smoking" sign or a "no cell phones" sign.

Thanks for clarifying

This discussion is really getting into the weeds, but it's not your fault.

A sign that simply says "No Smoking" or "No cell phones" without more probably would not support a violation of TPC §30.05. I was just using a shorthand example. The sign would have to include language making it clear that entry with that device was prohibited. This would be true for any personal property, except for handguns. No magic language would be required and there would be no minimum sign size requirement.

The point of my earlier posts is that TPC §30.05 could be used to exclude anyone with any personal property. Sorry for the confusion.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Your complaint is utterly without merit.

Chas.

Well, Charles, I can see I have somehow offended you. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. Are you suggesting that if I carry past a 30.06 sign and for whatever reason it is discovered, then I will have the opportunity to leave without prosecution if the owner of the property calls the police and they then ask me to leave with the police present? Much like if I bring outside food or drink into a movie theater, for example?

If so, then I stand corrected. I think many of us are under the impression that if we carry past a 30.06 sign then we are certain to face more serious consequences than simply being asked to leave if the police are called.

Thanks for so quickly reminding me why I abandoned this forum for so long. In short order I have been reminded just how naturally gun advocates alienate people, even those who strenuously claim that they are truly interested in not doing so. You need not reply to my post because I won't be back to read it.

This thread is nearly six years old, but I wanted to resurrect it. Many of the newer members probably have not read it.
I think it has a lot of good information that deserves repeating and a broader audience.
It helped refresh my memory about some of the law and history behind "the sign".
It may even change some people's opinions about the current state of affairs.

WildBill wrote:This thread is nearly six years old, but I wanted to resurrect it. Many of the newer members probably have not read it.
I think it has a lot of good information that deserves repeating and a broader audience.
It helped refresh my memory about some of the law and history behind "the sign".
It may even change some people's opinions about the current state of affairs.

I totally agree WildBill. Thank you for resurrecting it. It is well worth a full read through, for everyone.