TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... t-Gunpoint" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

North Carolina

In my humble opinion, if a business establishment prohbits guns and a patron who would have otherwise legally carried is harmed during a crime there, the establishment should be held liable for denying the patron the ability to protect themself and failing to provide alternative protection. Conversely, if they defer to state law, they should face no liablility no matter what transpires.

rp_photo wrote:In my humble opinion, if a business establishment prohbits guns and a patron who would have otherwise legally carried is harmed during a crime there, the establishment should be held liable for denying the patron the ability to protect themself and failing to provide alternative protection. Conversely, if they defer to state law, they should face no liablility no matter what transpires.

A big

I would also add harm should include loss of money, valuables, and emotional stress, with a clause to include actual, and future damage and a provision for punitive damages.

Republican Lt. Governor candidates. Mention you will get this passed and I will vote for you in the primary.

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.

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.

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.

Completely disagree. A businesses right to make business decisions is no more or less important than a individual's right to make a decision to patronize that business.

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.

Those who offer public accomodations give up some of their property rights. For example, a restaurant that normally doesn't allow dogs is required to admit a service dog. IMHO, a CHL's gun is somewhat equivalent.

The employee parking lot bill is another example. Thank goodness wise people saw past property rights!

And rather than forcing business owners to do this, pehaps legal incentive would be a better approach, i.e. more liability when posting vs. less when not.

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.

The rights of a business should never trump the rights of an individual; at least in terms of our ability to protect ourselves. 30.06 should be amended to render LEO carry and /or decriminalized completely.

The right to self preservation trumps everything else.

philip964 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... t-Gunpoint

North Carolina

Hmm...bet no one saw this coming.

Oh the irony.

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.

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.

For example Chicago

I wonder if "The Pit" has changed its stance....

rbwhatever1 wrote:I wonder if "The Pit" has changed its stance....

Dumb is dumb, they will get a bigger sign.