TexasCHLforum.com

Winchster wrote:

30.06 doesn't infringe on your rights In any way shape or form. You (I) have no "right" to be on private property not our own, regardless of wether it's open to public or not. Therefore, you (I) can make a choice about wether to accept the conditions set by the owner for entry onto said property.

I understand your position completely, and as a business owner, I do feel the same way. But relating back to the OP's comments, I'm repeating the idea that there is a difference between 'private property' such as your home versus 'private property' such as a business that you've decided to open up to the public, such as a retail store.

The courts have, in recent years, heightened this distinction. They've been requiring businesses to do things they have not otherwise wanted to do, in the name of civil rights. Given that, it's not a big extrapolation to include the 2nd Amendment within those same civil rights.

I agree this is a slippery slope, but it's one that the left has already started for us. Why would we not want to allow rights that are favored by conservatives to not also be included in the party?

I understand why others may not agree strongly. I also waiver on this. But I like the discussion.

Charles,

I do agree that 30.06 saved the program, and I do agree that it is MUCH better than the alternative of 'no guns' signs being valid for us. The history of the program is very important, but I'm of the mind that the future could be better.

It seems that if we follow the thread of logic presented in the OP (which I've also thought of in the past), then sure, any business can ask anyone to leave for any reason (e.g. being disruptive, dressed inappropriately, bad smell, or no reason at all), but if that reason happens to conflict with a civil right (e.g. I've told a gay couple I don't want them holding hands in here, so I asked them to leave), then it's not legal.

The courts have been used lately as the 'hammer' to force such things (think about the cake designer who was forced to make a cake for a gay couple, or the student who was not allowed into the law school because the standards applied to her race were higher than to other races). It may have to be that the court becomes the vehicle for tossing out 30.06. Not tossing out in the direction of valid 'no guns' signs, but instead tossing it out in the direction of 'you cannot categorically discriminate against someone who is exercising their right to carry'.

I welcome your opinion on this.

Note I said 'categorically discriminate'. I still believe any private property owner should be allowed to single out an individual for expulsion from their property. As a business owner, I should be able to walk up to anyone and say, "I'd prefer you to leave the store, as you're being disruptive to my other guests for ....(name your reason)." But a sign, preventing a whole class of people from entering (white, black, Asian, straight, gay, young, old) should not be allowed - in my perfect world view.