TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:How many times are people going to say the same things? There are two camps; those who feel private property rights trump everything else, and those who realize that commercial property open to the public can and is regulated far more heavily than non-commercial property.

Nothing anyone is going to say is going to move anyone from one camp to the other.

Chas.

Scott Farkus wrote:

chuck j wrote:I respect a persons right to allow or not allow me in their business concealed or other wise . I control what happens or doesn't happen on my own property . I'm pretty sure most here feel that way . Why would I want to force someone ? It's a rare occasion that there is not an alternative to doing business where your not welcome .

When you own property that you open to the public for commerce, you already don't get to control what does or does not happen on that property. The rules are already different there. We force businesses to do things they don't want to do all the time, things far more troubling and intrusive than licensed and concealed carry which the business owner and customers won't even be aware of anyway.

Do you oppose the parking lot bill?

Let me give it a try....

My basis for that comes from:
TX Deceptive Trade Practices, Sec. 17.46. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES UNLAWFUL.
(b)(9) "advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised"

Again, not a lawyer, but I do know at least one lawyer who has successfully pursued a cause of action based on the same in another state. The point that he successfully made is that if a business makes an offer to sell and then fails to make good on that offer, you have a claim. Expanding upon that, if the business has exceptions or exclusions, under that law the business must disclose those in advance or it then becomes deceptive as a consumer has a reasonable expectation that has been denied. Absent that, the claim can be made that the business made an offer for any customer to come to that place of business for the purchase of that item. If I am offered the opportunity to come to the business for the purpose of purchasing what was offered, only to find out that the business won't sell it to me simply because they have previously decided to not allow customers to exercise their RTBA, I believe that they have violated the above. There is no rational basis for me to believe as a potential customer that I would be denied my ability to exercise a constitutional right, and their failure to disclose that in advance is wrong. And clearly this is different than, for example, a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" thing as that is a health code issue.

I'm simply trying to expand upon the OP's point and I think that it is a good one. And what I'm bringing up is to that point, the pondering of this, the what if, and the why not about why this couldn't become a way to push back on 30.06.

C-dub wrote: Oh, but it isn't always so. When they reverse themselves they acknowledge just that. In Bowers vs. Hardwick 1986, Justice Kennedy even said so in his majority opinion.

As for the rest, I'll accept that you either can't or won't offer your opinion to defend your opinion because it is indefensible. You haven't even given us the reason that the courts have said they believe the 2A doesn't allow any method of carry anywhere, but I have not asked you for that.

C-dub wrote: Yes. You claimed so in the other thread where you and I have been discussing PC vs. RS. Let me refresh your memory where I asked you about it there and you still haven't provided anything more than "because they say so." Please tell me you have something more than "because they say so." I've stated my opinion that the SCOTUS is not always right and provided you with examples of when the SCOTUS was wrong and reversed themselves. Please explain to us which part of the 2A YOU believe denies or does not recognize the right to carry anyway or anywhere.

Glockster wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Glockster wrote:Again, my focus is upon the fact that one is a constitutional right and I believe it is beyond unfair to suspend my rights on property wherein the public has been invited.

But carrying concealed isn't a constitutional right. Then there is the fact that speech, which is a constitutional right, doesn't mean that business owners can't stop all speech in a business by use of trespass if they so feel. IMHO not a effective legal or moral argument.

I think though that there is a difference. Let's assume for a moment that the business opened its doors for a specific purpose - say, to sell widgets. If someone enters that business for the purpose of exercising their right to free speech, that is in a sense a breach, as the purpose of the business was not to provide a place for freedom of speech. It was to sell widgets. And the business has a valid reason for asking the customer to leave. And opening the doors to the public for the purpose of inviting that public to potentially purchase a widget is an offering for purpose. Said customer enters for that purpose, if said business owner then for no valid business purpose arbitrarily rescinds that offer, a consumer can likely have a recourse. And I know a gun rights attorney in VA who has made that same argument regarding gun purchases and offers to sell then being breached. Think of it as advertising and entering is an acceptance by the customer. A customer could claim breach. So the purpose of the free speeches is clearly different than that of a customer who accepted the offer to sell a widget.

Please note that I didn't say that CC was a constitutional right, just that there is a right to bear arms. It is the state that has imposed a restriction upon how that right is exercised. My point in the above is that IF you go to a business that has extended an offer to you for the purpose of purchasing a widget, then the fact that you are exercising your right to bear arms has no relevance upon that acceptance. And for that reason I believe that a business open to the public has an obligation (a good lawyer can discuss the legal implication of an offer to sell and then refusing to do so) to then let you in to complete that purchase. I can't imagine a consumer being excused from completing a purchase having for example, made a deposit via the phone, because they are barred from entering with a weapon. So should the business owner be compelled to account for my constitutional right to carry my weapon. Otherwise, show me where I received any advance warning of that irrational fear of my gun and how that should be allowed to prevent me from completing the transaction or from accepting the implied offer to transact by being open to the public. If they refuse to allow for guns, then where is that advance warning that a person exercising their right to bear arms cannot shop there. A 30.06 notification addresses a trespass, not a restriction upon any implied offer to transact business.

C-dub wrote: You should because you claim that it doesn't. I challenged you to offer anything from it that does allow for the method of bearing arms to be restricted. And you have also ignored the fact that the scotus has been wrong before and unless you can point to something in the 2A that backs up your claim, could be wrong on this issue. Give me something other than because they say so, please.

Being able to bear arms anywhere was supported when the BoR was ratified. It only slowly began to be whittled away much later after the founders were no longer around to defend it. People and courts reasoned that they couldn't have possibly meant this or that or here or there, yet there were no such qualifiers written into the 2A. None. There is no ambiguity in it. There has only been speculation that the authors and those that ratified it couldn't possibly have foreseen all the future advancements or issues. You think they didn't have criminals or crazy people back then? In fact, IIRC, many states used to have laws that required them to provide convicts being released from prison a firearm with bullets and a horse after the completion of their sentence because they had wording to this effect in their constitutions; "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question."

anygunanywhere wrote:

EEllis wrote:Or whatever......

Exactly. Whatever.

I don't place my entire belief system on what the courts determine.

Winchster wrote:Has anyone considered that the Bill of Rights protects us from the government and not from individuals?
We have no constitutional "right" to enter private property. We do have the right to enter public property. Those arguing against a business right to set the conditions for entry are really arguing that said property is not under the control of the owner. The sign is merely an announcement of the conditions. Y'all seem to be ok with oral notice , so would you prefer an announcement over the PA every 5 minutes instead?

anygunanywhere wrote:

EEllis wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

C-dub wrote:The SCOTUS is not always right.

Exactly. Blatantly obvious. When God given rights are slowly eroded away regardless who does the infringing and who supports it the erosion is still wrong. Also, regardless of how many times you claim a lie to be a truth it never is true.

Kind of funny because I feel the same way about those who believe the constitution protects a right to carry anything anywhere. They seem to ignore that no court has ever agreed and at no time in the history of the country has that belief ever been supported by even large minority of the public but I keep hearing the same assertions anyway.

I wasn't talking about RKBA and there is nothing funny about what I was referring to in the most blatant error SCOTUS ever made. All rights can be infringed.

anygunanywhere wrote:

C-dub wrote:The SCOTUS is not always right.

Exactly. Blatantly obvious. When God given rights are slowly eroded away regardless who does the infringing and who supports it the erosion is still wrong. Also, regardless of how many times you claim a lie to be a truth it never is true.

C-dub wrote:

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote:The SCOTUS is not always right.

Not really a legal argument tho.

True, but there are many examples of them overturning prior decisions of earlier SCOTUS'. Many were due to social or political reasons and not based on actual law or constitutional principles. Our current discussion is an excellent example. So far, you have only pointed to the court's decisions that have said restricting the method of bearing arms is constitutional, but haven't pointed to any part of the 2A that would even hint at how that is possible.

C-dub wrote:The SCOTUS is not always right.

C-dub wrote: How can you say that free speech is a constitutional right, but a method of bearing arms is not?

The method of bearing arms has no restriction in the 2A. The action of concealing a firearm was once thought of as being sneaky or that only criminals would have a reason to conceal their firearm and honorable men wore their guns out for all to see. Or something to that effect. However, there still is no restriction on the method of bearing arms in the 2A. The choice of concealing a handgun, among other rights that should not have been infringed, were wrestled away from us by the government under the false premise of public safety. Just because the legislature or courts have taken away those rights does not mean that they weren't rights to begin with.