TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

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.

I'm not sure that anyone thinks that private property right trump "everything" else, that certainly isn't my opinion. Most people accept building codes and permits as generally good and necessary if overly bureaucratic at times. I am really just trying to explain my feelings on the topic and that I don't feel the benefit is worth removing that ability for people to control what goes on in their business. I also think regardless where one falls on the issue it's a bad tactical move to be so cavalier about it. That a push to remove the ability to restrict firearms from private businesses would be futile and damaging to the firearm carrying community.

I'm not really hoping to change anyones mind. People want what they want. Maybe I can have some effect on what people put effort into.

Winchster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Actually, this isn't correct. The Civil Rights Act will not let a restaurant have a whites-only section or require blacks to enter by the back door. By entering the back door and not sitting in the whites-only section, a black person would acquiesce to the will of the business owner. The Civil Rights Act and the ADA help the people Congress wanted to help; there's nothing more to either law.

There will always be a divide between people who want property rights to trump everything, whether we're talking about private business property or one's home and other non-business property, and people who view private business property differently. Commercial property is already regulated more than non-business property and the regulations deal primarily with safety of the public entering the property. Requiring a business to allow armed CHL holders to enter does not cost the owner a dine, unlike fire codes, commercial sprinkler requirements, etc. A good argument can also be made that not allowing the forced disarming of customers is another safety issue for the customer, not only while in the store but to and from as well.

Chas.

I realize this, I was merely over simplifying for purposes of this discussion.
I can see the other aspect you brought up being an issue as well. Since you seem to have made your position clear may I ask a question? Why do you fight so hard to protect something you appear, at least to me, to disagree with? I ask with utmost respect for your efforts on behalf of all of us.

Winchster wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:

Winchster wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:
Just to make clear, we are talking about private property that has been opened to the public for some reason - typically for commerce. The rules are already different there. Nobody is suggesting anybody should be able to carry into another person's home or private non-commercial property against that person's wishes.

I'm aware of that. Doesn't change anything. We don't have a "right" to go to Walmart.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. When you open your doors to the public, there is, or at least seems like there should be (I'm not a lawyer), at least some minimum level of expectation that the public does, in fact, have a "right" to be there, since you've essentially invited them. I think that's what Glockster is trying to say.

Now maybe you should in theory be able to dictate the terms which your guests must follow while they are on your property, but that's kind of the crux of my question. The government already tells you, to a large degree and getting larger, what those terms have to be. You already don't get to set them yourself. Given what some of those terms are and the arguments the other groups used to get them, I don't find it a huge stretch that we gun owners ask that licensed concealed carry be one of those "terms".

The difference is simple. The civil rights act and ADA,which I assume is what you're referring to, center around things over which a person has no ability to modify to aquiesce to a business's conditions. The right to keep and bear can be, and your proverbial right to swing your first ends just shy of my nose. Make sense?

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

Vol Texan wrote:

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.

Embalmo wrote:Based on that logic, minorities and the handicapped have the right to choose not to shop in a place where there are anti signs posted. I see it as a safety issue. I consider my daily carry the same as any other tool that maintains my health and safety like my asthma rescue inhaler.

M. Ball Moe

K5GU wrote:While not wanting to get into the issue of posting 'legal' advice and what-not, Charles, pls correct me if wrong, but isn't the 30.06 statute an augmentation to 30.05 (Trespassing, etc.) for the purposes of registering notice to customers carrying a handgun under the CHL law?

Let's say I have a retail store in Texas and I (or my franchise owners) don't want customers who are hiding their guns to be in my store. Under current Texas law, I'm required to give them verbal or written notice to vacate...Okay, I don't have my sign up yet, but I ask a customer who I think is carrying a hidden gun to leave. The customer refuses. I call the police. They find the hidden gun, but the customer says, "I was never notified..." What happens then if I can't prove that I notified the customer verbally without a witness to back me up? My word against the customer, right? But if I post the sign, then that 'registers' my notice.

Scott Farkus wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have long advocated not allowing businesses that are open to the public to prohibit concealed-carry by CHLs. There is absolutely no support for that concept in Austin and a very large percentage of gun owners don't support it either. It's a property rights issue and while I strongly support private property rights, commercial property is already treated much differently.

As for TPC §30.06, it does not discriminate against CHLs; it saved the program.

Chas.

I'm not sure I follow this. I can appreciate that we needed 30.06 in order to get CHL passed initially, and maybe we still need it for political purposes, but how is it anything other than a statutory mechanism for businesses to discriminate against a CHL carriers?

Is there any other group that has gone to these lengths (or any lengths) to allow businesses to exclude them? If there is, I can't think of one. It's exactly the opposite - the rest of the world seems to expect that businesses accede to their demands, and they have largely been successful in accomplishing that.

What about my idea of removing the penalties associated with crossing a 30.06 sign? How does that work in those states mentioned in the hearing? What if we did away with all signage and allowed business owners to still exclude carriers, but only on request? In the case of concealed carriers anyway, they likely wouldn't even know, but if for some reason they did, it would force him or her to decide whether his or her fear of guns was worth losing out on the sale of the $200 worth of groceries in the cart. But he still has the right to exclude guns from his private property.