Search found 1 match

by Scott Farkus
Sat Aug 13, 2016 10:11 pm
Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
Topic: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry
Replies: 128
Views: 52737

Re: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry

Ruark wrote:
Jusme wrote:I believe that government should play almost no role in determining how a business owner should conduct his business, in relation to whom he refuses service.
According to a conversation I had with legislative staff, the concept of private property rights is the overwhelming, dominant factor in opposition to removing any business owner's right to post signage. It's not going to happen, as much as we would like it to.
Well, first of all, even in Texas plenty of government entities already dictate how business owners conduct their business, in hundreds if not thousands of ways, including who may or may not be refused service and the circumstances thereof. The 30.06/30.07 signs themselves are examples of such dictates, as is the parking lot bill and the Motorist Protection Act.

Second, I don't understand why it would be a violation of private property rights if we simply required that a business owner ask you to leave before it rose to the level of criminal trespassing. They still have the right to exclude licensed carriers (if they somehow even knew you were carrying assuming you're concealed).

Return to “Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry”