TexasCHLforum.com

Upon re-reading my response, I must admit that the right to life supercedes all other rights. That does not mean that the right to one's property should give way to much except the right to life/defending oneself.

VoiceofReason, I get your point that the idea is to get more businesses to remove signage and I do agree that your proposal would do just that. I admit to having a bit of a sticking point with putting more onus on business owners than the signage requirements, though.

While I like VoiceofReason's suggestion regarding the mandated use of metal detectors to enable legally effective signage from the standpoint that it would almost certainly remove the need to disarm before entering most of the places that are currently posted, I think it goes too far on another level. I am not a small business owner, but it would seem to me that the burden thus placed on a business to install not only signage but also a metal detector is a financially onerous infringement of their property rights. The signage requirement is one thing -- fairly inexpensively and easily implemented if the business owner desires to limit the carrying of arms -- but additional physical access requirements put an undue burden on the property/business owner.

Do I desire to carry everywhere I want without restriction? Sure. But I also recognize that property rights are no less important in the grand scheme of things than, say, the rights to express or to protect oneself.

It appears that another viewpoint that can't be supported by facts and reasoned debate has jumped in with ad hominem attacks against everyone here. The need to gloat when folks who have a different viewpoint on things are discussing pros and cons of a situation baffles me...