TexasCHLforum.com

b322da wrote:I not only understand where you are coming from, Katygunnut, but let me assure you that I sympathize. I, too, wore a uniform for a whole lot of years, and I took the same oath -- several times. You are also correct when you imply, if not assert, that I am talking strictly the law as it currently stands, and not morality. The law is not always moral. Was it Jack Kennedy who said "Life is not always fair?" I can never remember who. I do remember that it was Charles Dickens who said, "The law is a ass." [Mod: he was talking about an animal, not human anatomy].

There are those, when discussing the subjects we discuss here, who will say, with some truth, that "a right is a right only after the Supreme Court of the United States says it is."

My position, I will admit, is that we should all take care in stating that something is a "right," or a "Constitutional right," as being a matter of fact, when what we really mean is that in our opinion it is a right, but the Court has not yet spoken on this issue, and the other two branches of the federal government have made no decree to that effect. I am so afraid that by not recognizing the difference we may mislead others to their sorrow.

Again, I understand your position, and I hope you understand mine.

Most respectfully,

Elmo

I definitely do understand your position.

The issue of 30.06 is challenging for me in general, because there are two competing rights at play. A business owner has private property rights to dictate what people can and cannot do on their property (within reason). An individual also has certain rights including the right to keep and bear arms. My personal opinion is that this right of the individual should trump in cases where a business owner has opened their establishment to the general public (not a closed membership, etc). This is my personal opinion and is not how the laws are currently set up. It is funny to me that we as a society have chosen to protect certain individual rights over the business owners private property rights (such as the right against racial discrimination), but we do not take the same stand in the protection of fundamental individual rights (SCOTUS wording there) like the RKBA.

As much as I disagree, the law is the law until or unless we change it. The people who run USAA can legally infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms while I am on their property. I just find it distressing that career military men and women, like those who run this company, would decide to take advantage of their legal ability to do this. To me, that is disgraceful.

b322da wrote:

jimlongley wrote:I was, briefly, a member of USAA in the early 70s, right after I got off active duty. My late wife, who was an insurance agent herself, read some of their literature and talked me into rescinding my membership and I haven't regretted it until now. Now my only regret is that I did not "know my enemy" and keep track of them and their insidious campaign against legal gun possession. They can be assured that I will never even consider doing business with them at any time in the future too, even if they do change their public policy, as I do not think they will ever really change.

In my opinion this discussion, in general, is really wandering off into never-never land, Jim. I say this just after your post not because you are alone, but that you repeat a common theme of this thread, and it may just be the use of loose language.

Neither USAA nor any other 30.06 poster is, according to my reasoning, insidiously campaigning against "legal" gun possession. Does that proper 30.06 sign mean that a CHL-licensee is guilty of illegally carrying a concealed handgun if she ignores the sign? As we all know so well, it only means that if one enters ignoring the sign, if correctly worded, shaped and posted, she would be trespassing. Is she not still legally carrying the handgun? Could she be arrested for illegally carrying a handgun? If USAA is "insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession" I could be accused of insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession if I courteously tell a visitor to my home that my home is not open to anyone carrying a handgun, whether CHL-licensed, or not, and she may not enter if she is carrying a handgun.

With the greatest of respect for you and your invariably intelligent well-reasoned postings here, Jim, I feel that it is simply not right, once again in my personal opinion, to assume that my having said this to a visitor is because I am "insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession." Nothing could be more untrue of this particular NRA member, CHL-licensee from the very beginning, and tireless advocate of the 2nd Amendment.

I cannot close without observing that absent the wide circulation given on this forum, and others similarly oriented, to USAA's sign on its premises, one, my being one of them, would not even know of USAA's policy on this, unless they visited the offices, which gives me a serious question as to whether USAA is being "insiduous."

Elmo

Elmo,

Please allow me to respond to your points, as I have made a similar post to those that you reference. I respect your opinion on this, but I for one consider this situation more egregious than your run of the mill 30.06 posting.

The US Constitution protects certain individual rights from government infringement. These include the right to free speech, free assembly, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to keep and bear arms. When businesses or individuals restrict these rights, they are not technically violating the Constitution because that document does not place burdens upon them in this area. However, I believe it is entirely accurate to say that someone who unreasonably restricts free speech, free assembly, RKBA, or conducts unreasonable searches and seizures, is acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the US Constitution. When this is done by a UK citizen, as in the case of Jarrods and Kay Jewelers (parent company is based in the UK), it is understandable that they would feel no compulsion to live up to the ideals espoused in America's core founding legal document. Foreigners have a limited moral obligation to respect our ideals and values, and I can give them somewhat of a pass for doing anything they want within relevant laws, without regard to the higher principles embodied in the Constitution.

However, I think it is a MUCH different scenario when individuals who pledged their lives to the protection of the rights embodied in the Constitution blatently restrict those rights for premises and people under their control. I think it is sad that those individuals who at one point in their lives were willing to die so that these rights would be preserved are now acting in a manner that is totally inconsistent with the pledge that they had previously made. Personally, I was released from active duty in 1991, and I have had no formal, legal obligation to uphold the constitution since 1995. However, I believe that I will always have a moral obligation to uphold the rights embodied in that document. For me, there is no time limit on the promise that I made before God when I enlisted.

Kirk wrote:CHL is not the only thing they oppose

USAA and Other Opponents to Parking Lot bill https://www.tsra.com/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=113" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Again Senator Hegar’s senate version passed in the Texas Senate and moved on to House Public Safety with the same language as before including that added for USAA. USAA’s lobbyist testified against the bill, saying they had sold the land for the “alternative parking lot" and it would be a financial hardship to ask them to buy more."

The irony here is amazing.

USAA's Board is comprised of military veterans. Their customer base is comprised of active duty military and veterans. All of these folks (those running the company and their customers) swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. And yet the company has an apparent business objective of subverting the Constitution.

Do we know whether they oppose the entire Constitution, or are they just against certain parts?

I've been with Wells Fargo for years, and I also have some investments at Fidelity. I can highly recommend both companies as good alternatives.

I have resolved that I will not support any business that has a business objective of infringing on the Constitution or on the rights of people. USAA fits in both categories.

To be fair, I think I will write them a letter expressing my displeasure that they do not want my business as a potential customer.