Open-Carry Poll

[Charles L. Cotton]

I look at the question this way, "Who would you rather have infringing upon your 2A rights? The state of Texas, or private business owners?" If I accept the premise that more businesses will post signs, then I must accept that my rights will be restricted either way - either by the State outlawing OC, or by the People posting signs. Given that option, I much prefer to take the power away from the State and return it to We The People. If The People choose to exercise that power in a way that I don't like, well that's the price of liberty. If a private company wants to outlaw OC/CC - that's their property, so it's their choice. Likewise if they wish to allow OC/CC - they should have that option, too. We talk so much about the property owner's right to ban CC, but what about their right to allow OC? The State needs to get out of the way and let the People do as We wish.

Plus, I can always find somewhere else to shop. Even if the number of signs increases, I don't think it will increase so much that the anti's will have a monopoly. If Wal-Mart posts, I'll go to Target; if Target posts, I'll go to Tom Thumb. I can't imagine that every grocery store everywhere will be posted - I'll find the one that isn't.

Luckily, 83% of the people who voted in this poll disagree with your willingness to negatively impact the rights of 450,000 CHL's.

Chas.

[Bullwhip]

Basically you voted that you want open carry no matter how badly it damages the rights of gun owners.

I voted yes and your post was one of the reasons. I do not see a private business posting 30.06 as infringing on your rights. They have the right to control their property.

I think if more places posted legal 30.06 signs it would actually help the gun rights movement. For one thing, it would help everyone here understand who the opposition is and isn't. It would help stop the question of whether or not the improper posting is just an appeasement of the gun-haters and not intended to stop us. If enough businesses posted properly, more of us would stop going there anyway and the power of the dollar would convince them to remove the posting. Or, I could be wrong and it would prove exactly how small a minority we really are and how little we matter.

Of course, I disagree with the premise of the question, but I answered based on the actual question.

[Purplehood]

I had to vote Yes.

I look at it this way (with my admittedly warped sense of logic, or lack thereof):

We got OC. Therefore we are getting our rights back. People start OC'ing and as usual, the bloodshed and mayhem predicted by the Brady-bunch pundits never actually happens.
Stores notice that OC and CC folks are not shopping in their stores.

The signs will come down.

This is all based purely on the premise that we would actually get the right back in the first place. My belief is that we will only gradually reach that point. But I can foresee it in my lifetime.

[jimlongley]

I look at the question this way, "Who would you rather have infringing upon your 2A rights? The state of Texas, or private business owners?" If I accept the premise that more businesses will post signs, then I must accept that my rights will be restricted either way - either by the State outlawing OC, or by the People posting signs. Given that option, I much prefer to take the power away from the State and return it to We The People. If The People choose to exercise that power in a way that I don't like, well that's the price of liberty. If a private company wants to outlaw OC/CC - that's their property, so it's their choice. Likewise if they wish to allow OC/CC - they should have that option, too. We talk so much about the property owner's right to ban CC, but what about their right to allow OC? The State needs to get out of the way and let the People do as We wish.

Plus, I can always find somewhere else to shop. Even if the number of signs increases, I don't think it will increase so much that the anti's will have a monopoly. If Wal-Mart posts, I'll go to Target; if Target posts, I'll go to Tom Thumb. I can't imagine that every grocery store everywhere will be posted - I'll find the one that isn't.

Luckily, 83% of the people who voted in this poll disagree with your willingness to negatively impact the rights of 450,000 CHL's.

Chas.

I voted no based specifically on the wording of the question, but I would have to argue that CHL is not a right, it is a privilege, legislatively granted by the State of Texas, and it infringes on our rights. If we really had our Second Amendment rights in Texas, we would have Vermont style carry.

There is nothing that guarantees that our legislature could not rescind CHL in this next session. It is unlikely, to be sure, even vanishingly so, but any legislatively granted privilege can be legislatively removed, while a true right cannot.

[baldeagle]

Basically you voted that you want open carry no matter how badly it damages the rights of gun owners.

I voted yes and your post was one of the reasons. I do not see a private business posting 30.06 as infringing on your rights. They have the right to control their property.

You may not see it that way, but the guys who can't even lock their weapons in their vehicle at work don't. In theory they have a right to carry. They've met the criteria, cleared the background check, qualified at the range, learned the law and proven they are responsible gun owners. Yet, because their employer (a private business) has decided that they don't have the right to carry even on the business' parking lot inside their private car, they are effectively disarmed five days out of seven.

A right is not a right if other citizens can prevent you from exercising it by edict. A right is a right when neither the government nor any private citizen can prevent you from exercising it. Otherwise it's just an expression of a utopia that will never be realized. Tell blacks of the 50's and 60's that they had the same rights as everyone else and see what reaction you get. The tyranny of private businesses can be just as bad, or worse, than the tyranny of government, because you have little right of redress.

Think about the first amendment. You can speak anywhere you want, even in my home, if I've invited you in. A business may take offense to your speech and ask you to leave, but they can't prevent you from entering simply because you have a mouth and vocal cords. And they can't stop you from speaking on the public sidewalk outside their business. Do you have that level of freedom with the 2A? Because if the 2A is a fundamental right, just as speech and religion are (and the Supreme Court just said it is), then you should be able to exercise it anywhere, and the only time you should be prohibited from exercising it is when you've been asked to leave or you've entered without permission. When employers extend their gun bans to the parking lot, they've stripped you of your rights not only at their business but also traveling to and from their business.

Do you really think private businesses have the right to do that? Would it be acceptable to put up 30.07 signs that prohibit speech in a business? To preemptively prohibit you the exercise of your fundamental right?

[jsimmons]

[I voted no based specifically on the wording of the question

And the criteria for the question was carefully worded to make everyone want to answer the poll that way. Polls are like statistics. You can make a poll result in any outcome you wish.

[Purplehood]

[I voted no based specifically on the wording of the question

And the criteria for the question was carefully worded to make everyone want to answer the poll that way. Polls are like statistics. You can make a poll result in any outcome you wish.

If that is the case there would have been only votes for one option...

[stroo]

I voted no because that is the obvious answer given the premise of the question. However I really doubt the premise that there will be more 30.06 signs. We would only get more signs if we got a lot of people OCing. I don't see that happening so I don't see significantly more signs.

I think this whole issue is a tempest in teapot. If you want to open carry, carry a shot gun or carbine on a sling. It really isn't that much more difficult than carrying a full sized pistol on your belt. An it provides you with a lot more protection.

[TrueFlog]

I look at the question this way, "Who would you rather have infringing upon your 2A rights? The state of Texas, or private business owners?" If I accept the premise that more businesses will post signs, then I must accept that my rights will be restricted either way - either by the State outlawing OC, or by the People posting signs. Given that option, I much prefer to take the power away from the State and return it to We The People. If The People choose to exercise that power in a way that I don't like, well that's the price of liberty. If a private company wants to outlaw OC/CC - that's their property, so it's their choice. Likewise if they wish to allow OC/CC - they should have that option, too. We talk so much about the property owner's right to ban CC, but what about their right to allow OC? The State needs to get out of the way and let the People do as We wish.

Plus, I can always find somewhere else to shop. Even if the number of signs increases, I don't think it will increase so much that the anti's will have a monopoly. If Wal-Mart posts, I'll go to Target; if Target posts, I'll go to Tom Thumb. I can't imagine that every grocery store everywhere will be posted - I'll find the one that isn't.

Luckily, 83% of the people who voted in this poll disagree with your willingness to negatively impact the rights of 450,000 CHL's.

Chas.

So that's it, huh? No counter-argument, no rational rebuttal? You're just gonna label me the Enemy and move on? If that's your approach, then why even bother asking the question?

There's more to liberty than just Concealed Carry, you know. As I said above, allowing OC would restore the rights of those 450,000 CHL's (potentially millions of Texans with unlicensed OC) to open carry. Also, it would restore the rights of millions of property owners to allow or prohibit OC on their property as they see fit. Finally, it would move power away from the state and back to the people. If new 30.06 signs go up, then, yeah, that bites. But you know what - you can still shop elsewhere. I'm not so in love with Wal-Mart that I would rather throw away your rights and mine than shop at Kroger. There are no perfect opportunities in life; you always have to weigh the bad against the good. I believe that in this scenario, the gains would outweigh the losses. If all you do is focus on the negative and turn a blind eye to the positive, you'll miss out on alot of what this life has to offer.

[The Annoyed Man]

I look at the question this way, "Who would you rather have infringing upon your 2A rights? The state of Texas, or private business owners?" If I accept the premise that more businesses will post signs, then I must accept that my rights will be restricted either way - either by the State outlawing OC, or by the People posting signs. Given that option, I much prefer to take the power away from the State and return it to We The People. If The People choose to exercise that power in a way that I don't like, well that's the price of liberty. If a private company wants to outlaw OC/CC - that's their property, so it's their choice. Likewise if they wish to allow OC/CC - they should have that option, too. We talk so much about the property owner's right to ban CC, but what about their right to allow OC? The State needs to get out of the way and let the People do as We wish.

Plus, I can always find somewhere else to shop. Even if the number of signs increases, I don't think it will increase so much that the anti's will have a monopoly. If Wal-Mart posts, I'll go to Target; if Target posts, I'll go to Tom Thumb. I can't imagine that every grocery store everywhere will be posted - I'll find the one that isn't.

Luckily, 83% of the people who voted in this poll disagree with your willingness to negatively impact the rights of 450,000 CHL's.

Chas.

So that's it, huh? No counter-argument, no rational rebuttal? You're just gonna label me the Enemy and move on? If that's your approach, then why even bother asking the question?

There's more to liberty than just Concealed Carry, you know. As I said above, allowing OC would restore the rights of those 450,000 CHL's (potentially millions of Texans with unlicensed OC) to open carry. Also, it would restore the rights of millions of property owners to allow or prohibit OC on their property as they see fit. Finally, it would move power away from the state and back to the people. If new 30.06 signs go up, then, yeah, that bites. But you know what - you can still shop elsewhere. I'm not so in love with Wal-Mart that I would rather throw away your rights and mine than shop at Kroger. There are no perfect opportunities in life; you always have to weigh the bad against the good. I believe that in this scenario, the gains would outweigh the losses. If all you do is focus on the negative and turn a blind eye to the positive, you'll miss out on alot of what this life has to offer.

Don't be ridiculous. He didn't label you the enemy. Please.

What Charles did do was to A) point out that 83% of respondents agreed with him, and not with you; and B) why he thinks you're wrong. You're the one using the "enemy" label. There's a huge difference between saying someone is wrong, and calling them the enemy. What you've done here is a perfect example of what I have called "bomb-throwing" in several related threads; and it is a perfect example of why the most militant of the OC crowd tend to shoot themselves in the foot legislatively without even realizing they've done it.... ...until it is too late to repair the damage.

When they finally learn that one can accomplish more with honey than with vinegar in the legislature, they'll get what they want.

[Charles L. Cotton]

[I voted no based specifically on the wording of the question

And the criteria for the question was carefully worded to make everyone want to answer the poll that way. Polls are like statistics. You can make a poll result in any outcome you wish.

Not true. The poll was designed to determine how many people want open-carry so badly that they would support it even if a large number of businesses started posting 30.06 signs. I don't know how you could claim the poll was outcome oriented since 21 people have already answered "yes."

Plus, I posted another poll that let's people vote on whether or not they think open-carry would or would not result in numerous 30.06 postings by businesses. When all of the polls I posted are taken together, people have plenty of opportunity to express their feelings about open-carry. If I've left something out, then you can post a poll.

Chas.

[PBratton]

Well, I was the 100th No vote.

The trade off, as worded, is too expensive in my opinion.

[srothstein]

A right is not a right if other citizens can prevent you from exercising it by edict. A right is a right when neither the government nor any private citizen can prevent you from exercising it. Otherwise it's just an expression of a utopia that will never be realized. Tell blacks of the 50's and 60's that they had the same rights as everyone else and see what reaction you get. The tyranny of private businesses can be just as bad, or worse, than the tyranny of government, because you have little right of redress.

I disagree with this basic premise of your argument. Private citizens have the right to control their property. You have the right to carry your weapon. As in any situation where the rights conflict, there must be some way to resolve the conflict. In this case, the conflict is easy to solve because you have the choice to enter their property or not. You can work there and park on the street, for example. You can work with the employer and management to change policies, just as you can with any business owner.

Sorry, but my philosophy on rights gives the nod to the property owner in cases like this. I have suggested alternative resolutions, such as ensuring the law is clear on liability of the property owner who disarms a CHL. How long would employers ban guns if they had a liability insurance cost to consider?

Think about the first amendment. You can speak anywhere you want, even in my home, if I've invited you in. A business may take offense to your speech and ask you to leave, but they can't prevent you from entering simply because you have a mouth and vocal cords.

Your analogy falls down here. They may not be able to stop you from entering for being a human, but they certainly can stop you from entering while singing or while wearing clothing they disagree with (freedom of expression doesn't seem to hold up). They can also stop you from entering if they know you have a specific speech in mind, like a political stance they disagree with.

And they can't stop you from speaking on the public sidewalk outside their business. Do you have that level of freedom with the 2A? Because if the 2A is a fundamental right, just as speech and religion are (and the Supreme Court just said it is), then you should be able to exercise it anywhere, and the only time you should be prohibited from exercising it is when you've been asked to leave or you've entered without permission. When employers extend their gun bans to the parking lot, they've stripped you of your rights not only at their business but also traveling to and from their business.

Do you really think private businesses have the right to do that? Would it be acceptable to put up 30.07 signs that prohibit speech in a business? To preemptively prohibit you the exercise of your fundamental right?

Yes, as a matter of fact your proposed 30.07 sign is quite acceptable to me. If I own a business, I get to say what is allowed inside. I get to make any rules I want on what you can say while inside. I really do not have a problem with this. Philosophically, I have much more of a problem with the existing law saying I cannot deny service to someone for some specific reasons.

[baldeagle]

Would it be acceptable to put up 30.07 signs that prohibit speech in a business? To preemptively prohibit you the exercise of your fundamental right?

Yes, as a matter of fact your proposed 30.07 sign is quite acceptable to me. If I own a business, I get to say what is allowed inside. I get to make any rules I want on what you can say while inside. I really do not have a problem with this. Philosophically, I have much more of a problem with the existing law saying I cannot deny service to someone for some specific reasons.

You would clearly be in the minority on the 30.07 sign suggestion. And that was my point. Only when it comes to the 2A do we find the preemptive denial of the right acceptable.

You're absolutely right that within the premises of your business you get to set the rules. However, I disagree that you get to set the rules in the parking lot, because to do so means you get to disarm me not only on your premises but also everywhere else I would go to during that excursion. I think your property rights end when you attempt to infringe on my 2A rights when I'm not even on your property.

[Pacific Job]

Would it be acceptable to put up 30.07 signs that prohibit speech in a business? To preemptively prohibit you the exercise of your fundamental right?

Yes, as a matter of fact your proposed 30.07 sign is quite acceptable to me. If I own a business, I get to say what is allowed inside. I get to make any rules I want on what you can say while inside. I really do not have a problem with this. Philosophically, I have much more of a problem with the existing law saying I cannot deny service to someone for some specific reasons.

You would clearly be in the minority on the 30.07 sign suggestion. And that was my point. Only when it comes to the 2A do we find the preemptive denial of the right acceptable.

You're absolutely right that within the premises of your business you get to set the rules. However, I disagree that you get to set the rules in the parking lot, because to do so means you get to disarm me not only on your premises but also everywhere else I would go to during that excursion. I think your property rights end when you attempt to infringe on my 2A rights when I'm not even on your property.

Following that logic, if I take public transportation or walk, I shouldn't be prohibited from carrying inside your building, "because to do so means you get to disarm me not only on your premises but also everywhere else I would go to during that excursion."