Conceal carry at work

[thetexan]

This is just me but i would be finding another job , i carry all day every day and i am getting to the point where i could care less about sings because why the heck should i respect their rights when they dont respect mine !

So are you saying that your right to carry a gun trumps the owner's right to control his own property and stop you from carrying a gun?...your constitutional right is more "right" than his?

Read this carefully...YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to carry your gun onto another person's property if he chooses that he doesn't want you to, (assuming he has executed his constitutional right properly, vis a vis 30.06/30.07). In fact your supposed constitutional right ENDS and no longer exists at the door of the owner who exercises his constitutional right. This is a case of two people's rights having to be reconciled so that each person''s rights are respected.

Therefore that owner who post's 30.06 or 30.07 is not stomping on your right because you then have no right.

tex

[ScottDLS]

Where in the Federal Constitution does it require that a State make it a criminal offense for you to do something that a property owner is not even aware of?

Natural (God given) rights? Most can be summed up by the Ten Commandments, and I don't recall the one about Thou Shall Not Carry a Hidden Sword... Maybe Moses dropped that one when he saw his People worshiping the golden calf.

[thetexan]

Where in the Federal Constitution does it require that a State make it a criminal offense for you to do something that a property owner is not even aware of?

Natural (God given) rights? Most can be summed up by the Ten Commandments, and I don't recall the one about Thou Shall Not Carry a Hidden Sword... Maybe Moses dropped that one when he saw his People worshiping the golden calf.

You're confusing a belief that God has endowed you with certain rights and that those divinely endowed rights are what gives you the right to carry a gun (I also believe that, but it is just that, my belief and carries no legal weight in our democracy nor is it a part of the construction of the constitution. It may be the inspiration for but it is not the statutory language of it) with the rights that are ACTUALLY bestowed upon you by the constitution of the country you have voluntarily decided to live in! It is the document called The Constitution, as revealed to us by the venerable mystics sitting on the Supreme Bench, may their wisdom flow, that gives us our defendable (in our democracy) rights.

The "what they don't know won't hurt them" argument is disingenuous if law abidance is the moral of the goal. You have no intrinsic right, divinely endowed or constitutionally bestowed, to enter upon another man's private property against his consent. And if "I'll have what I believe are my God given rights despite what any one says" is the mentality then that doesn't belong in a constitutional democracy. The battle was fought and won already, over 200 years ago....and the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC version of government won.

I'm sure it was in all of the newspapers.

"One's right can not be claimed to have been infringed if one does not possess that right in the first place. ...", The Many Inspired Sayings of TheTexan, Vol. 2, pg 304

Uncle Tex

[ScottDLS]

Where in the Federal Constitution does it require that a State make it a criminal offense for you to do something that a property owner is not even aware of?

Natural (God given) rights? Most can be summed up by the Ten Commandments, and I don't recall the one about Thou Shall Not Carry a Hidden Sword... Maybe Moses dropped that one when he saw his People worshiping the golden calf.

You're confusing a belief that God has endowed you with certain rights and that those divinely endowed rights are what gives you the right to carry a gun (I also believe that, but it is just that, my belief and carries no legal weight in our democracy nor is it a part of the construction of the constitution. It may be the inspiration for but it is not the statutory language of it). It is the piece of paper called the constitution, as revealed to us by the venerable mystics sitting on the Supreme Bench, that gives us our defendable (in our democracy) rights.

The "what they don't know won't hurt them" argument is disingenuous if law abidance is the moral of the goal. You have no intrinsic right, divinely endowed or constitutionally bestowed, to enter upon another man's private property against his consent. And if "I'll have what I believe are my God given rights despite what any one says" is the mentality then that doesn't belong in a constitutional democracy. The battle was fought and won already, over 200 years ago....and the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC version of government won. I'm sure it was in all of the newspapers.

"One's right can not be claimed to have been infringed if one does not possess that right in the first place. ...", The Many Sayings of TheTexan, Vol. 2, pg 304

I agree with you, but I find no moral obligation for the People (through the government) to grant a criminal sanction, on someone carrying on your property. Especially if you don't even notice and it therefore has no bearing on your enjoyment or exercise of your right to do what you wish thereon. That's why there is no 30.06 criminal equivalent in most states. And even in Texas, you can't exercise your private property "rights" if the person "violating" them is a cop, or Fed, or your Employee in a car on your parking lot.

[thetexan]

I agree with you, but I find no moral obligation for the People (through the government) to grant a criminal sanction, on someone carrying on your property. Especially if you don't even notice and it therefore has no bearing on your enjoyment or exercise of your right to do what you wish thereon. That's why there is no 30.06 criminal equivalent in most states. And even in Texas, you can't exercise your private property "rights" if the person "violating" them is a cop, or Fed, or your Employee in a car on your parking lot.

It's a technicality but you keep falling into the trap. One HAS no right that extends to a cop or Fed, or an employee in a car in YOUR parking lot because those are enumerated exclusions to the right. There is no such right. So a cop or Fed or Employee sitting in his car in YOUR parking lot is violating NOTHING because no right exists (in this case) that includes them to violate.

The People are under no obligation (through the government) to grant anything. WE.....THE PEOPLE, through the very mechanisms included in the constitution that we hold to protect us....CHOOSE...to restrain ourselves and our rights. We VOLUNTARILY limit our otherwise anarchisticly unchecked "rights" in order to live together as a society. WE did this to ourselves. Not the Congress of the United States. Not the Congress of the State of Texas. WE accepted the invitation to cast a vote for our representatives knowing full well and VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTING the possible outcomes in exchange for the privilege of living here.

The ease with which WE can point the finger of blame at our representatives acts like a narcotic dulling our senses and fogging our realization that the fault lies with WE not THEM. And until WE take our vote more seriously WE have no choice other than to simply enjoy the rights and privileges we may still have remaining while longing for the next vote in hopes that it arrives sooner than the next loss of liberty.

tex

[tbrown]

I agree with you, but I find no moral obligation for the People (through the government) to grant a criminal sanction, on someone carrying on your property. Especially if you don't even notice and it therefore has no bearing on your enjoyment or exercise of your right to do what you wish thereon. That's why there is no 30.06 criminal equivalent in most states. And even in Texas, you can't exercise your private property "rights" if the person "violating" them is a cop, or Fed, or your Employee in a car on your parking lot.

If the property owner tells an individual to leave, the individual should be legally obligated to depart. In addition, the penalty should be the same for all trespassers, including police if they don't have a valid warrant or exigent circumstances.

A person carrying a concealed gun should have no more or less rights than a person carrying a concealed rosary, a concealed cell phone, or with a concealed piercing.

A person openly carrying a gun should have no more or less rights than a person openly wearing the hijab, openly wearing an Obama shirt, or openly displaying their toes.

[tbryanh]

So if the company handbook says no firearms allowed and you are caught carrying, it is a Class C misdemeanor. If you are told to leave at that point and you refuse, it becomes a Class A misdemeanor. Is this correct?

[apostate]

So if the company handbook says no firearms allowed and you are caught carrying, it is a Class C misdemeanor. If you are told to leave at that point and you refuse, it becomes a Class A misdemeanor. Is this correct?

If the company handbook has 30.06 verbiage and you are caught carrying, yes.

Otherwise it is a company disciplinary issue, not a legal one, unless or until you receive notice per 30.06 or 30.07.

[Eric Lamberson]

Concealed means concealed. Seems fairly simple.

[tbryanh]

So if the company handbook says no firearms allowed and you are caught carrying, it is a Class C misdemeanor. If you are told to leave at that point and you refuse, it becomes a Class A misdemeanor. Is this correct?

If the company handbook has 30.06 verbiage and you are caught carrying, yes.

Otherwise it is a company disciplinary issue, not a legal one, unless or until you receive notice per 30.06 or 30.07.

The company handbook just says no firearms allowed. It does not have the same text that the 30.06 and 30.07 signs have. So in this case, if caught carrying, it is a company disciplinary issue only? No misdemeanor charges possible unless told to leave and refuse to go?

[apostate]

You can be charged with anything, regardless of the law, or the facts for that matter. Heck, it is said a DA could indict a ham sandwich if they so wished.

The law clearly states the notice required for 30.06 and if the LEO is ethical and competent, you won't be falsely arrested for merely violating company policy. Beyond that, I can offer no assurance.

[thetexan]

I agree with you, but I find no moral obligation for the People (through the government) to grant a criminal sanction, on someone carrying on your property. Especially if you don't even notice and it therefore has no bearing on your enjoyment or exercise of your right to do what you wish thereon. That's why there is no 30.06 criminal equivalent in most states. And even in Texas, you can't exercise your private property "rights" if the person "violating" them is a cop, or Fed, or your Employee in a car on your parking lot.

If the property owner tells an individual to leave, the individual should be legally obligated to depart. In addition, the penalty should be the same for all trespassers, including police if they don't have a valid warrant or exigent circumstances.

A person carrying a concealed gun should have no more or less rights than a person carrying a concealed rosary, a concealed cell phone, or with a concealed piercing.

A person openly carrying a gun should have no more or less rights than a person openly wearing the hijab, openly wearing an Obama shirt, or openly displaying their toes.

A person carrying a concealed gun has no more or less rights than a person carrying a concealed rosary, or cell phone or concealed piercing. But those rights do not exist on the property of an owner who has prohibited a concealed handgun, rosary or piercings on his property. There is no right to violate. In other words, those rights are limited with respect to the ownership sovereignty doctrine.

tex

[ScottDLS]

I agree with you, but I find no moral obligation for the People (through the government) to grant a criminal sanction, on someone carrying on your property. Especially if you don't even notice and it therefore has no bearing on your enjoyment or exercise of your right to do what you wish thereon. That's why there is no 30.06 criminal equivalent in most states. And even in Texas, you can't exercise your private property "rights" if the person "violating" them is a cop, or Fed, or your Employee in a car on your parking lot.

If the property owner tells an individual to leave, the individual should be legally obligated to depart. In addition, the penalty should be the same for all trespassers, including police if they don't have a valid warrant or exigent circumstances.

A person carrying a concealed gun should have no more or less rights than a person carrying a concealed rosary, a concealed cell phone, or with a concealed piercing.

A person openly carrying a gun should have no more or less rights than a person openly wearing the hijab, openly wearing an Obama shirt, or openly displaying their toes.

A person carrying a concealed gun has no more or less rights than a person carrying a concealed rosary, or cell phone or concealed piercing. But those rights do not exist on the property of an owner who has prohibited a concealed handgun, rosary or piercings on his property. There is no right to violate. In other words, those rights are limited with respect to the ownership sovereignty doctrine.

tex

Except if you're a cop (on or off duty), fed, or employee in your car on the parking lot...then you have the RIGHT to carry a handgun or weapon (respectively) on the property of someone who doesn't want you to.

Or put another way they don't have the "right" to do anything about it.

[mojo84]

Some seem to not understand the term "compromise" and the concept of finding a balance between two different positions.

With some everything is all all or nothing or black or white. However, when living in a society one is going to have to compromise on some issues.

[NNT]

[/quote]

Except if you're a cop (on or off duty), fed, or employee in your car on the parking lot...then you have the RIGHT to carry a handgun or weapon (respectively) on the property of someone who doesn't want you to.

Or put another way they don't have the "right" to do anything about it. [/quote]

If the LEO is not there on official business, do you not have the right to ask them to leave? If there on official business, then they are the authority for the moment. You can't fairly say 'I know a murder was committed on my property, but you have no right to be here, now go...'. But if they are not there on official business and wander onto your property and sit down on your deck to have lunch by your pool, you have a right to have them leave.