Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
What happened to the, "WE RESERVE the RIGHT to REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" signs of yore?carlson1 wrote:How then does a property owner reserve his right to keep you out? Your rights do not trump the property owners's rights.
One reason I support keeping it is because it actually requires specific wording and a specific size to keep a CHL out with force of law. I believe we are the only state that has this requirement. If we repeal 30.06, all of the no guns allowed signs become valid notice, as they are in other states.remington79 wrote:What reason would you kill any attempt to repeal it? Or are there certain things about 30.06 that those organisations would repeal?
Oldgringo wrote:What happened to the, "WE RESERVE the RIGHT to REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" signs of yore?carlson1 wrote:How then does a property owner reserve his right to keep you out? Your rights do not trump the property owners's rights.
Who among yee remember these and 'colored and white drinking fountains and toilets'? What, indeed, about a property owner's rights?
Given the strong property rights sentiment in TX, I'm not sure the "what you don't know won't hurt you" approach will fly. What you are telling business owners that don't want firearms on their property is "catch me if you can". Other places have gotten away with that but Texas is not other places. This simply will not pass.remington79 wrote:Oldgringo posted a good example. Keep the wording just get rid of the force of law part. If someone is found carrying they are asked to leave. If they don't then they can get a citation. It is that simple. As I said it is not the end of the world if the sign doesn't carry the weight of law. If you don't want someone to carry you ask them to leave. This is the best solution where each party's rights are respected.
Actually, I know of at least one other state that has a sign requirement, that's Missouri. However, it is not near as onerous as Texas since it only has to be 11" x 14" and state 'No Concealed Handguns' in the wording of at least 1" letters in any language. I have seen a few of these signs while visiting that state.srothstein wrote:One reason I support keeping it is because it actually requires specific wording and a specific size to keep a CHL out with force of law. I believe we are the only state that has this requirement. If we repeal 30.06, all of the no guns allowed signs become valid notice, as they are in other states.remington79 wrote:What reason would you kill any attempt to repeal it? Or are there certain things about 30.06 that those organisations would repeal?
Oldgringo wrote:What happened to the, "WE RESERVE the RIGHT to REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" signs of yore?carlson1 wrote:How then does a property owner reserve his right to keep you out? Your rights do not trump the property owners's rights.
Who among yee remember these and 'colored and white drinking fountains and toilets'? What, indeed, about a property owner's rights?
remington79 wrote:Oldgringo posted a good example. Keep the wording just get rid of the force of law part. If someone is found carrying they are asked to leave. If they don't then they can get a citation. It is that simple. As I said it is not the end of the world if the sign doesn't carry the weight of law. If you don't want someone to carry you ask them to leave. This is the best solution where each party's rights are respected.
How dare you bring logic into a firearm discussion? I thought we were supposed to choose sides and draw lines in the sand? Do I think 30.06 are a pain in the you know what? Absolutely. But I can choose not to go to those places. Besides my doctor's office and IKEA, I cannot say that I've had to disarm much, and I try to avoid both places as much as possible - not because of the 30.06, but because both are painful visits and cost me too much money.mojo84 wrote:The people aren't being banned or excluded, the guns are. Completely different.
How dare you bring logic into a firearm discussion? I thought we were supposed to choose sides and draw lines in the sand? Do I think 30.06 are a pain in the you know what? Absolutely. But I can choose not to go to those places. Besides my doctor's office and IKEA, I cannot say that I've had to disarm much, and I try to avoid both places as much as possible - not because of the 30.06, but because both are painful visits and cost me too much money.mojo84 wrote:The people aren't being banned or excluded, the guns are. Completely different.
I think changing the penalty to a Class C misdemeanor is a large fish.gljjt wrote:Repeal of 30.06 would be a "solution" in search of a problem. No likely gain, lots to lose. Bigger fish to fry. IMHO. Which I value highly!
Agree, if it can be done without otherwise substantial change. Repeal is a colossal mistake however.jmra wrote:I think changing the penalty to a Class C misdemeanor is a large fish.gljjt wrote:Repeal of 30.06 would be a "solution" in search of a problem. No likely gain, lots to lose. Bigger fish to fry. IMHO. Which I value highly!
I agree a class A misdemeanor is a pretty stiff penalty for what is otherwise a non-event by some of the most law abiding citizens in the state.gljjt wrote:Agree, if it can be done without otherwise substantial change. Repeal is a colossal mistake however.jmra wrote:I think changing the penalty to a Class C misdemeanor is a large fish.gljjt wrote:Repeal of 30.06 would be a "solution" in search of a problem. No likely gain, lots to lose. Bigger fish to fry. IMHO. Which I value highly!
