TexasCHLforum.com

bagman45 wrote:So here's where the "take my business elsewhere" approach breaks down; I'm in Plano, and the Plano Sports Authority (actually a "non-profit" organization) is pretty much the only place you can economically have your kids participate in organized basketball, volleyball, flag football, etc, etc. sports teams. They have a valid 30.06 posted outside their facilities, even though there is quite a history of assaults and vehicle break-ins in their facility parking lots. There are also A LOT of aggressive, confrontational parents in the facilities, pretty much ALL of the time - you've all seen the crazy sports parent; well, they are here in spades..... This is actually one of the only places I frequent where I feel like I actually SHOULD be carrying my lawfully concealed handgun, but can't. Before you say; "well, your choice, take your kids somewhere else", understand that they play on teams with their friends, and likely would give up the sports if they couldn't play with them. Happy to hear any thoughts here, but the Libs seem to not give dang about what we think, and keep pushing until they get their way; I think we should be doing the same thing. After all, it's clear (while unfortunate), that nobody in our current society CARES what anyone else thinks, so the "moral high ground" is a useless place to stand. REALLY painful for me to say that, but it's where we are as a nation, and think it's time for US to start playing hardball like everyone else. We are becoming the "meek"...... Again, happy to hear other perspectives.

If it is a non-profit it must be governed by a board of directors. How are those directors chosen? Membership? Participation? Good ol' boy network? Must not be the good ol' boy network, or the good ol' boys would haul down those signs. Anyway there must be some way to get a number of like minded folk in positions of power and set things right. It's hard to imagine that Plano is so controlled by the weenies that nothing can be done.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Very few of our "rights" are absolute, fire in a crowded theater and all that, so some accommodations at the crossroads have to be tolerated.

JALLEN, I think that illustration gets abused some times. The "shout fire in a theater" thing is like the "discharge of firearm within city limits" thing. Of course, it is perfectly legal to discharge a firearm within city limits to protect your own or someone else's life. You just can't do it irresponsibly, and without a good reason. Similarly, it is perfectly legal to shout "FIRE!" in a theater, if there is indeed a fire, and people need to get out RIGHT NOW. But you can't shout it in a theater where there is no fire, just to get a rise out of the patrons. The question isn't whether or not you can shout fire (or shoot a gun) if there is a need, the question is whether or not you can do so when there is no need.

......

The illustration is often used because it is so familiar and easy to understand. The downside is that it is often misunderstood, and often misused. Holmes' point was that free speech has limits, irresponsibility being one of the limits. It is interesting to note that it is not a point of law, mere dictum, in a case that was overruled decades ago. It was not the holding in a case, or of that case, merely illustrative of a point. Holmes subsequently sharpened his view of free speech, in dissent in Abrams:

"The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."

Back to the main point with the 30.06 signs, when important social values clash, often a practical compromise is achieved, albeit after sometimes long and bitter struggles. A prime example is Miranda, balancing Constitutional rights against the need for effective law enforcement. Purists on both sides are unhappy, which may indicate an effective balance.

As I understand it, the 30.06 sign business arises from the conflict of two ideals near and dear to Texans' hearts, possessing and carrying firearms and private property owners rights to control their property as they see fit, according to their own unique values.

Private property rights, and respect therefor, have long been protected as a primary concern in Texas, part of its charm, actually. When I was at UT, the Board of Regents abandoned the policy of requiring students under 21 and women to live in UT approved housing, rather than insist the private property owners accept minorities. That was ~45 years ago, and touched off a building boom in Austin the likes of which had never been seen before, although perhaps since exceeded by the look of it. No more living in squalid basements of ancient houses whose owner undertook to prevent student tenants from having beer!

So, CHLs are near universally issued, unlike some places, like CA for example, but private property owners are able to prohibit carrying guns in their establishments.

I do not intend to worry about it. If I encounter a 30.06 sign, I won't patronize that business. I'm not into marching around carrying signs, publicly ranting and raving over something like this.

Very few of our "rights" are absolute, fire in a crowded theater and all that, so some accommodations at the crossroads have to be tolerated.

If you want to ban something, why not ban movies? The entertainment industry is responsible for most of the cultural decline in this country and most of our worries. TV is trashy and movies are worse.