TexasCHLforum.com

Taypo wrote:Here's a thought that just struck me. How many 30.07 signs are off duty cops going to walk by and then blacklist when they're asked to leave or cover up?

Not so sure that's a good question. I know quite a few cops personally and have/had several in my family. None of them do or will carry openly when off duty.

Taypo wrote:This one?

viewtopic.php?f=129&t=78720

Yeah , that's it. I had forgotten it was related to the Whataburger issue and I was posting prior to my morning pot of coffee.

Thanks!!!!

philip964 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

philip964 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocki ... it=1810609

It spreads.

Could we consider this a "whites only" type of policy. After all it is a right in the constitution.

I can't watch the video that was embedded as it says the account connected to the video has been terminated.

I don't understand your "whites only type of policy" comment.

A business open to the public must accommodate persons regardless of race, creed, color, place of birth, or persons legally carrying a firearm, all as required in the constitution and bill of rights.

That's what I meant, why isn't it that way.

I thought that may be where you are going with that. Carrying a gun is not a protected class or condition when it comes to entering a business on private property. A person's right to carry doesn't trump a private property owner's right to have conditions customers and visitors must agree to abide by if they want to enter.

Whether you agree or not, that's the law. We've discussed this many times in here. It is not an appropriate comparison to compare a physical disability, race, color, creed or nationality with carrying a gun on private property of others.

Business owners open to the public cannot say "whites only", why then can they say "unarmed only". I understand a farmer, rancher, homeowner can refuse to allow anyone on their property. But a business open to the public is different. I know probably there is a Texas law that permits a business owner from limiting customers to the unarmed, but is it constitutional, since the Bill of Rights to me is very clear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Left is very good at stretching things to now cover things that are not specifically referenced, but why can't the Right, simply require the rights that are very clearly written and require no stretching.

I'm just saying.

The second amendment was intended to prevent the government from infringinging on one's rights. A private property owner has natural rights to control his property with certain limitations. A private property owner has the right to ban guns. Why should the right to carry a gun trump all other rights of another person?

I can't find it at the moment but there was a poll regarding private property rights and it also had some good discussion regarding this matter if I remember correctly. Maybe you can find it or someone can provide a link to it.

This link will lead you to some good discussions on this.

search.php?keywords=%2Bprotected+%2Bcla ... mit=Search

philip964 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocki ... it=1810609

It spreads.

Could we consider this a "whites only" type of policy. After all it is a right in the constitution.

I can't watch the video that was embedded as it says the account connected to the video has been terminated.

I don't understand your "whites only type of policy" comment.

A business open to the public must accommodate persons regardless of race, creed, color, place of birth, or persons legally carrying a firearm, all as required in the constitution and bill of rights.

That's what I meant, why isn't it that way.

I thought that may be where you are going with that. Carrying a gun is not a protected class or condition when it comes to entering a business on private property. A person's right to carry doesn't trump a private property owner's right to have conditions customers and visitors must agree to abide by if they want to enter.

Whether you agree or not, that's the law. We've discussed this many times in here. It is not an appropriate comparison to compare a physical disability, race, color, creed or nationality with carrying a gun on private property of others.

philip964 wrote:http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocki ... it=1810609

It spreads.

Could we consider this a "whites only" type of policy. After all it is a right in the constitution.

I can't watch the video that was embedded as it says the account connected to the video has been terminated.

I don't understand your "whites only type of policy" comment.

I think the same comments would have been made if it was a DA, ADA, judge or anyone else that claimed special priveleges or rights due to their job or position. I think the criticism just hit a little to close to home for some.

I don't have a problem with him being upset about the policy. I would be too just as I am when I am required to disarm or not enter. I also think the business has the right to have that policy even though I think it is misguided and foolish. People have the right to be upset and disagree without additional laws or rules being made or changed. The guy is viewing the situation from his perspective, the business owner from his and we are from ours. Apparently, he didn't like the policy but weighed the idea of going unarmed with messing up the evening for his wife and friends. He decided to not mess up the evening but that doesn't mean he can't dislike it and speak up.

I tried to post something about the flap about the NFL banning off duty cops from carrying. Don't know if it was deleted or just didn't post. It was not intended as cop bashing. It was used as an example of a group standing up for themselves publicly. The cops put up a stink and the NFL aquiesced. It wasn't a boycott that accomplished this, it was making the case publicly and then common sense prevailed. If can't fault the cops for standing up for themselves.

Nothing says we all have to agree with everything. We all have our own perspectives from which we view things.