TexasCHLforum.com

E.Marquez wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I also have stated the same thing many times. A business open to the public gives up some of its property rights.).

That of course is an opinion, not reality.
While I value your opinion, It goes against reality.

My opinion is, i do not want to live in a place where the few can dictate what i can do on my property.. The reality is, I live there and i don't like it , not enough to leave Texas, but enough to dislike it. Why anyone thinks thier rights supersede mine as a property owner defiles my understanding.. A very few have argued the point politely and legitimately and I thank them for that.., though most just stamp their feet and whine. Either way, I disagree within the opinion that an individual 2A right supersedes my rights as a person and property owner.

Scott Farkus wrote:

koine2002 wrote:I've got a pretty consistent track record of voting/contending against ordinances, laws, and referendums that restrict property rights: whether they are public accommodation or not. I argued, in letter and vote, tooth and nail against the rezoning of Ross Avenue in Dallas forcing longstanding businesses out of their locations to other parts of town. I'm fine with a property owner saying "no" to me when I have my gun. It's his prerogative. I'll go somewhere else if I can. I'm fine with a property owner telling me that I can't preach on his property (1st amendment--both speech and free exercise). However, I'm not fine with an ordinance or law that tells me that I cannot do either irrespective of the wishes of the property owner (including that property owner being me or the church I pastor).

Our rights are negative rights: that is what congress (both federal and state legilatures after the 14th amendment) cannot, via legislation, prevent us from doing. They are not positive rights in the sense that congress is obligated to give people a platform to exercise those rights--or force individuals to provide such a platform. Nor are rights positive in the sense that congress has to provide each person with a gun. They just cannot prevent us (at least in writing) from bearing arms if we so choose to do. Unfortunately, the zeitgeist of the day is positive rights. We are told that rights are things we need to provide. What I won't stand for is allowing the revocation of life, liberty, or property by governing authorities without due process.

Understood and respected. But every building code, every zoning law, every anti-discrimination statute, every "bake the gay wedding cake or be fined/sued into bankruptcy" action, among many many others, is already a revocation of property rights and we're not going back. I didn't make those rules, and I may not like those rules, but that's how the game is and will be played and I think it's extraordinarily short-sighted bordering on foolish to take the high road to our detriment under these circumstances.

Again I ask, do you support the parking lot bill? Because that's clearly an infringement on private property rights, the only time "our side" has done so as far as I know.