TexasCHLforum.com

Paxton25,

I think you are asking for something that is not how politics in general works. I think when any politician makes a statement on an issue, they are telling people what their policy will be. When the governor makes a statement that he will sign a bill, he has just told all of the legislators that he expects to see the bill passed. This is especially true when the statement is made in public and to the media. Abbott just told all of the legislators that this bill is important to him, and did it in a manner that keeps them working with him on other issues also.

Think about how things could go if Abbott went to someone and said I expect this bill to be passed. He could get it done, but it would cost him some other bill. If he did like you proposed and said in public that he wants this bill passed, it would set up a situation where someone would oppose it just to set up a confrontation with him for other purposes.

This statement lets everyone know that the bill is one of his priorities while avoiding the outright costs. It also removes one argument against it, which is that it would never get signed anyway. Good politicians are rarely as blunt as you or I would be, and whether you support him or oppose him, no one can say Abbott is not a good politician.

ralewis wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:You can already remove anybody from your property you dislike, as you are the RO. However, you shouldn't be able to BAN a group or type of people. It's just prejudice IMO, and then to make it legally criminally punished is absurd. The right to refuse service must be reserved, but not right to discriminate against a group of people who have done no wronging to be kicked out.

Your pink thong analogy I think actually makes the point. If you don't like pink thongs, you can ask them to leave, but you can't post a sign making it a crime if you discover they are wearing a pink thong. I for one would much rather have to be asked to leave if I'm carrying vs. it automatically being a crime. I understand a lot of why we have the 30.06 situation. Just wish it was like wearing a pink thong...

The pink thong analogy makes the point, but not quite the way you think it does. You can post a sign making it illegal to be found wearing a pink thong ont he premises and the person can be convicted of a crime for doing so. All you need is any sign by the entrance that says "Do not enter if you are wearing a pink thong" or very similar words and the person would be committing criminal trespass if they do enter.

And while pink thongs may make the analogy humorous or seem ridiculous, I will point out that there are many of these types of signs in lots of businesses. Have you ever seen a sign saying no one is allowed in wearing "biker" or "gang" attire? The ones that spell out what they are looking for (leather vests, red bandanas, etc.) are legally enforceable.

As for the other part of the thread, we seem to have forgotten about a third class of property. There is a lot of commercial property that is open to the public but the public is not solicited for entry like a store. Think of office buildings where the customers are generally from other businesses instead of the retail public. Would you allow them to ban? What about members only businesses like Costco? The problem when you try to make divisions like this is that there are always too many one-off cases to make a law. The law needs to be a flat line that applies to all private property, either you can ban or you cannot.

As for me, I strongly support private property rights and want to see the removal of many of the laws we already have restricting those rights. That includes popular laws like anti-discrimination and zoning, too. Ah well, that is the libertarian in me, I guess. I know it will not happen.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.

This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.

As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.