TexasCHLforum.com

CZp10 wrote:

twomillenium wrote: Just out of curiosity, would you support the Government telling a citizen where they must bank, eat or shop and spend their hard earned money?

Are you going to make some sort of intelligent point or not? Your question is clearly leading and meant to say something, but you apparently didn’t think it through. The government already does all those things, and has for a very long time. Banks are very highly regulated, only certain people under certain conditions can open a bank. Food establishments have to go through multiple layers of government to get a license to do business. The government is already telling people where they can eat and bank, they already tell you where you can live via zoning laws, etc., etc. So it would be nice if you could just come out and say what your point is, because I really don’t understand what you are trying to say.

I have been very clear on my issue, which millions of Americans agree with, by the way. I think a business can refuse to serve me if they wish, they can ask me to leave and I have to leave, I have no problem with that. They can even put up whatever signs they want, but a business open to the public should not be seemingly granted the sacred power of judge and jury by making the simple fact of walking past a sign an automatic criminal violation by a law abiding LTC holder. I started a whole thread on this previously, the only thing I have asked for is rescinding the criminal violation part of 30.06.

CZp10 wrote:

twomillenium wrote: However, I will defend your right to feel that way. I still feel that property owner rights to do business as they feel best for themselves are sacrosanct over the wants and whims of the individual who wants everything their way and their need to be coddled. (That is how a very pro 2nd amendment patriot feels)
I even still wish you a good day!

I am in no way trying to tell businesses how they can or can’t run their business, I have owned businesses before and respect their rights. However, it is this one single, nationwide, issue with which I personally have a problem. I don’t feel it is constitutional for a business open to the public to take away the right to defend yourself as provided by the 2A by posting a 30.06 sign. An LTC holder has been approved by every level of government to concealed carry, the Supreme Court has upheld that right. I do not think a business open to the public should be able to override that, they do however have the right to ask anyone to leave if they go up to that person and do so. Many states believe the same thing, they have specific laws in place that prevent businesses from stopping licensed concealed carry. I would like the Texas 30.06 law to be rescinded or changed, but I am not sure the best way to have it tested in court. Currently the law provides the right of a business to post a proper 30.06 sign, but the law also provides citizens legal recourse in challenging that law, both rights should be protected/respected until the law is changed. Hopefully that makes my ranting a bit more clear .

CZp10 wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

CZp10 wrote:

twomillenium wrote: Whether I agree with the business or not, is not as important as the owner to be able to run the legal business as they legally decide. If you do not want to do business with them, go somewhere else. Don't force a business to be panty-waisted because a panty-waist demands it.

Not sure how this is anything other than blatantly offensive.
Aside from your reluctance to stand up for the second amendment, not all of us are as scared as you to stand up for the constitution. I believe that the 30.06 would not stand the test in court, and therefore not be found legal.

America fighting for independence was not “legal” at the time, slavery was “legal” once, so according to your backward thinking, people should just go elsewhere?

Your right! You are being blatantly offensive. I am more pro-second amendment than you will be in probably 3 life times. The difference is that I defend your right to do so and will not sue you to force my will on your property or thinking. Have a good day and keep it civil.

You call me a “panty-waist” for stating an opinion shared by many people and more than a couple here, and I am being offensive? Then I guess you are calling several of the members here “panty-waisted.”
What a joke, guess civility and moderation is lost art on this website. No wonder tens of millions of Americans are disgusted by gun owners, I just wish they knew they are not all like you.

CZp10 wrote:

twomillenium wrote: Whether I agree with the business or not, is not as important as the owner to be able to run the legal business as they legally decide. If you do not want to do business with them, go somewhere else. Don't force a business to be panty-waisted because a panty-waist demands it.

Not sure how this is anything other than blatantly offensive.
Aside from your reluctance to stand up for the second amendment, not all of us are as scared as you to stand up for the constitution. I believe that the 30.06 would not stand the test in court, and therefore not be found legal.

America fighting for independence was not “legal” at the time, slavery was “legal” once, so according to your backward thinking, people should just go elsewhere?

CZp10 wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

CZp10 wrote:This is why everyone should sue any business with a 30.06 sign. They are intentionally drawing crime to their businesses, and they choose to provide no security even though they have stopped you from defending yourself. Enough law suits will change that.

All the business would have to do is show that even without the sign crime is committed. This is an example of how the courts are clogged with frivolous lawsuits because someone thinks that one should behave the way that someone else merely desires.

“All” they have to do? I am familiar with what companies have to do when they get sued. Enough litigation, win or lose, and they can be made to change policies. Basically it is just that I believe the ability of a business open to the public to universally rescind the 2A should be tested in court.

CZp10 wrote:This is why everyone should sue any business with a 30.06 sign. They are intentionally drawing crime to their businesses, and they choose to provide no security even though they have stopped you from defending yourself. Enough law suits will change that.