TexasCHLforum.com

I think I essentially agree, but want to emphasize my point about circumstances. At least with respect to what their intent is.

'No Guns' <- does this mean they don't want licensed carry?
'No Concealed Weapons' <- does this mean they don't want licensed carry?

Out of the blue with no context of what the law is, or somewhere there are no specific requirements for signage - I would *certainly* think so.
Knowing the law has specific requirements, and the above does not meet those requirements - on the basis that we should expect good faith efforts to follow the law from both sides, is it as clear as it would be without the law?

(I'm sort of mulling that in my head at the moment so I'm going to leave it at that for now and say that I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, while I think about it for a bit. You may be changing my mind here, i don't know yet, part of that sentence was written from the perspective of stating what I thought and sort of ended up in a 'well, hmm, am I really there?' :) )

adding in: One of the things I'm thinking about is, the longer they go without changing their sign after the law changed, the more evidence there is that they're not making a good faith effort to meet the requirements under the law - and given that, how much should I, or shouldn't I, consider the sign as evidence of their *current* intent?

My full position might be better stated as:

Should we expect ourselves to follow the law in good faith, while releasing the property owner from that obligation and assuming the responsibility to take any indication they meant to bar carry ourselves?
Or should we expect ourselves to follow the law in good faith, and expect the property owner to follow the law in good faith as well?

But I don't know. It might also be more confusing.

(Edit: I should probably also explicitly state I think it's the latter even though that's probably clear from context.)

The Annoyed Man wrote:To answer anomie, yes, I still think that makes me a hypocrite for the reason that, in practical application, my reverence for the Constitution extends to my 2nd Amendment rights, but not to the property owner's rights. I either revere the Constitution, or I don't, because reverence is an all or nothing kind of thing. So if I claim to revere the Constitution as far as my own rights go, but not as far as the other fellow's rights go, then I am a hypocrite. And meaning no offense to you at all, but placing the onus on the other person for executing the letter of the law in complete perfection is mere sophistry.

I respect your reasoning as to your own intent, sir, and it is well stated.

I don't think my reasoning is mere sophistry, as I am not solely placing the onus on the property owner. If the only difference in my outlook on life were that I did not want people carrying on my property, I would expect myself to meet the legal requirements to the same degree I expect myself to meet legal requirements when I carry. I don't intend to say that it has to be with absolute perfection. Everything has a little give, and my call would get closer and closer to considering their intent to actually be to bar licensed CHL the closer it got to being a valid sign. Sort of a continuum of 'it looks like they didn't bother to see what the law was' to 'it looks like they tried like heck to make sure they did it right and something is slightly wrong' - with 'it looks like they tried at one time but haven't bothered to keep up with it, is that an indicator that it doesn't really matter to them?' in there somewhere. If that makes sense.

There can be a little give here and there but I don't think it can be solely 'the CHL is expected to follow the letter at all times but the property owner has no obligations or responsibilities, we have to treat any indication that might mean they don't want carry there as a full blown indication of no carry, despite precisely defined legal requirements'. There's another thread somewhere I read here where a CHL carrier handed the CHL over slightly late and the cop let it slide. I'm not trying to say anything here that wouldn't allow that kind of thing on both sides of the equation.

Edit: if any of the above sounds like argumentation I'm not intending it that way. I am just trying to clarify my thoughts on it, and I've run into situations in the past where people take me to be arguing when I'm just trying to discuss. Not that anyone reading this is necessarily taking me that way.

xb12s wrote:My Hippocampus just exploded!

My apologies, although I don't think I can extend that to the point of accepting any liability.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I am a hypocrite, and I know it. I will disobey an illegal sign posted by government. I will likely disobey a non-compliant 30.06 sign on a privately owned but public place like a large shopping mall according to the following reasoning: if a private property owner is going to bother trying to quote the law to me to keep me from carrying onto the property, then he needs to quote the law correctly or it doesn't apply to me. I cannot be expected to comply with an incorrect application of the law. That doesn't change the fact that I know that the property owner's wishes are being disrespected in the process......which makes me a constitutional hypocrite. However, I understand and accept that my disrespect of their property rights is offset by their disrespect of my 2nd Amendment rights.......a fine bit of syllogism if I may say so myself.

Does that makes you a hypocrite, though?

The law has clearly and precisely defined what the property owner has to do to exercise his property rights. If the property owner hasn't actually done it, how do you gauge his intent with certainty? Heck, a property owner who absolutely knew the law could decide to put up an invalid sign on purpose, fully knowing that it was invalid and not actually expecting anyone to follow it. (I don't think that's a good idea, really, but how do you know with certainty?).

Property rights aren't without responsibilities, either.

If the law weren't as precisely defined as it is, I think that people would have to use their own judgment on whatever was posted - but given that it is well defined and precise - either the sign is valid or it isn't - the only consideration I have with respect to invalid signs are concerns about their being enforced despite being invalid, and whether or not I want to be a test case (which I don't).

Edit: My overall point is, are you being hypocritical, or are you simply expecting a property owner to follow the letter of the law to the same degree you'd expect yourself to follow the letter of the law when carrying? (which is something people have to answer for themselves based on what they're actually thinking - to me, it's the latter. Someone else might be using reasoning that actually is hypocritical)

A couple of thoughts here:

My 2A rights don't trump someone else's private property rights. If they want to post a 30.06, I'll go elsewhere to spend my money, etc. Getting a court to rule that a 51% sign and the like (other prohibited places, like schools) is some kind of rights violation is a good long stretch, too - and if a court won't rule it, whether I personally think it's a violation of my rights doesn't matter, really, with respect to the consequences.

The other thing to consider is, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and while I consider needing a license to begin with an issue, in the same sense that I don't need a license to buy some web hosting and put whatever speech I want out there - the law in Texas has changed a lot in the last decade or two, and I personally would not want to be part of turning that the other way around in the minds of the public by potentially being a publicized-by-the-media case of 'irresponsible gun owner' - even if that happening to *just* me might not have all that large of an effect. Of course, different conditions may mean different actions. But I don't think gun rights are in a position for something like a 'gun rights Rosa Parks', because "guns are scary". I just read in another thread, someone state that if there were a news article about someone being arrested with a gun in city hall, even if it's someone who was carrying and wasn't breaking the law (due to the 30.06(e) exception), people aren't going to think 'oh, a CHL holder, and the city is in the wrong' when they hear that. I think that's pretty much true - people are going to hear 'gun, arrest, city hall' and think 'scary bad man'. Now put that in a context where the law was actually broken, and think about it.

I basically agree that everyone has the right to decide if they thinks state law overrides the Bill of Rights, but like anything, there's responsibility that comes with that, and consequences - not just for the individual, but for others. There's also a lot of people who would be wrong in that decision (I figure you can ask any cop who gets a "I have rights" speech in a situation where the officer is clearly doing something that's *not* a rights violation about that).

Anyway, just a few thoughts I had. Like I said before, I wouldn't break the law re. prohibited places, nor a license being required, personally.

I think it's a pretty easy equation. A felony means no gun rights, federally. Carrying where you legally can't can be a felony, depending on which one you break exactly, and I'm not going to bother trying to remember which ones are felonies, and which ones aren't - I'm just going to remember where I'm not supposed to carry, and not carry in those places. (That's *a* reason to not do it - but personally I wouldn't do it even if they were all just class C misdemeanors. That's just how I am).

Simple, easy and fun!