TexasCHLforum.com

In fact,

Simply eliminate 30.06. No "no guns" sign is valid. The 30.07 sign has no legal effect on concealed carry. To trespass a concealed carrier they would have to be asked to leave, so a retailer for instance that didn't want guns would have to gain some knowledge that the concealed carrier had the firearm in the first place. Further remove any enhancements for trespass with a firearm for a concealed carrier.

TVegas wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:

ispray wrote:OOOH, what a tangled web we weave! We have a lot of law, rules, regulations we don't like. We better obey or get involved and get it changed. How about a sign at a business entrance that says hoddies not allowed or no shoes, no shirts, no service. Maybe those aren't law but still, don't you think a business has the right to keep anyone out unless keeping them out would violate something else, example "whites only allowed here" or no "Muslims allowed"

Exactly - private businesses enjoy property rights unless it violates that "something else". And there are already thousands of "something elses" besides the two you mentioned, including the parking lot law which I assume most of us here support.

The question is not "should the government ever tell a private business what it can and cannot do?" That's already been asked and answered, for better or worse, with a resounding YES. The question is "what should go on that list of "something else"?" and I can't see how adding "no banning of licensed concealed carriers" is any more problematic or than 99.9% of the things already on the list, particularly since it would cost the business exactly no additional money, and neither the business owner or other customers would ever even know. Not to mention it's a constitutional right.

The problem is that the Supreme Court has not yet determined concealed carry to be a constitutional right. When that happens, everything will probably change.

My point is that concealed carry does not effect the property owner at all. If an individual decided to ignore the signs it's highly likely no one would ever know. The only "person" harmed is this legal fiction that of all the things a customer has on their person that one thing I don't want.

Not really context isn't needed at all. We are discussing property rights. A business open to the public welcomes all. The content of the various individuals pants, purse, etc. that make up that public are generally irrelevant to the business. The fact that some people have a virulent stupidity about a specific configuration of plastic and metal has no effect on the business in any way if the gun is unseen. The point is that banning concealed carry has always and will continue to be foolhardy, pointless, and cost any business customers.

In my opinion,

Quite similarly to the open records law requirements any organization that has a majority of its operations funed by government or governmental sourced money should be able to make any decisions in regards to carry because they are in fact a public entity. This would directly apply to say "Private" colleges or organizations who are funded by government who lease public space for public events and then effect gun bans during their festivals etc...

Secondly I think we should take deep reflection on other rules regarding public accommodation. If your a business open to the public there is no real valid reason to prohibit concealed carry with a sign. It has no true effect and is only a tool to satiate the simple minded. There is no effective difference between having a gun in your car vs in your pocket. Both has no effect on the property of a business owner.