TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

pt145ss wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

PhilBob wrote:Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?

The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.

I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.

Here's a thought. I believe that any owner can give notice allowing a LTC to walk past a compliant 30.06 / 30.07 sign. So if a property is owned by Exxon Mobile, and I am a part owner of that property because I own a part of Exxon Mobile, can I give myself and anyone else effective consent to carry on that property regardless of signage?

As a stockholder you have part ownership in the company, but it is managed by the board of directors, not the stockholders.
Your best bet is to elect a new board that goes along with your position of LTC. I hope you own a whole lot of shares.

This is probably a bit of a stretch, but there is some case law here in Texas (I can’t recall the name off the top of my head), where a guy was OC in a common area on the grounds of a condominium. I do not recall the details but essentially the guy was arrested because of OC and I believe later convicted. I think the conviction was overturned on appeal mostly because as a condominium owner, who also owned a small fraction of the common area and therefore was OC on his own property. In that situation, it did not seem to matter that he owned only a very small percentage.

Also, just because you own stock, does not necessarily mean you have voting-stock. On the other hand, you, in theory, can own very little stock and have super-voting rights.

A real big stretch IMO. People who own condos actually have ownership of the property.

Maybe a good analogy is being in a partnership versus a corporation.
A partner owns a percentage of the business, but also takes part in running the business.
A stockholder owns a percentage, but delegates the operation of the business to the board of directions.
If you look up the state laws where the business was incorporated they explain this in more detail that I care to know.

IMO, an advantage of being a stockholder is that you can not be held liable for the actions of the corporate.
For example if your oil company has a spill and gets sued for billions of dollars you might lose the value of your shares, but
you can't be personally sued for damages. IANAL, but that is my understanding of how things work.

That's true for a general partner, but not a limited partner.

PhilBob wrote:Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?

The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.

I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.

Here's a thought. I believe that any owner can give notice allowing a LTC to walk past a compliant 30.06 / 30.07 sign. So if a property is owned by Exxon Mobile, and I am a part owner of that property because I own a part of Exxon Mobile, can I give myself and anyone else effective consent to carry on that property regardless of signage?

The original concept of natural rights was "life, liberty and the ownership of property", this morphed into "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" when it was "sampled" for use in the declaration of independence.

Property ownership is a fundamental right. Life and liberty are also fundamental rights, and both of these are significantly empowered by the right to keep and bear arms, to state the obvious.

So we have a clash of fundamental rights here. You have the right to bear arms. A business owner has the right to the enjoyment of their property. According to our Declaration of Independence, the whole point of having government is to support and defend these natural, or "inalienable" rights. But what to do when there is a clear conflict of rights?

So far, the government's answer has been that property owner's rights trump individuals rights, unless of course, we are talking about the right to have a cake made for your gay wedding, or the right to eat at the same counter as people of a different race. The government views these as more important than the right to property ownership, and so property owners are forced, ultimately at the point of a gun, to give in to these demands. A citizen's right to keep and bear arms is viewed by the government as being less important than these other rights so property owners are not forced to accommodate this right. At least for now.

Personally, I think that racism and the irrational fear of guns both stem from ignorance. The solution for ignorance is education, but unfortunately that will not happen when you have a significant percentage of the population that is still ignorant. This was the pattern with racism, and hopefully we will see a similar pattern with the irrational fear of guns.