thetexan wrote:What if the original 30.06/30.07 law as written by the Legislature stated that there would be no open carry at the Costco store in Frisco, the McDonnalds on East Mockingbird in Dallas and all AutoZone Auto Parts. In that case our right to open carry was never given to us in the first place at those locations. Would we hold those owners in contempt for trampling on a right we were never given by the Legislature? No, we would be cursing the Legislature.
But in the present real life situation if those owners exercise a right that has been equally given to all of us, that is, the right to control his own property, by asking us to not carry on their property, why do we have such disdain for them? The state did not give us an ubiquitous right to carry but a limited right. We have no right of carry on the property of someone who doesn't want it. We all know this.
Why all of the contempt for property owners who don't want weapons? Yes, we can choose to take our business elsewhere, but why? Is it to punish the owners in an effort to make them "pay" for their daring to prevent you from exercising a right you don't even have on their property? Is that the motivation? "You can stop me but I'll show you and make you pay the economic price for exercising your legitimate right...my right to carry is greater than your right to stop me.", which is false on its face since our carry right doesn't even exist on privately owned property unless we are given the "privilege" of carrying on the owner's property by his bestowed consent.
It seems to me that the safety issue is more the point than the owner's philosophical difference on guns and our animosity toward him because of that difference of opinion.
tex
I agree with you that we only carry on others property, because they have not prohibited it. I have no disdain for property owners who choose to prohibit carrying, that is, as you said their right. However, we also have the right to refuse to do business with those who post. I don't expect places like Babies R Us to lose money because I refuse to shop there, I wouldn't shop their anyway, because I don't have any babies. I doubt that even if every LTC holder quit patronizing posted businesses, they would suddenly change their minds due to financial reasons, because we only represent 4% of the overall population.
I think the main animosity comes from the fact that before open carry was passed, most of these businesses, did not post any signage, and never had a problem with CC, but suddenly they not only prohibit, OC, but CC as well. Again, they are well within their rights to do so, but I, along with a lot of other people, believe that they were given bad information, and were frightened into their decisions.
I am fortunate, in that none of the businesses, that I patronized before open carry passed, have posted 30.06. I use the word fortunate to say that business owners decisions have not greatly affected me. That may not be the case for all of us, and I can understand those, who may live in rural areas, where their options are limited on businesses to patronize, who are now suddenly forced to disarm to do the same things they did before open carry passed, may have more of a reason to complain.
although with the tight t-shirt over an OWB holster, I could see everything but the brand name. 
He said it was a Sig 10mm. We talked while waiting at the deli counter, he said he very seldom OC but didn't worry too much about printing, he said no one had ever noticed it before. I told him I had seen him a week or so earlier, and described the t-shirt he was wearing. I was wearing a button up shirt untucked over mine but he said had I not said anything, he would have never noticed.