TexasCHLforum.com

This has been a great discussion and I thank everyone who shared their points of view. There was one response that kind of summed it up for me. If the business owner wants to tell me to get out because of, say, my mustache then okay. Where I have a problem is that a business open to all sorts of "public" can preemptively prevent my entrance/criminalize my entrance by posting a sign against an otherwise legal (as well as out of sight) article of clothing. Tell me to leave for whatever reason, it's your property. But they shouldn't be able to turn me into a criminal by my simply entering the location.

WildBill wrote:<SNIP>
You tell me. They're your rules.

Indeed, but the question is not what I should or necessarily do; rather is there a fundamental or substantive difference between the two sets of parameters.

I.E. I am posting my store, accessible to the public, in accordance with PC 30.06, regulating what you ARE wearing under your clothes that is otherwise legal and not detectable by ordinary observation. If I discover you then you are automatically guilty of a criminal offense.

OR

I post a sign on my store, accessible to the public , that demands you be a CHL holder in possession of your weapon to enter, regulating what you are NOT wearing under your clothes that is otherwise legal and not detectable by ordinary observation. If I discover you are not compliant, you are not automatically guilty of a criminal offense until I ask you to leave and you refuse.

The same? Different? Why?

WildBill wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:Let's flip it around. Disregarding for a moment the obvious failure of such a business model, let's say I open a store with pharmacy and say you must be legally carrying a firearm to enter. Can I then kick anyone out who is not, can I charge them with trespass if they refuse to leave? Remember, it is my business, my rules. Can I disallow a person on the basis of there choice NOT to carry? If not, why not?

For a person to legally carry, they must have a CHL. Also your rules require them to concealed carry. In order for them to prove they are carrying they would have to break the law by exposing their handgun, so you couldn't do this.

So, concealed is concealed, or not? The logic fails, I don't have to have them "prove" anything nor did I suggest such any more than a business posting 30.06 can make you prove you are not carrying.

What if I "discovered" them not carrying, then what? Why be allowed to restrict certain types of underwear...or lack thereof? If I discover someone is not carrying and then ask them to leave, what's the difference? If they refuse and I level a charge of trespass, what's the difference?

Let's flip it around. Disregarding for a moment the obvious failure of such a business model, let's say I open a store with pharmacy and say you must be legally carrying a firearm to enter. Can I then kick anyone out who is not, can I charge them with trespass if they refuse to leave? Remember, it is my business, my rules. Can I disallow a person on the basis of there choice NOT to carry? If not, why not?

Russell wrote:

jmra wrote:

SewTexas wrote:If I own the store I should be able to manage my store the way I want to


Let me put it this way......

why putting up a sign refusing entry to CHL holders any different than refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? A business owner should be able to decide who they want to do business with based on my beliefs.

If you refuse to bake that cake you better be prepared to spend a lot of money on lawyers - not saying I believe you should have to bake the cake, just stating reality.

There more than likely would not be any lawyers involved. Sexual orientation is not a protected class.

If you mean that the SCOTUS hasn't made it so, I believe you are correct; but it's getting close (striking down decency laws based on homosexual behavior, marriage protection laws, etc.). But in civil service and USDoL rules, you cannot discriminate against someone for sexual orientation. Again, if selective access is the norm then I have no problem banning concealed handgun carry. However, how many times have we argued with businesses that with a CHL you know X-Y-Z about a person yet you know nothing of your other customers? So when you are open to the general public you are potentially allowing access to all sorts of miscreant. Like in the Sprouts debacle, there are usually viable alternatives if not a tad more inconvenient. But what if you are out in Big Bend territory and the only place around that has the medicine you need is posted 30.06? Then what if the day you need to go, you disarm and it is also the day the local cartel member decides he is going to rob the pharmacy and shoot anybody there? Unlikely? Yes. Absurd? Maybe. Possible? Definitely.

I realize this is a purely academic discussion, but rather than continue to hijack the enhanced CHL thread, I wanted to stick a finger in the breeze and see how alone (or not) I am in the way I think. That is any business without restricted access, open to the public at large should not be able to criminalize the legal carry of a concealed weapon for personal protection. Note, I believe that businesses not open to the general public or have controlled access fall into a more private class, similar to one allowing/denying access to their ranch, deer lease, home, etc.

Please explain your reasoning and of course, suggest other alternative answers as may become apparent.