TexasCHLforum.com

E.Marquez wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: If concealed handguns represent a liability to your business operations, then what do you do to ensure that people don't carry them into your business. Putting up a sign for law abiding LTC's to obey doesn't seem like it would relieve you of liability if someone violated it. And cops and volunteer firemen could ignore it at will. So much for your property owners' rights.

Perhaps you missed the part where I stated " I choose to not be concerned about you bringing a concealed handgun on my personal property in of itself... Coupled with other actions, attitude, events I may change that positon on a case by case basis."

E.Marquez wrote:

android wrote:I have in the past used my "purple underwear law" as an example. If you're wearing purple underwear and nobody can see it except you, it would be ridiculous to pass a law saying that you are committing criminal trespass on a merchant's property because you walked in wearing purple underwear under you pants and tucked in shirt and not visible to any customer or employee.

But the "but mah property rights" crowd think that's a perfectly acceptable position when purple underwear becomes a concealed handgun.

Your welcome to your personal opinion and to do as you please on your owned property
Thankfully, the majority disagrees with you and we have the laws and rights we do as property owners

You and your purple underwear pose no threat or liability to me or my customers, my dogs or children, so yes, I agree it shouldn't matter.
Your concealed handgun is much different, and I, not you get to say when and how you may bring it on my personal property. I choose to not be concerned about you bringing a concealed handgun on my personal property in of itself... Coupled with other actions, attitude, events I may change that positon on a case by case basis. I find it difficult to believe most property owners would not want the same legal options.

E.Marquez wrote:

flechero wrote: why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property..

Some get it, some dont.
I often wonder how many that dont, are not property owners.. (as much as one can "own" property in the US).

And if they are property owners, can they with a straight face say, they have no reservations or concerns about giving free and unrestricted access of their property by others as long as it "does not affect the property"?
Keeping in mind as well, "doesn't affect" is in the opinion of the non property owner person, and it is not a fixed standard..

I'm sure there are some property owners willing to seed that control to a third party... The Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi I suppose, but Ive not met the person who would yet.

"Oh your just being extreme and exaggerating"

Ok, perhaps in illustrating the point.. So try this property owner who thinks, a third party should be able to bring with them anything they want that "does not affect" the property..

Remember it is the third party, not you that gets to decide what is not affecting your property and ok to bring with them. For those advocating such a thing... speak up..and we can play this out to see if you will admit, there are things a third party might want to bring on your privet property you would like them not to...but under your idea of right and wrong, they are allowed to, because they dont think it affect your property.