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.

As a condo owner most give the operations over to the home owners board who in turn gives the day to day stuff over to a management company. Does not make the condo owner any less of an owner. Not much different then owning voter stock.

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.

jed wrote:Folks, this is not a difficult concept to understand. Do you own part of the business? Do you pay their bills or payroll? No? Then you don't get a say in how they run their business. It's still private property and if they don't want us carrying on their property then they can say no. Shop somewhere else. I work too hard for my money to patronize some place who doesn't want me and my gun. It seems really simple.

I do not know if the law, as written, distinguishes a difference between private property and private property open to the public. It certainly seems to me the government has (and does) infringe on property rights from time to time, both private property and private property open to the public. In terms of private property, one only has to look as far as eminent domain. As for private property open to the public, one only needs to look as far as anti-discriminatory laws. In both cases the government certainly has a say in what happens on your private property.

Property rights are granted to us by our government. The right to self-defense is endowed to us by our creator. In those terms, which right is superior? Should someone’s property rights, granted by government, curtail our God given right to self-defense? In my opinion, No. BTW… Disarming us is curtailing us from effectively protecting ourselves from armed attackers. However, can there be a balance between the 2 rights? Absolutely. I think business owners and employers (with extremely few exceptions) should not be allowed to ban CC. I do think that business owners and employers should be able to choose whether to allow OC or not.

EDIT: Please note I used the terms buiness owners and employers which should infer private property open to the public... Not private property for personal use. Private property for personal use, the owner should be able to use that property however they want with very little to no govenment intrusion.