TexasCHLforum.com

Bullwhip wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:I don't want goverment telling property owners what they have to do or can't do. Telling owners they have to allow guns is wrong. So is telling owners they can't allow guns (schools, 51% joints, sports events, private property where school events take place).

I want to better understand your position on property rights, so I have a few questions I would like to ask.

• 1. Do you make any distinction between commercial and non-commercial property?
  2. Is there any level of government regulation of private property you feel is acceptable? If so, please give examples.
  3. Are you saying you are philosophically against government regulation of property, or are you saying governmental regulations are unconstitutional?

Thanks,
Chas.

Sorry I took so long to answer, I only get to read the forum here 1 or 2 times a week. I hit the truck stop or coffee shop wifi on late night call outs and catch up while I wait for the next call.

1. Private is private. Mine is mine. I own it, I own it.
-- Goverment saying I have to let everyone in my business is no different from saying I have to let someone sacrifice chickens at my church. I don't think goverment should prohibit marriage no matter who is gettting married (gay/straight/poly), but any church should be free to not marry those people. Any person should be free to say "no thanks" to anyone trying to enter or control that properrty.
2. Your right to swing your property ends where my nose begins.
3. Both. Theres no (fed) constitutional basis for restricting private properrty. The constitution says it's up to the states.Feds ignore all restrictions.
--

I understand your answers to numbers 1 and 3, but number 2 is not clear; cute, but not clear. We're not talking about your nose or taking a swing at it. We're talking about safety regulations like building codes, fire codes, elevator codes, etc. How about a specific answer to that question?

However, I think I get the message; you do not accept any government regulation of any private property, including commercial property. The reason I want to understand your private property rights argument is because it appears to me that 1) there are very few people who oppose the employer parking lot bill on alleged private property rights grounds; and 2) I wanted to know if these opinions are based upon extreme libertarian philosophy. We can deal with legitimate concerns about some details of the bill, but there's nothing we can do to satisfy people who will not accept any regulation of commercial property whatsoever.

Chas.

Bullwhip wrote:I don't want goverment telling property owners what they have to do or can't do. Telling owners they have to allow guns is wrong. So is telling owners they can't allow guns (schools, 51% joints, sports events, private property where school events take place).

I want to better understand your position on property rights, so I have a few questions I would like to ask.

• 1. Do you make any distinction between commercial and non-commercial property?
  2. Is there any level of government regulation of private property you feel is acceptable? If so, please give examples.
  3. Are you saying you are philosophically against government regulation of property, or are you saying governmental regulations are unconstitutional?

Thanks,
Chas.

Pacific Job wrote:Why the focus on cars and parking lots? What about a woman's purse? What about my wallet?

Isn't my wallet my private property as much as my car?

Isn't an office building (or retail store, or restaurant) commercial property as much as the associated parking lot?

I think you just need to accept that most people who respect property rights do not carry it to the extreme as do you, especially when you resort to absurd examples like a woman's purse or your wallet. We get the point; you don't like regulating property. Too bad, it's done, it's constitutional, and it will continue. The employer parking lot bill doesn't regulate private property like any existing regulations, other than those that prohibit discrimination. It does not put a single new burden on the property owner.

Chas.

Pacific Job wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Actually, your position is an argument for legalized racism in a commercial setting. I'm not saying you support it or that you are racist, but your argument supports a right to establish racial standards for hiring and for a business' customers.

Like it or not, and I do like it very much, "private property rights" has a different application when we are dealing with commercial property as opposed to non-commercial property like your home, vacation property, hunting lease, etc.

That's a flawed example.

Nope, not flawed at all. Reread the post.

You argue that any regulation must treat the inside of the building the same as the outside or parking lot. Now there's a flawed argument. Numerous commercial property regulations apply only to the inside of commercial building, while others apply only to the outside. Fire codes require sprinklers inside buildings, not in the parking lots. Fire codes also set maximum occupancy numbers inside buildings, but not in parking lots. State law requires a certain number and placement of parking spaces for the handicapped, but this does not apply to the building.

Chas.

Bullwhip wrote:

Douva wrote:

Pacific Rim Job wrote:

srothstein wrote:I still have problems with the EPL bills and private property rights.

Texas is big. I think it's plenty big enough to park somewhere else if some property owner doesn't allow guns.

I firmly support private property rights, which is why I don't support forcing private colleges to allow concealed carry on campus. But when it comes to people's cars, I think the issue isn't quite as black and white as some private property advocates want to portray it.

The no-guns companies are wrong. But they have the right to be wrong. Detroit car companies banned import cars from their employee lots too. Stupid, because some of those "furrin" cars were made in America. It was still their right.

Goverment shouldn't get involved. If they can say anti-gun companies must allow gun-totin employees, they can say churches have to hire gays and PETA has to hire fur wearin meat eaters and NRA has to give equal funds to Brady.

. . .

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, I hate racism and descrimination and would not support companies that practice that.

Actually, your position is an argument for legalized racism in a commercial setting. I'm not saying you support it or that you are racist, but your argument supports a right to establish racial standards for hiring and for a business' customers.

Like it or not, and I do like it very much, "private property rights" has a different application when we are dealing with commercial property as opposed to non-commercial property like your home, vacation property, hunting lease, etc. I want to be able to do want I want with my home, subject to the homeowners association rules that help protect the value and quality of life in my neighborhood. I want to be subject to fewer restrictions on land in unincorporated areas of the county that is not used for commercial purposes. My position is reasonable because I am not trying to attract people to come to those locations to benefit commercially from their money or labor.

Commercial property is an entirely different matter. When I walk into my downtown Houston law office every day, I don't want to have to worry about being killed or injured because the building owner doesn't want to comply with the elevator code, building codes, or fire codes. I don't want to attend my granddaughter's funeral because her church pre-school didn't want to comply with state licensing requirements dealing with ratios and qualifications for employees at such institutions. I didn't want to attend the funeral of either of my son's because they died in an apartment fire while attending college because the landlord thought fire alarms were too expensive to install. I could go on and on.

Commercial property is much more heavily regulated than non-commercial property and rightfully so. (I don't agree with all regulation of commercial property.) When someone decides to open a business and invite people to enter their property, they no longer have the right to do or not do anything they please. If you want me to enter your facility to work for you or buy your goods or services, you owe a duty to meet minimum safety standards. I can't look inside your walls and see you used aluminum wiring instead of copper; I can't open the elevator shafts at my office and see that the elevators are properly maintained. Most codes and building regulations were adopted in response to injuries and deaths, while a much smaller number were adopted for quality of life reasons.

Some argue that I could work somewhere else or shop somewhere else, but that's a hollow argument. If commercial property were unregulated, no one is going to spend the money to comply with voluntary codes. That was the case before commercial property was regulated over 100 years ago, and currently code violations frequently lead to injury and death.

Compare the regulations currently facing commercial property owners with the employer parking lot bill (EPL) and it's obvious that the EPL places absolutely no burden on the property owner whatsoever. It merely prohibits an employer from interfering with their employees' private property rights, and in so doing, it provides those employees the means to defend themselves when going to and from work. There is no fee involved, no required reporting, no periodic inspections; the property owner/employer does not have to life a finger or spend a dime.

Chas.

You can only answer one, so make it your most important!

Chas.