TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:

Superman wrote:I find it odd that some people are so into their own rights, that they want to trample on other peoples rights...in order to expand on their own rights. Private business owners have every right to deny weapons in their place of business if they want to. They own it and can manage it however they want. With your logic, if someone was a guest in my home, I would not have the right to ask them to leave their weapon in their car or off my property if I wanted to. I'm sorry to say, but my property rights trump their rights in that case...and it is no different in a business.

Now, just like any right, comes the question on whether it is wise to exercise it and when. Businesses have the right to communicate their stance that they do not want concealed handguns in their buildings (via posting 30.06), but I also have the right to choose to not do business with them and go somewhere else. My stance is that it is unwise to post 30.06 signs and deny concealed carry (for a multitude of reasons), but free people are free to be stupid and make unwise decisions.

I personally really like 30.06. It is well defined with no (ok, maybe very little) wiggle room. I think Texas has one of the best defined mechanisms (30.06 signs, 51% signs, etc.) for helping citizens comply with others communicating their exercise of their property rights. 30.06 is necessary to protect the rights of both sides and does a very good job doing it!

Actually the OP did not state that a private-property owner couldn't "manage" their property. What is being proposed is that the 30.06 statutes be eliminated. Private-property owners could still give verbal notice to someone...the catch is that they have to know that someone is carrying concealed in the first place. Or they can simply say, "I don't want you bringing weapons into my house", effectively giving notice.

lbuehler325 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:

jmra wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:
Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

When you are talking about one's home or other noncommercial property, I agree. But commercial property is different. When you open your property to others and invite them in to make money, you have certain duties to the public from whom you want money. The vast majority of those duties deal with the safety of those who you encourage to come into your business and I view carrying a self-defense handgun in that category.

Do you oppose fire codes or elevator codes that apply to commercial property?

Chas.

Yes, I oppose all of those arbitrary codes (invisible taxes that penalize the business owners, and ultimately reward those who lobbied the government to impose such regulations). Let the consumer decide if they want to patronize an establishment. Any transaction is a voluntary contract. If you don't take the steps to safeguard your patrons, it is the patrons' decision whether they will support the establishment. I know that sounds very Milton Friedman, but I refuse to believe that government regulation has more benefit than what it endangers. The role of government should be strictly limited to its constitutional duties. IMHO.

What about health inspections at restaurants?
I agree with Chas.

Ditto on health inspections. I know it sounds draconian, but there is responsibility associated with actions in a free society. That is where liability comes into play. If said restaurant gets me sick, I have the right to seek compensation.

According to your philosophy, this is not a viable action. You don't like regulation of business property, so there's no reason for the company to buy insurance. When the restaurant burns down killing dozens of people, there will be no money and no insurance to collect, so you won't won't be getting any compensation. The owner of the business will start again the next day under a new corporate structure and you won't be touching that entity either. When the new business' elevator falls because it is not properly maintained and kills your loved one, you find that the building and all assets are not owned by the business, but are rented from yet another company (owned by the same businessman) and guess what, there's no insurance here either.

What you espouse is a return to the days of the robber barons when there was no regulation of businesses or business property. It didn't work out too well then and it would work no better now.

Enough of this; you've made your point and I couldn't disagree with you more. There's nothing you or I can say that's going to change either opinion.

Now we're getting back to 30.06.

Chas.

We agree to disagree Charles. Except that the business owner could be held criminally liable... hard to start over when you are in jail for negligent homicide. Also, a bankrupted proprietor would have significant difficultly raising capital to 'start over' given their track record.

lbuehler325 wrote:

jmra wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:
Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

When you are talking about one's home or other noncommercial property, I agree. But commercial property is different. When you open your property to others and invite them in to make money, you have certain duties to the public from whom you want money. The vast majority of those duties deal with the safety of those who you encourage to come into your business and I view carrying a self-defense handgun in that category.

Do you oppose fire codes or elevator codes that apply to commercial property?

Chas.

Yes, I oppose all of those arbitrary codes (invisible taxes that penalize the business owners, and ultimately reward those who lobbied the government to impose such regulations). Let the consumer decide if they want to patronize an establishment. Any transaction is a voluntary contract. If you don't take the steps to safeguard your patrons, it is the patrons' decision whether they will support the establishment. I know that sounds very Milton Friedman, but I refuse to believe that government regulation has more benefit than what it endangers. The role of government should be strictly limited to its constitutional duties. IMHO.

What about health inspections at restaurants?
I agree with Chas.

Ditto on health inspections. I know it sounds draconian, but there is responsibility associated with actions in a free society. That is where liability comes into play. If said restaurant gets me sick, I have the right to seek compensation.

chasfm11 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:TPC §30.06 saved the Texas CHL program. Without §30.06, TPC §30.05 would apply to armed CHL's and the very stringent notice requirement (primarily sign posting) found is 30.06 is not in 30.05. TPC §30.06 must not be repealed under any circumstances.

However, I think it would be reasonable to change the law such that armed CHLs cannot be prohibited from carrying on commercial/business property. Yes, it is private property, but we regulate commercial property extensively now with building codes, fire codes, the Americans With Disabilities Act, local zoning laws, deed restrictions and HOA rules, etc. I think denying a business owner the ability to exclude an armed CHL is no different than denying entry based upon race, religion or any other of the protected classes. Noncommercial property like your home is a different matter.

Chas.

Given the current complexion of our Texas Legislature, however, I see little chance of this change.

lbuehler325 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:
Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

When you are talking about one's home or other noncommercial property, I agree. But commercial property is different. When you open your property to others and invite them in to make money, you have certain duties to the public from whom you want money. The vast majority of those duties deal with the safety of those who you encourage to come into your business and I view carrying a self-defense handgun in that category.

Do you oppose fire codes or elevator codes that apply to commercial property?

Chas.

Yes, I oppose all of those arbitrary codes (invisible taxes that penalize the business owners, and ultimately reward those who lobbied the government to impose such regulations). Let the consumer decide if they want to patronize an establishment.

lbuehler325 wrote:

Superman wrote:I find it odd that some people are so into their own rights, that they want to trample on other peoples rights...in order to expand on their own rights. Private business owners have every right to deny weapons in their place of business if they want to. They own it and can manage it however they want. With your logic, if someone was a guest in my home, I would not have the right to ask them to leave their weapon in their car or off my property if I wanted to. I'm sorry to say, but my property rights trump their rights in that case...and it is no different in a business.

Now, just like any right, comes the question on whether it is wise to exercise it and when. Businesses have the right to communicate their stance that they do not want concealed handguns in their buildings (via posting 30.06), but I also have the right to choose to not do business with them and go somewhere else. My stance is that it is unwise to post 30.06 signs and deny concealed carry (for a multitude of reasons), but free people are free to be stupid and make unwise decisions.

I personally really like 30.06. It is well defined with no (ok, maybe very little) wiggle room. I think Texas has one of the best defined mechanisms (30.06 signs, 51% signs, etc.) for helping citizens comply with others communicating their exercise of their property rights. 30.06 is necessary to protect the rights of both sides and does a very good job doing it!

I have to agree 100% with Superman on this one. We have to respect private property rights. Fact is; Texas is the only state I can think of that makes it so hard to prevent the armed citizen form coming onto their property. I mean, think about it: imagine if I were a business owner and wanted to deny service to one of those Westboro slimeballs... and I had to have a sign in 1" block lettering, posted at all entrances, with specific language just to keep them out. In reality, all I really have to do is scrawl some chicken scratch on a piece of paper saying I reserve the right not to service people I don't like.

Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.