TexasCHLforum.com

Superman wrote:

jmra wrote:A 30.06 allows Walmart to deny entry to an armed CHL only because the state said so.

That argument could be said of our 2A right too, but that doesn't make it true. Both rights are God given (or natural).

jmra wrote:There are states that do not have 30.06 and gun buster signs are not legally prohibitive to CHLs.

That's beneficial to us CHL'ers for sure, but that doesn't mean the business owner does not have the right to ask a patron to leave if they find out. This is how I would prefer it...concealed is concealed, if they don't know it doesn't hurt them. I think business owners have the right and 30.06 is just Texas' way of facilitating the communication and creating he "rules of the game." Whether the state should take on that role is another topic I think (I'm not convinced they should take on that role and I do not agree with the level of punishment associated with it...I like the idea of it being the exact same as trespass if you are asked to leave and do not).

jmra wrote:A 30.06 sign does not stop an off duty officer from entering a commercial business armed. How are they any better than us? The fact of the matter is a CHL is less likely to commit a crime than that officer is. IMHO we should be able to carry anywhere an off duty officer is allowed to carry.

I completely agree that CHL'ers should be able to carry anywhere an off duty officer is allowed to carry. An off duty officer should be no different than the rest of us. Either restrict them to where we can carry, or expand where we can to match them (obviously my preference is to expand ours).

Superman wrote
If Walmart posts a 30.06 sign, they are giving permission to enter on the condition that I am not carrying a concealed handgun. Entrance is conditional in that case. Walmart has a right to put conditions on it giving permission to enter its place of business.

MechAg94 wrote:If this was done, commercial/business property would need to be strictly defined. I would not want private property to be redefined as commercial based on technicality. I would also think business should still have control over property not open to the public.

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.