TexasCHLforum.com

Zoomie wrote:

austinrealtor wrote: Of course, anyone under the age of 21 can't own/possess a handgun anyway,

In the spirit of providing precise information, individuals 18 and over can own and posses a handgun, they just can't buy it from a dealer.

There's also the military exception that allows me to legally carry my own handgun even though I am not yet 21.

What I find ridiculous is that I can walk into a Walmart with a loaded handgun on my hip, but cannot purchase ammo for the same gun.

Thanks for the clarification.

By the way, what kind of handgun is on your hip that you can't purchase ammo for it at Wal Mart? All the Wally World's around me sell most standard handgun ammo - of course, they don't always have it in stock, but that seems more a private business inventory problem than a legislative issue.

sjfcontrol wrote:So, Mr. AustinRealtor -- Are you calling me Infantile? I have just one thing to say about that! Pull My Finger!

No, I'll keep my booger hook off your "bang switch", thanks



(and no, I wasn't calling you infantile - unless you were serious about "packing pre-schoolers")

sjfcontrol wrote:

Venus Pax wrote: 2. Campus Carry. I would like to see this start with colleges/universities, but extend in later sessions to include pre-k through 12 schools (public and private).

Wow! Packing Pre-Schoolers!! (Least they wouldn't get busted for pointing a "finger" gun anymore!)

I completely agree with Venus Pax on this one. And, while I'm sure sjfcontrol is just kidding, "packing pre-schoolers" is exactly the kind of infantile rebuttal we're likely to hear from the antis. Of course, anyone under the age of 21 can't own/possess a handgun anyway, but as soon as this bill passes they'll all be legally carrying handguns to school somehow

Legal CHL should be allowed in all schools of all grades public or private for one very simple reason - It is my right to keep and bear arms to protect myself and my family; by enrolling my child in MANDATORY public school (my wife and I don't make enough money for one of us to stay home and home-school our children or to send them to a private school - so in order to comply with the law - and of course ensure our children get an education - we will be sending them to public school. When and where did I give up my second amendment rights when I enrolled my child in school? This state-mandated ban on CHL in schools is especially egregious on private schools. All those who think private property owners should continue to be able to choose whether to ban us with 30.06, what about a private property owner who runs a pre-school/day care and is prohibited from CHOOSING to not ban us?

When I walk from the school door to my truck with my toddlers in tow UNARMED I am more vulnerable than at any other time or place during the course of a day. Who is being "protected" by disarming me in this manner? Same applies to grade school and high school, except in those cases the law makes it MORE dangerous because I have to leave my gun unattended in my car when I go visit my public school teacher wife and any punk 17-year-old can smash a window and grab my gun, right there on campus. Let's see them try that in a Wal Mart parking lot or anywhere else

ok, glad I got that out of my system

/rant

Dragonfighter wrote:Steve,

You're right, that is an elegant solution...I can definitely get behind that.

My argument about private property has been this. If access to my property is by my forbearance only, that is to say by specific permission implied or explicit, then I can say get off for any reason that suits me. If OTOH my property is open to generally unfettered public access, like a retail setting, how can I be permitted to restrict someone for exercising their legal right to self defense. After all ADA will compel me to modify facilities for those who are physically impaired and I am restricted for forbidding someone based on race/sex, why can't the statutes deny restrictions based on legal behavior? Generally these properties don't restrict gang bangers or people who dress like them, they don't stop people at the door and test for drug use or drug carrying. People aren't restricted from these stores based on criminal records. Where I back off on this is when the property in question has controlled entry (card keys et al) and restrict access to an individual case by case basis. In that case we're back to a situation similar to my home, you are there under specific permission.

I do like your suggestion and think it would do a lot toward forcing the hand of business owners but there would be stalwarts who presume that their politics and surplus of cash trumps my life. I'd rather know that I can carry without fear of prosecution and live, than find solace that my family would be compensated in my death.

tallmike wrote:I dont understand why folks want to see time and money spent on making private businesses liable for crime on their property if they want to post 30.06. Just don't patronize those places. If they post 30.06 and you still choose to enter, you are accepting the responsibility.

Lets not ask the government to infringe on property rights just because we want more gun rights.

tallmike, when I legally carry a gun I take on the full responsibility and liability for any actions and adverse consequences that may come from my exercising this right. If I shoot in self defense and hit an innocent bystander, I am liable. If my gun "accidentally" discharges, I am liable.

So then, if a property owner wants to exercise his/her rights, which in turn deny me my rights (force their rights to supercede my rights), why do they not then also take on full repsonsibility and liability for any actions and adverse consequences that may come from them exercising their rights over mine?

Dragonfighter wrote:Maybe not this time, but I see the liability when restricting CCW as a real eventuality. I have the right to deny access to my property for any reason, or no reason. But then again, my property is not otherwise open to public access. If I were to open it up to generally unrestricted access, then where do I have the right to restrict someone for exercising their legal right to defend themselves? In a republic, my rights end where yours begin. It will take an extraordinary resolve in the legislature or a precedent. The pragmatist in me looks around and sees the reality.

Well stated, Dragonfighter.

Outbreaker wrote:Amend 30.06

Any busisness that posts this notice is directly liable for anything that happens to a CHL holder due to him being diarmed!

Ziran wrote:How about something along these lines (both A) and B)):

A) Make business immune to any civil law suits (similar to castle doctrine) resulting from people being shot on premises if they explicitly allow concealed carry on premises by their employees and anyone else legally entering their premises (basically the idea is to reward businesses that recognize reality that the best way to protect folks is to make sure good guys are armed).

B) Make business explicitly liable for civil damages resulting from folks being shot on premises if they disallow concealed carry (even if it is only for their employees).

This way the "true believers" can still ban guns if they want to but these that do it only for boilerplate legal / insurance reasons would now have every reason to explicitly allow CHL.

While I could nitpick certain things, I REALLY like the direction of both of the above statements. If you - as a property owner - deny me my inherent natural right to protect myself while I visit your property - then you - as property owner - take full responsibility and liability for my well being while I visit your property. And nothing would have to be "proved" in court - meaning no arguments of "even if he had his gun he still couldn't protect himself from that armed thug" - basically if you ban CHL and a CHLee is victim to violent crime on your property, then you're liable. Period. And notice I said the property owner is only liable for the safety of the CHLees. This is not a free-for-all open liability for ALL customers. Just the CHLees whose rights you've supplanted with your own rights.

I am all for property rights. I'm a big believer in property rights. I respect property rights and protect my own property rights strongly. BUT ... my natural right of self defense trumps ANYONE's property rights EVERY time.

Just like the rights of the handicapped to access an open-to-the-public business trump the rights of the property owner to not be forced to alter his building to accomodate them. That is the best analogy for CHL rights trumping property rights ... the ADA.