TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:Austinrealtor,

We can always agree to disagree, and a polite discussion never hurts anyone. But you might have misunderstood one of my points slightly. I was not saying or implying in any way that discrimination is right, even for a person on private property. It is not even right for what you call truly private property, such as a home. But it is the right of the property owner to be as stupid and as wrong as he can be, if it does not directly harm another. To me, the government interference in private property is the bigger harm to society than the bigotry is.

For proof, I will point out that one of the ways they justified the equal rights laws applying to such things as Lester Maddox's restaurant in Atlanta was by using the Interstate Commerce Clause. The logic was that the restaurant might be serving someone who traveled interstate to get there, so it was affecting interstate commerce and was therefore legally regulated. This stretch of the law has been abused more and more and leads us to many bad things.

And freedom to be stupid and morally wrong is important to me because protecting other people is the only way I protect my freedoms. I don't care for the government telling me what to do, so I try to protect even those I strongly disagree with, if it is an overreach of the government.

Steve, thank you for clarifying. And hope you didn't think I was directly accusing you of advocating discrimination. I think we both agree discrimination is wrong, we just disagree on how to go about correcting the problem. I very much understand your constructionist interpretation of the Constitution etc in this matter. And I wish the generations that came before me had found a "better" way to correct the social injustices of racism etc. At some point, maybe we'll have the willpower in this country to affect these changes properly through Constitutional amendment and stop falling back on the old standby of "interstate commerce".

But, as you can likely read between the lines above, I still disagree with you that property rights are sacrosanct. I believe in very strong rights for property owners, but not absolute rights. 999 times out of 100 I'll side with a property owners and say to the offended party "if you don't like it, leave" But when I feel the property owner's exercise of his rights violates a more important right of an individual, I side with the individual. The right to utilize an open-to-the-public facility despite ones race, color, creed etc is more important than a property owners rights to be stupid (to use your words ) The right to self defense trumps the right of the property owner to be a hoplophobe (LOVE that word, TAM - thanks )

But these are philosophical differences of opinion; thus I proposed "agree to disagree" because I think we are at a philosophical impasse on this subject - we've debated each other down to our core beliefs, which differ, and aren't likely to change.

Of course, the simple solution to balancing the rights of property owner vs. individuals is that if a property owner wishes to be "stupid" then he just closes his business to the general public - make your business a "club" or "lodge" or "membership only" organization and then prohibit whomever you want from entering. Heck, it works for Costco et al. I often like to reduce a disagreement over two core beliefs down to who had the first "choice". Obviously it's easy to say the individual customer has a right to choose to shop somewhere else. But if you take it back a step further, the property owner has the choice to not open his property to the general public. Once you make the choice to open your property to the general public, then you have to follow the rules of such. If the property owner doesn't like the rules - then they are free to open a private membership-only business on their property.

Again, many thanks for the spirited debate. Great respect for you and your beliefs, even those with which I disagree.

Charles, I concede the point to your superior wisdom on this subject. Thank you for correcting the flaws in our reasoning on this subject. I honestly did not think there was anything "criminal" about merely ignoring a "no smoking" sign or a "no cell phones" sign.

Thanks for clarifying

srothstein wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:Steve, I understand your point. I really do. But how to do you explain all the other "rules" for property owners who willingly open their property to the general public?

Well, I was trying to avoid saying it because it can be a very unpopular opinion, but you, Embalmo, RPB, and Xtremeduty45 all deserve an answer.

The problem here, as I see it, is that you are using the principle of stare decisis. That is the Latin phrase for I was wrong before so I will continue to be wrong. or, in simpler words, the laws mandating that I allow the protected classes into my business are wrong. If it is my property, I get to make the rules. I get to decide who I associate with, in my private life and in my business life. If I don't want Catholics, Gun owners, bikers, women, tattooed people, midgets, redheads, or any other type of person in my business, I have the right to say no. Of course, the current law may not recognize that right in every case, but it doesn't make the law right. This is what is known as freedom and respect of EVERYONE's rights by the government.

Interesting take, Steve. And thank you for the response. I strongly disagree that stare decisis in this instance is wrong. "Colored only" drinking fountains and lunch counters were wrong, as is any discrimination based on someone's unalterable personal traits. I'm not saying CHL fits into this category at all. I was just pointing out that property ownership does not give absolute rights.

But I can't go down this path with you that property ownership gives you the right to discriminate as you see fit, which is basically what you're saying. "My property my rules". Some classes are protected for legitimate reasons; some are not. But - and I must now state again we're only talking about Open To The Public property - excluding one class of people from a property that is open to the general public is just plain wrong, as is discrimination in housing, employment, etc.

But I don't think we're going to agree, so I'll agree to disagree at this point.

Again, thanks for the response - appreciate the discussion

frazzled wrote:This discussion has been enlightening. The above has changed my mind and I am in agreement. If property owners can still mandate no firearms akin to no shirt shoes no service-ie if come on you must leave or can be asked to leave- then I am onside with removing the 30.06 in this context. The sign still serves as notice but you can only be asked to leave and arrested if you do not, in fact, leave (akain to any other "you are now trespassing, please leave").

Alright! Welcome aboard!

Nice job guys, good "team effort" to convince him



note, please don't take this as gloating. I'm just clowning around

frazzled wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

frazzled wrote:Your right to defend yourself is utterly irrelevant when compared to my rights to my property and my right to exclude you from it.
You may disagree but too bad. Thats free rights of private ownership, contract, and a thousand years of stare decisis against, well nothing. You have no rights here.

Frazzled, all due respect, but can you back up your assumption that your property rights absolutely and without question trump our rights to defend ourselves? I mean, the Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In fact, some early declaration of rights amongst the colonists did specify "life, liberty, property" but this was revised in Jefferson's sentence of a lifetime to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_libe ... _happiness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, in my humble opinion, our rights to "life" and the protection of that right and of our lives trumps ANY right to property. Your property is NOT more important than my life. Period.

Examples:
You have no right to knowingly allow dangerous activity or hazards on your publicly accessible property. Don't believe me? Go ask the next property manager you find about "slip and fall" hazards and proactive mitigation. Go ask about mold, and asbestos, and countless other hazards for which you as property owner WILL BE HELD LIABLE if you do not take steps to properly mitigate. To say nothing of compliance with ADA and other Federal, state, and local building codes and regulations.

So why then does a property owner have the right to prevent me from defending myself? To, in effect, declare his property a gun-free zone of defenseless victims in waiting? Because the worst (as Embalmo eluded to) has not yet happened to a CHLee who was denied his right to carry and subsequently killed or severely injured in an attack he could have defended against if he'd had his weapon.

Contract rights to property were proteced by the merry King of England long before the right to self defense was made (unless you were a royal of course). Property right were the bedrock of their culture and trumped all considerations. Similarly rights of the government (in this case the King) were established in a modern context with the Normans. Spanish (aka Napoleonic Code) laws also reflects the primacy of the government

It would be easier for those arguing with me to show an instance in law where someone's (a civilian's) right to carry trumped the property rights of an owner.

I understand your (admirable) desire to be your childrens' protector. But consider the following: off campus, anyone around your kids who is armed with a concealed weapon will be either A) a criminal; or B) a CHL holder; or C) an undercover/plainclothes LEO. On campus, it will likely be A) a criminal. That's it, because a law abiding CHL holder is going to disarm before entering the premises, and last I heard, undercover cops aren't working too many drug stings in grammar schools these days. So, barring CHL access to school campuses actually works against your childrens' safety, not in favor of it.

Annoyed, I think thats a different thread. but as noted in that thread, thats the reason I am ambivalent about the issue. I'd rather debate that on that thread if needed as I'm moving on from this thread. I was done afetr the wife/rape post.

Frazzled, all due respect (and I continue starting all my posts with that because I truly do respect your stance and willingness to take such a stance on a gun board )

That said, I don't really care what rights were bestowed upon the commoners by the jolly old King of England. I seem to remember we roundly kicked his derriere in the late 1700s, so the relevant laws start then, not before then. Granted, laws of civilized society before 1776 influenced the crafting of our own Constitution and other founding documents, but what credence they were given is expressed in our laws.

Also, it's a red herring to suggest the only way to debate your point is to provide an example of a civilian gun right trumping a property right. But here's one: the owner of government property in Texas cannot prohibit me from entering said government property by posting 30.06. Now who owns government property? The government? the politicians? the people? ..... i digress

But the point here is that some rights (like the right to life and self defense) are natural and inalienable rights. The right to property is a man-made right, IMHO. Don't remember any deeds of trust or Realtors in the caveman days, but a caveman sure would beat you with a heavy stick if you attacked him.

I digress again

At one point in our recent history an open-to-the-public property owner could prohibit you from entering based on your race/skin color, your disability, even your hair style "get outta here you darn hippy!" ... but when this ability to prohibit entry became criminally enforceable (Jim Crow laws), the people wisely rose up to say "enough is enough".

Now, despite this suppsedly absolute right of property owners to do as they see fit on their OTTP property, they cannot (by law) exclude based on race, disability, even DOGS must be allowed to enter if their purpose is to lead the blind.

But I realize it's a stretch to compare CHL to race or disability as a sort of "protected class" so let me try this one more theory on for size ...

If you post a sign that says "no tatoos in my restaurant" because you want to keep out bikers and other riff-raff, would a guy with a tatoo on his back completely concealed by his shirt be breaking any law (including trespassing 30.05) if he were to enter this restaurant? Now, obviously, if he removed his shirt and showed his tatoo and the owner told him to leave and he refused, OK he's now trespassing. But as long as he minds his own business, doesn't cause trouble, and keeps his tatoo concealed - he's not breaking any law (that I know of - IANAL).

What about a "no weapons" generic sign and a guy walks in carrying a 3-inch bladed Swiss Army knife concealed in his pocket?
What about a "no cell phones" sign and a guy walks in carrying a cell phone in his pocket with the ringer turned off?

So why is it different for those who legally carry concealed weapons? As long as we remain concealed why not just leave it as "what they don't know can't hurt them". Why make it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE to merely enter a building while carrying a weapon?

srothstein wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:Frazzled, all due respect, but can you back up your assumption that your property rights absolutely and without question trump our rights to defend ourselves?

I don't know about him, but I can. All I need to do is to point out that the Constitution only protects you from GOVERNMENTAL infringement on any of your rights. Other people can infringe on them all they want and it is not illegal nor a violation of the Constitution. So, if it is my property, my rights trump ALL of yours. If it is public property, our rights are equal. If it is your property, your rights trump all of mine.

And the more I think about it, the more I am willing to bet we all learned this very principle at home from our parents, and taught it to our kids. At least, if you are my age, I am confident your parents at one time said something along the lines of "my house, my rules." The principle still applies.

Steve, I understand your point. I really do. But how to do you explain all the other "rules" for property owners who willingly open their property to the general public? When I talk about my rights vs a property owners rights, understand I'm not talking about truly "private" property like your house or your ranch land. I'm talking about property that they owner has willfully opened to the general public, such as a store or restaurant. Even with such "semi-public" property, I fully understand the owner's right to throw me out for most any reason. I just don't see how that right extends to his ability to post a sign (no matter how problematic) that in effect makes me a criminal if I walk past it while exercising my right to defend myself.

That just swings the delicate pendulum too far toward the property owner's rights over my rights. I think we all agree that all rights are a balancing act - my rights stop where yours begin, and vice versa.

And believe me, I'm a HUGE proponent of property rights. I think emminent domain is a violation of private property rights. I think homeowners associations and zoning are a violation of private property rights. But those are all allowed because "we the people" have collectively agreed to these infringements. So why is it so hard to envision a day when "we the people" collectively agree that my rights to self-defense trump anyone's rights to absolute reign over property that is willfully open to the general public.

frazzled wrote:Your right to defend yourself is utterly irrelevant when compared to my rights to my property and my right to exclude you from it.
You may disagree but too bad. Thats free rights of private ownership, contract, and a thousand years of stare decisis against, well nothing. You have no rights here.

Frazzled, all due respect, but can you back up your assumption that your property rights absolutely and without question trump our rights to defend ourselves? I mean, the Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In fact, some early declaration of rights amongst the colonists did specify "life, liberty, property" but this was revised in Jefferson's sentence of a lifetime to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_libe ... _happiness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, in my humble opinion, our rights to "life" and the protection of that right and of our lives trumps ANY right to property. Your property is NOT more important than my life. Period.

Examples:
You have no right to knowingly allow dangerous activity or hazards on your publicly accessible property. Don't believe me? Go ask the next property manager you find about "slip and fall" hazards and proactive mitigation. Go ask about mold, and asbestos, and countless other hazards for which you as property owner WILL BE HELD LIABLE if you do not take steps to properly mitigate. To say nothing of compliance with ADA and other Federal, state, and local building codes and regulations.

So why then does a property owner have the right to prevent me from defending myself? To, in effect, declare his property a gun-free zone of defenseless victims in waiting? Because the worst (as Embalmo eluded to) has not yet happened to a CHLee who was denied his right to carry and subsequently killed or severely injured in an attack he could have defended against if he'd had his weapon.

Embalmo wrote:In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.

LEOs are a perfect example of when someone else's gun-carrying rights supercede a business owner's ... what was TAM's word? ... oh yeah .... hoplophobic rights

And we need some stinkin' CHL badges too!

ok, i'm kidding about that last part

The Annoyed Man wrote:hoplophobes

Wow, learn something new every day ...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... hoplophobe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I wish we could prevent any business owner from making their commercial property off-limits to armed CHL's, but we can't.

As already mentioned, TPC §30.06 and the famous/infamous big, ugly 30.06 sign was created to deter property owners from prohibiting armed CHL's from coming on their property. If there were a way to make it unlawful for a business owner to prohibit armed CHL's from coming on their property we would have done so. That's absolutely impossible; even our friends are divided when we start talking about private property rights, even commercial property.

It would also be impossible to amend TPC §30.06 to require/allow only verbal notice. We couldn't even get a hearing on such a bill. So the big, ugly sign is still the best deterrent we have to the posting of private property.

As an aside, as a private property owner, I most certainly can limit access to my property for any reason whatsoever, so long as it doesn't violate federal law (law, not the Constitution). I can't exclude people based upon raced, gender, age, etc., but that's because of the civil rights act, not the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution protects our right to worship, but I could prohibit entry onto my property by anyone carrying a Bible, or a cross or who is praying; the Constitution protects the right of fee speech, but I can have a rule that "anyone who talks can't stay on my property." Just because an act is lawful doesn't mean you have an unfettered right to do it on private property.

Chas.

Charles, I greatly respect all you've done for CHL in this state and agree 30.06 is probably the best we can hope for. This whole thread is sort of a pie in the sky academic exercise in a way. But - and I'm setting myself up for a whuppin by arguing the law with an attorney, I realize - it seems to me that 30.06 singles out CHLees for CRIMINAL TRESPASS in a way that no other statute does (my knowledge on such things being miniscule at best). Let me throw out some examples and get your input:

If I post "No solicting" on my front door and someone comes up and knocks on my door selling the latest widget, can they be prosecuted for trespassing? I have a no solicting and no trespassing notce on my door and get door hangers, business cards, and occasional knocks anyway (usally from non-English speaking rent-a-worker types)

If I post "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and someone enters without shoes or shirt, they won't get served, but can they be prosecuted?

If I walk past a 30.06 while carrying, I've automatically broken the law, right? In what other instance (other than an actual 30.05 TRESPASSING notice) does this happen? In what other instance can some particular thing about ME (and not merely the fact that I'm on your property at all) cause me to be immediately in breach of the law?

This is what I like so much about Purplehood's idea on the subject. If I am on your property doing that which you do not condone and you tell me to leave, then yes I must immediately turn around 180 degrees and vacate the property. And if I am on any private property at all with a 30.05 NO TRESPASSING notice (regardless of my dress or items I have with me), then I have already violated the law.

But for anything other than 30.06 or 30.05, can crossing a mere sign that says "NO ________" (with the blank being a tangible otherwise legal object) be an automatic violation of the law? This is the problem with this law that Purplehood's idea so eloquently fixes, IMHO.

If open carry were to some day be legal, then any "no guns" sign would be equivalent to a "no trespassing" sign for open carriers. But as long as a gun remains concealed (with obvious exceptions for acceptable unconcealment for self-defense as defined by relevant penal codes) then what they don't know can't hurt them or me.

Again, academic exercise. But from such discussions new bright ideas are often formed.

Dragonfighter wrote:

frazzled wrote:I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

My argument is, and always has been this. There is a difference with private property domicile, private property with restricted access (individual ID, key card or other security) and private property open to the public. Exclusive vs. inclusive as it were.

In the latter case, a store or restaurant for example, anyone can enter and shop. There are not security checks or handbag searches to gain entry so any person regardless of appearance, race, sex or even criminal history can come and go as they please...during business hours. In THIS case I think we can and should tell a business owner that if you allow unfettered access to the general public then you can not restrict persons who are exercising other legal rights, especially those that are non invasive like concealed carry.

In the meantime, education and boycott are our only viable alternatives.

I can also see an invasion of privacy argument with 30.06 (a stretch I know, but bear with me) ... name another item that is legal to possess outside a typical private business that is open to the general public but then becomes not only against the "rules" or "company policy" but becomes a CRIME if that legally possessed item is carried into the open-to-the-public business?

I strongly agree with Dragonfighter's division of types of private property. And if a private business open to the public wants to prohibit something that I have hidden privately on my person, then they need to search EVERYONE who enters the facility (in the interest of fairness and not profiling of course ). If you post 30.06, then you must also install metal detectors and search handbags to ensure the safety of your customers. This way the entire public is subject to the same level of invasion of privacy in order to enter the business. You're not singling out a particular group of people who live a particular lifestyle which they keep PRIVATE (concealed means concealed). And if anyone does not agree to this invasion of their privacy, then they are free to shop elsewhere.

Mike1951 wrote:I don't advocate 30.06 signs, but I suspect some of you are too new to Texas concealed carry to remember that during 1996 and most of 1997 any type of no guns or gunbuster sign served as legal notice.

Creating a standard for a huge, ugly sign in 1997 was a great step forward.

Been CHL for 12 years now, but I agree with your statement above. 30.06 is a HUGE improvement over what was considered an off-limits sign in the beginning (and what still makes buildings off limits in other states). But why stop there?

I don't foresee 30.06 going away any time soon, I just REALLY liked Purplehood's thought process on this matter. Really makes a lot of rational sense to me (which is why government will never implement it )

I liked Purplehood's argument in another thread against even having a 30.06 sign at all so much that I'm reposting it here as a new thread ....

Purplehood wrote:If it comes right down to it we shouldn't even have 30.06 signs. We carry concealed, we keep them concealed. If for some reason an owner of private property becomes aware that someone is carrying, then they can give that someone verbal notice. Otherwise, they don't need to know.

I REALLY like this argument. What the business owner doesn't know won't hurt him. Some business owners may have a problem (moral, religious, whatever) with other things about a customer or that a customer carries on or attached to their body (I'm going stop RIGHT HERE before I break forum rules with any detailed descriptions), but that owner has no right to prohibit a person from having that legal item on them while on their property. So why are guns any different (I know why - politics - but I'm talking about what the law SHOULD BE).

Anyway, I yield the floor ...