TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11 wrote:

baron wrote:

jnichols2 wrote:The feeling that a private property owner that chooses to start a business that deals with the public loses what property rights he had seems particularly strong. And this is coming from a forum dedicated to folks that chose to arm themselves in order to protect said rights.

What I am seeing is support for the Second Amendment to have the same status as other constitutional rights. If a business owner can post a legally binding sign prohibiting guns, they should be able to post legally binding signs prohibiting certain religious attire, etc. And the police should enforce those signs with equal zeal.

On the other hand, if a "No Turbans" sign is not legally valid than a "No Guns" sign shouldn't be either. The same should hold true for a company's HR policies.

The difference is that the Texas Legislature did not pass a bill that creates a sign which bans turbans or anything else. While I understand that the 30.06 provision was necessary to get the CC bill passed, the problem lies with the Legislature regarding what can be banned and what doesn't have a legal means for a ban. The public retains the right to take their business elsewhere in response to the business use of the legal bans.

Wrong. 30.05 gives the legal right under Texas law to ban anything and anyone from your property. Federal law, however, supersedes and makes banning the protected classes illegal.

Keith B wrote:

A-R wrote:This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

Unfortunately still invalid as the turban is part of their religious clothing and would be protected.

OK, what about a person with a cross necklace or a cross tattoo? That's not an essential part of the religious clothing.

Keith B wrote:

A-R wrote:This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

Unfortunately still invalid as the turban is part of their religious clothing and would be protected.

I would liken the example to the 1st amendment. You have the right to free speech, and without previous reason I can't ban you physically from my store. However, I can prohibit what you say in my store and have the right to ban profanity if I so choose.

And - I think - that may be all that we (those who don't like publicly accessible businesses posting 30.06) are really asking for ... the ability to enter and utilize said businesses UNLESS we do something that creates a nuisance.

I go back-n-forth on this one a lot, but I always come back to why can a "public accommodation" (short for a business open to the general public) ban an otherwise law-abiding person who is creating no problem other than a tool you don't even realize he has under his clothing?

The pre-emptive nature of 30.06 is what bothers so many. It's like saying you can't walk into my store with your mouth because your mouth has the potential to say something I don't want it to say.

Sorta reminds me of this ol' joke:

One morning the husband returns after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, and reads her book.

Along comes a game warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside the woman and says, "Good morning Ma'am. What are you doing?"

Woman Joke Reading in Boat - Funny Clean Joke"Reading a book," she replies, (thinking, "Isn't that obvious?")

"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informs her.

"I'm sorry officer, but I'm not fishing, I'm reading."

"Yes, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up."

"If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says the woman.

"But I haven't even touched you," says the game warden.

"That's true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment."

"Have a nice day ma'am," and he left.

android wrote:

A-R wrote: My point was simply that you presented a false choice. There are plenty of us who believe in multiple varying shades of gray on this issue. In fact, unless you believe it is OK to deny access to an open-to-the-general-public business to black female Christians over the age of 50 then you also believe in a grey area between "either you believe in private property rights or you don't ... "

You provide a perfect example here...

Black: not a choice
Female: not a choice
Over 50: not a choice
Christian: Religion is a choice*, yet protected like inherent traits that cannot be changed and everyone here seems to be quite fine with that protection.

Religion is "concealed" unless the person chooses to reveal their beliefs. A concealed weapon is concealed unless a person chooses to expose it. I see no difference between the two and they should be treated equally.


* if it were not, then Christians would not spend such a great deal of time trying to convince you to convert.

This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

SewTexas wrote:

A-R wrote:

SewTexas wrote:it boils down to this....

either you believe in private property rights, or you don't. either you believe in the right to conduct private business as one sees fit, or you don't.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... se-dilemma" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and.......

My point was simply that you presented a false choice. There are plenty of us who believe in multiple varying shades of gray on this issue. In fact, unless you believe it is OK to deny access to an open-to-the-general-public business to black female Christians over the age of 50 then you also believe in a grey area between "either you believe in private property rights or you don't ... "

Obviously, I"m no lawyer ...

Seems to me there are two avenues leading to the idea that a business open to the public cannot/should not be able to ban CHL via 30.06:

1. Protected class: like race, color, sex, religion, handicap, national origin, age. Generally speaking, businesses open to the general public may not deny public accommodation to anyone based on inclusion in one of these classes. The attempt here seems to be to add CHL to this list of protected classes. While I applaud the effort, logically you can't get there. CHL, even as an extension of RKBA, is a "right" not a "class".

2. Rights and freedoms: this avenue attempts use the RKBA as a trump card over being arrested for trespassing if the only reason for the trespass arrest is CHL/RKBA. The argument typically goes like this: You can't be arrested for speaking or preaching or assembling in a public accommodation unless you're asked to leave and refuse. Why can you "automatically" be arrested for exercising RKBA rights by carrying in a business open to the general public? I feel there is a bit more legitimacy to this argument, as the 1A examples above would likely only lead to arrest if they involved going "too far" in exercise of those rights to the point of breach of the peace/disorderly conduct OR subsequent refusal to leave.

BUT, playing devil's advocate, is it requiring too much of a business owner/store manager to be required to confront (or call LEO to confront) a MWAG? And, perhaps more importantly legally, CHL in Texas (like it or not) is a "privilege" not a right. Perhaps this also should change, but that's a different discussion.

Also, just as an aside, even 30.06 does not equal an "automatic" arrest. There is still LEO discretion. Even a "no shirt no shoes no service" sign CAN lead to an arrest without first being asked to leave (under a strict reading of 30.05). In practice, this does not happen as typically LEO gives the offending party a chance to leave and a legal warning not to return before an arrest. But if you read 30.05 and 30.06 you'll see they are written in nearly identical form. A mere sign CAN be all that is needed to create an offense under 30.05 (for violating posted rules other than CHL) or 30.06 (CHL only). As another theoretical example, what do you think would happen if you open carried a long gun into a business with a sign clearly posted out front saying NO GUNS ALLOWED?

That said, I do like the Florida way of things as described above (assuming the accuracy of the description). Businesses can post whatever sign they want, but the sign alone does not have the "force of law" unless accompanied by oral notice/request to leave.

SewTexas wrote:it boils down to this....

either you believe in private property rights, or you don't. either you believe in the right to conduct private business as one sees fit, or you don't.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... se-dilemma" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;