TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote: I guess I am playing devil's advocate here as I wish that a business open to the public could not post 30.06 or 30.07. On the other hand I own property that is posted properly with no trespassing signs and if you do trespass I have the right to tell you to leave and if you don't leave I have the right to call law enforcement to have them make you leave or arrest you. I believe we recently had a gunbuster (no weapons) sign argument and the carry of rifles past that sign as being a trespass violation.

I think the law oversteps what is reasonable with regards to CONCEALED carry at this time. I have often give the "purple satin underwear" example.

Posting 30.06 is the equivalent of posting "No Purple Satin underwear"

First, it's nobody's business what going on UNDER my clothes. If I am not causing a distraction, then it should not matter, period.
Secondly, it makes just as much sense. Only those who want to comply actually know they are wearing purple satin underwear and if they want to proceed into the store or not. I guess you could search people or put up a purple underwear detector, but that is certainly excessive.

NTexCopRetired wrote:
It is a very slippery slope when we legislate away the ability of the owner of property to determine what they will tolerate on that property. No shoes, no shirt, no service. We have already taken away the right of a property owner to say whether smoking is allowed on property they own and pay taxes. (No, I have never smoked in my 68 years). Where will that end in the name of public welfare.

We also make them keep their kitchens clean, provide restrooms to patrons and build their business in such a way that it won't fall down on the patron's heads.

BUT... The vast majority of these restrictions are placed on BUSINESSES that are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. As such, the PUBLIC has a right to say how that interaction will take place. Business owners don't get to unilaterally decide that.

All governments city, state and federal have and have always reserved the right to regulate commerce.

I see no conflict here.