TexasCHLforum.com

Scott Farkus

Has anybody here advocated not following the law? What is your point?

Scott Farkus

TVGuy wrote:While I hated the bag ban for the short time it was enacted in Dallas, I fail to see the parallel here. In that particular case, it wasn't because of what was happening on the property, but what happened with the bags after they were taken off the property.

There are a number of things that private property owners can't allow on their property. Think of fireworks, nudity in your front yard, the list could go on for days. There are reasons for all of these and reasonable restrictions are OK. If you owned a fine dining establishment, would you want someone saying you can't enact and enforce a dress code? It's not fair I can't wear my ripped up shorts and tank top to the most expensive steakhouse in town?

Yes, exactly. That's the point - there are already restrictions, reasonable or otherwise, especially when it comes to commercial property. You already don't have an absolute right to do what you wish. I do not for the life of me understand why a law prohibiting a business from excluding licensed concealed carriers is in any way unreasonable, particularly in light of the thousands of other things they are already subject to that costs them (and ultimately the consumer) untold billions every year.

Just to be clear, we're talking about commercial property that is open to the public for commerce. The bar is raised significantly when it comes to someone's front yard.

Scott Farkus

Abraham wrote:Some of you think 30.06/30.07 "ought" to reflect other states and their gun laws.

Sorry, we're in Texas, but you can dream the impossible dream, fight the unbeatable foe,
bear with unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go...

Ah, get over it.

You're in Texas and we have 30.06/30.07.

Live with it or move.

Well, a year ago we might just as easily have said "In Texas we don't have Open Carry. Or Campus Carry. Live with it or move". But in Texas we also have a Legislature that's generally sympathetic to our issue and if we go about it the right way, or even the wrong way, we might be able to effect change in our favor. It doesn't seem inappropriate to me that we discuss whether 30.06/30.07 is the best way to go about things, and whether this might be something we want to consider asking our Legislators to change.

Scott Farkus

In light of the HEB discussion, I thought I'd make this point about "property rights", or lack thereof.

Not long ago, a bunch of environmentalist types decided that plastic grocery bags were offensive and they wanted grocery stores and other retail shops to stop using them. They didn't wring their hands and say "oh, I don't like plastic bags but I would never try to tell the owner of a private business what to do". They didn't say "I'll politely ask the owner not to use plastic bags and if he or she refuses, I'll respectfully take my business elsewhere because private property rights trump all". Know what they did? They went to the local government, in this case the City of Austin but other cities have followed suit, and screamed "pass this law forcing all these private businesses to do what I want!!!". And guess what? The City of Austin did, and HEB, Sprouts and Whole Foods can no longer make the choice to use plastic grocery bags in their private businesses.

But they can choose to exclude open or concealed carriers from their stores, because we respect property rights.

This isn't fair. We can't be the only side that honors the rules. Commercial property is and always has been different.

Scott Farkus

ispray wrote:OOOH, what a tangled web we weave! We have a lot of law, rules, regulations we don't like. We better obey or get involved and get it changed. How about a sign at a business entrance that says hoddies not allowed or no shoes, no shirts, no service. Maybe those aren't law but still, don't you think a business has the right to keep anyone out unless keeping them out would violate something else, example "whites only allowed here" or no "Muslims allowed"

Exactly - private businesses enjoy property rights unless it violates that "something else". And there are already thousands of "something elses" besides the two you mentioned, including the parking lot law which I assume most of us here support.

The question is not "should the government ever tell a private business what it can and cannot do?" That's already been asked and answered, for better or worse, with a resounding YES. The question is "what should go on that list of "something else"?" and I can't see how adding "no banning of licensed concealed carriers" is any more problematic or than 99.9% of the things already on the list, particularly since it would cost the business exactly no additional money, and neither the business owner or other customers would ever even know. Not to mention it's a constitutional right.

Scott Farkus

twomillenium wrote:
Scott Farkus wrote: Again I ask, do you support the parking lot bill? Because that's clearly an infringement on private property rights, the only time "our side" has done so as far as I know.
What is the bill # for the parking lot bill?? I would like to read it.

Senate Bill 321, 2011 Regular Session

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=SB321

Scott Farkus

chuck j wrote:
koine2002 wrote:
Scott Farkus wrote:
chuck j wrote:Well looks like this is just ANOTHER repeat thread . Stripping away an individuals rights concerning their property has serious consequences . I'll not open that door and would defend that persons rights .
But those rights have already been "stripped away" as the OP noted. That ship has sailed, particularly as far as commercial businesses are concerned. No other group allows themselves to be discriminated against like gun owners. I'm increasingly baffled as to why we stand for it; nobody else does.

Do you oppose the parking lot bill? How is that not an infringement on an anti-gun parking lot owner's rights?
I've got a pretty consistent track record of voting/contending against ordinances, laws, and referendums that restrict property rights: whether they are public accommodation or not. I argued, in letter and vote, tooth and nail against the rezoning of Ross Avenue in Dallas forcing longstanding businesses out of their locations to other parts of town. I'm fine with a property owner saying "no" to me when I have my gun. It's his prerogative. I'll go somewhere else if I can. I'm fine with a property owner telling me that I can't preach on his property (1st amendment--both speech and free exercise). However, I'm not fine with an ordinance or law that tells me that I cannot do either irrespective of the wishes of the property owner (including that property owner being me or the church I pastor).

Our rights are negative rights: that is what congress (both federal and state legilatures after the 14th amendment) cannot, via legislation, prevent us from doing. They are not positive rights in the sense that congress is obligated to give people a platform to exercise those rights--or force individuals to provide such a platform. Nor are rights positive in the sense that congress has to provide each person with a gun. They just cannot prevent us (at least in writing) from bearing arms if we so choose to do. Unfortunately, the zeitgeist of the day is positive rights. We are told that rights are things we need to provide. What I won't stand for is allowing the revocation of life, liberty, or property by governing authorities without due process.

This post did not receive enough attention . You might take your time and read it again . Up to you . Many young folks will never enjoy the freedom I and older people have experienced , I am 63 years old. We find the politically correct atmosphere stifling , the lack of independence coupled with others inability to respect another's rights and prospective although that is their right in their pursuit of life , liberty and happiness . Instead they must conform although the 'offending' person means no harm to anyone . Heavy stuff , might want to study a little history , talk to your elders [dang ! That ought to galled you . ), you might find some interesting bits of being a individual , being self sufficient , taking pride in your decisions , admitting and correcting your failures . The LORD knows I have .

Dwell on it , study on it and then if you want just attempt to tear me down ............I will not go away . But i will attempt to RESPECT ( remember respect) your right to YOUR opinion .
Thank you
Chuck J

I'm not sure if this is directed to me or koine2002. I certainly don't see anyone attempting to tear you down.

My only point is that when you open your doors to commerce, you already subject yourself to hundreds if not thousands of laws, rules and regulations, every one of which is on some level an infringement of your right to do with your property what you please. Expecting that one of those rules might be to allow concealed carry seems infinitely less of an infringement than, say, forcing you to add a third toilet for Bruce Jenner.

We cannot continue to function under two sets of rules. This is fundamentally unfair on a level that is not sustainable.

Scott Farkus

koine2002 wrote:I've got a pretty consistent track record of voting/contending against ordinances, laws, and referendums that restrict property rights: whether they are public accommodation or not. I argued, in letter and vote, tooth and nail against the rezoning of Ross Avenue in Dallas forcing longstanding businesses out of their locations to other parts of town. I'm fine with a property owner saying "no" to me when I have my gun. It's his prerogative. I'll go somewhere else if I can. I'm fine with a property owner telling me that I can't preach on his property (1st amendment--both speech and free exercise). However, I'm not fine with an ordinance or law that tells me that I cannot do either irrespective of the wishes of the property owner (including that property owner being me or the church I pastor).

Our rights are negative rights: that is what congress (both federal and state legilatures after the 14th amendment) cannot, via legislation, prevent us from doing. They are not positive rights in the sense that congress is obligated to give people a platform to exercise those rights--or force individuals to provide such a platform. Nor are rights positive in the sense that congress has to provide each person with a gun. They just cannot prevent us (at least in writing) from bearing arms if we so choose to do. Unfortunately, the zeitgeist of the day is positive rights. We are told that rights are things we need to provide. What I won't stand for is allowing the revocation of life, liberty, or property by governing authorities without due process.

Understood and respected. But every building code, every zoning law, every anti-discrimination statute, every "bake the gay wedding cake or be fined/sued into bankruptcy" action, among many many others, is already a revocation of property rights and we're not going back. I didn't make those rules, and I may not like those rules, but that's how the game is and will be played and I think it's extraordinarily short-sighted bordering on foolish to take the high road to our detriment under these circumstances.

Again I ask, do you support the parking lot bill? Because that's clearly an infringement on private property rights, the only time "our side" has done so as far as I know.

Scott Farkus

chuck j wrote:Well looks like this is just ANOTHER repeat thread . Stripping away an individuals rights concerning their property has serious consequences . I'll not open that door and would defend that persons rights .

But those rights have already been "stripped away" as the OP noted. That ship has sailed, particularly as far as commercial businesses are concerned. No other group allows themselves to be discriminated against like gun owners. I'm increasingly baffled as to why we stand for it; nobody else does.

Do you oppose the parking lot bill? How is that not an infringement on an anti-gun parking lot owner's rights?

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 9 matches

Re: For those concerned about property rights:

Re: For those concerned about property rights:

Re: For those concerned about property rights:

Re: For those concerned about property rights:

Re: For those concerned about property rights:

Re: For those concerned about property rights:

Re: For those concerned about property rights:

Re: For those concerned about property rights:

Re: For those concerned about property rights: