TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:I don't want goverment telling property owners what they have to do or can't do. Telling owners they have to allow guns is wrong. So is telling owners they can't allow guns (schools, 51% joints, sports events, private property where school events take place).

I want to better understand your position on property rights, so I have a few questions I would like to ask.

• 1. Do you make any distinction between commercial and non-commercial property?
  2. Is there any level of government regulation of private property you feel is acceptable? If so, please give examples.
  3. Are you saying you are philosophically against government regulation of property, or are you saying governmental regulations are unconstitutional?

Thanks,
Chas.

Sorry I took so long to answer, I only get to read the forum here 1 or 2 times a week. I hit the truck stop or coffee shop wifi on late night call outs and catch up while I wait for the next call.

1. Private is private. Mine is mine. I own it, I own it.
-- Goverment saying I have to let everyone in my business is no different from saying I have to let someone sacrifice chickens at my church. I don't think goverment should prohibit marriage no matter who is gettting married (gay/straight/poly), but any church should be free to not marry those people. Any person should be free to say "no thanks" to anyone trying to enter or control that properrty.
2. Your right to swing your property ends where my nose begins.
3. Both. Theres no (fed) constitutional basis for restricting private properrty. The constitution says it's up to the states.Feds ignore all restrictions.
--

I don't want goverment telling property owners what they have to do or can't do. Telling owners they have to allow guns is wrong. So is telling owners they can't allow guns (schools, 51% joints, sports events, private property where school events take place).

Goverment can't step in and make everbody happy. No laws passed this year will make everbody happy. The best way is to get goverment out of making private property decisions and let people decide what makes them happy, then do it.

Douva wrote:

Pacific Rim Job wrote:

srothstein wrote:I still have problems with the EPL bills and private property rights.

Texas is big. I think it's plenty big enough to park somewhere else if some property owner doesn't allow guns.

I firmly support private property rights, which is why I don't support forcing private colleges to allow concealed carry on campus. But when it comes to people's cars, I think the issue isn't quite as black and white as some private property advocates want to portray it.

Texas is big enough to park somewhere else. It's big enough to find a different job. You park your car on my property, you agree to my rules, or you walk.

The no-guns companies are wrong. But they have the right to be wrong. Detroit car companies banned import cars from their employee lots too. Stupid, because some of those "furrin" cars were made in America. It was still their right.

Goverment shouldn't get involved. If they can say anti-gun companies must allow gun-totin employees, they can say churches have to hire gays and PETA has to hire fur wearin meat eaters and NRA has to give equal funds to Brady.

If I own a sleepin bag in a flop house or own a big mansion or own wal mart, if I own it its mine and I get to say who is welcome. If the goverment says othwerwise the goverment is wrong.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, I hate racism and descrimination and would not support companies that practice that. I wish the racists companies could be racistin the open so I could know, instead of racist in secret like their are now. Goverment makes it worse, racists can hide it and pretend to fire "them" for other reasons. Same thing will happen with guns in parking lot. "oh no we didn't fire him because he had a gun, we fired him because we were downsizing."

I didn't see where I could vote for "repeal penal code chapter 46", but thats what I want.