For those concerned about property rights:

[Right2Carry]

I also have stated the same thing many times. A business open to the public gives up some of its property rights. If a business wants to ensure all of its property rights it needs to be private or membership only (Sams Club, Costco, etc).

[Glockster]

I also have stated the same thing many times. A business open to the public gives up some of its property rights. If a business wants to ensure all of its property rights it needs to be private or membership only (Sams Club, Costco, etc).

[chuck j]

Then I suppose we will simply agree to disagree . We still have that right for now . Hope you have a great Christmas !

[Glockster]

Then I suppose we will simply agree to disagree . We still have that right for now . Hope you have a great Christmas !

That would seem to be the case. Have a Merry Christmas yourself!

[Idratherbecamping]

If you you don't already understand it's not likely you ever will . I own a small business and will not only allow open carry but will encourage it BUT if the neighboring business prohibits it I will honor their request either by disarming or simply not doing business there . I might not understand their reason or reasoning , that is THEIR right to control their property , not mine and I respect it . Freedom to control my own life means something to me and it requires no effort to provide that freedom to another . You might read my first post in this thread .

No Shoes, No Shirt, OC = No Service! I respect the Property Owner's rights and can take my money and shop elsewhere, which is My Right! Just my .02 cents.

[twomillenium]

Seems as if some folks wish to force other people to allow them to do what they want, even if it is on the other persons property. They seem to claim their rights supersedes the rights of other people's property ownership. Some even claim it is a right protected by the Constitution, without realizing the Constitution is telling the GOVERNMENT what the rights of the people are.
In this case, the rights to bear arms is protected by the Constitution but this is in regard to how the Government can treat the citizenry.

Property owners are not forcing folks to behave or think or say things a certain way, they are giving them a choice of whether to come on their property or not. If they choose to come on that property they must conduct themselves in accordance to the rules of that property. If they choose not to be on that property, then the rules of THAT property will NEVER apply to them.

I, myself, am pro CC and OC. I do understand the angst that some have about OC in their businesses. In most cases, I believe their worries to be unwarranted but they would rather err on the side of caution. If they are just anti-gun, then that is also their right. (IMHO they are anti-gun because they are low IQ or uninformed of actual facts) I will do business with those who are like minded whenever possible - even if the cost is more.

We should be able to CC and OC on public property because we are owners of public property, but so are other people and some would have us thrown in jail for just thinking about a firearm. (their right to think that way) So, the State issues a LTC which is suppose to prove a certain level of competence to CC or OC on public property. The State can control who qualifies for this right and for those who qualify it is a "shall issue" not "might issue" and the anti-gun folks can go pound sand. In no way should this LTC supersede the property owners rights to decide how they will conduct business whether it is private or public.

Just sayin.

[Glockster]

Seems as if some folks wish to force other people to allow them to do what they want, even if it is on the other persons property. They seem to claim their rights supersedes the rights of other people's property ownership. Some even claim it is a right protected by the Constitution, without realizing the Constitution is telling the GOVERNMENT what the rights of the people are.
In this case, the rights to bear arms is protected by the Constitution but this is in regard to how the Government can treat the citizenry.

Property owners are not forcing folks to behave or think or say things a certain way, they are giving them a choice of whether to come on their property or not. If they choose to come on that property they must conduct themselves in accordance to the rules of that property. If they choose not to be on that property, then the rules of THAT property will NEVER apply to them.

I, myself, am pro CC and OC. I do understand the angst that some have about OC in their businesses. In most cases, I believe their worries to be unwarranted but they would rather err on the side of caution. If they are just anti-gun, then that is also their right. (IMHO they are anti-gun because they are low IQ or uninformed of actual facts) I will do business with those who are like minded whenever possible - even if the cost is more.

We should be able to CC and OC on public property because we are owners of public property, but so are other people and some would have us thrown in jail for just thinking about a firearm. (their right to think that way) So, the State issues a LTC which is suppose to prove a certain level of competence to CC or OC on public property. The State can control who qualifies for this right and for those who qualify it is a "shall issue" not "might issue" and the anti-gun folks can go pound sand. In no way should this LTC supersede the property owners rights to decide how they will conduct business whether it is private or public.

Just sayin.

Yes, however - when the government passes any laws which then restrict a right guaranteed by the Constitution, how then is that NOT the Government causing my rights to be restricted? Where in the Constitution does it say that there are any property rights other than protection from the government seizing property?

I agree with you about private property, but cannot agree with you regarding property that has been opened to the public, the public invited in, to conduct business. Perhaps what we need are laws to delineate that when you open your doors to the public, you are voluntarily agreeing to forego some of your property rights. If a business doesn't like that, then perhaps it is time to get out of business or form a private club.

[Scott Farkus]

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?

[twomillenium]

Seems as if some folks wish to force other people to allow them to do what they want, even if it is on the other persons property. They seem to claim their rights supersedes the rights of other people's property ownership. Some even claim it is a right protected by the Constitution, without realizing the Constitution is telling the GOVERNMENT what the rights of the people are.
In this case, the rights to bear arms is protected by the Constitution but this is in regard to how the Government can treat the citizenry.

Property owners are not forcing folks to behave or think or say things a certain way, they are giving them a choice of whether to come on their property or not. If they choose to come on that property they must conduct themselves in accordance to the rules of that property. If they choose not to be on that property, then the rules of THAT property will NEVER apply to them.

I, myself, am pro CC and OC. I do understand the angst that some have about OC in their businesses. In most cases, I believe their worries to be unwarranted but they would rather err on the side of caution. If they are just anti-gun, then that is also their right. (IMHO they are anti-gun because they are low IQ or uninformed of actual facts) I will do business with those who are like minded whenever possible - even if the cost is more.

We should be able to CC and OC on public property because we are owners of public property, but so are other people and some would have us thrown in jail for just thinking about a firearm. (their right to think that way) So, the State issues a LTC which is suppose to prove a certain level of competence to CC or OC on public property. The State can control who qualifies for this right and for those who qualify it is a "shall issue" not "might issue" and the anti-gun folks can go pound sand. In no way should this LTC supersede the property owners rights to decide how they will conduct business whether it is private or public.

Just sayin.

Yes, however - when the government passes any laws which then restrict a right guaranteed by the Constitution, how then is that NOT the Government causing my rights to be restricted? Where in the Constitution does it say that there are any property rights other than protection from the government seizing property?

I agree with you about private property, but cannot agree with you regarding property that has been opened to the public, the public invited in, to conduct business. Perhaps what we need are laws to delineate that when you open your doors to the public, you are voluntarily agreeing to forego some of your property rights. If a business doesn't like that, then perhaps it is time to get out of business or form a private club.

Maybe, they should go the private club route and say that by walking through the door you are a member and will abide by all club rules while inside.

This is beginning to sound like "your rights end where my wants disagree with your rights".

[ScottDLS]

So I'll restate my point of view that I've been consistent about...

Why does a publicly open business get to invoke the criminal power of the state to regulate behavior with only a sign? Especially in the case of CONCEALED carry, which has no effect on the business or other patrons whatsoever.

Does this theoretical right extend to banning wearing pink briefs, even if not visible?

The 30.06 section was necessary because anti-CC Democrat AG Dan Morales issued an opinion on 30.05 that said that any sign could invoke criminal trespass even on publicly open businesses. While in my opinion debatable, it was never apparently tried in court before 30.06 came about.

Most states interpret their criminal trespass laws on publicly open business to apply only after receiving a pro-active verbal notice to depart. That is also effectively how they are enforced in Texas...No loitering, no skateboarding, no whatever...you generally get a "trespass warning" from the the cops the first time.

Finally, the Texas Legislature has made it clear that they don't unconditionally support private property rights by specifically making 30.05 not applicable to off duty police. Presumably this could extend to LTC holders if the legislature so chose.

In the meantime, I think we got the closest we're going to get in making 30.06 and 30.07 sign violations a class C like a speeding ticket.

[Scott Farkus]

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.

[Right2Carry]

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.

It appears that those who "claim" to support property rights only do so when it benefits them. I don't see how someone who voted in the poll to support property rights could in good conscience supported the parking lot law. IMHO this is a double standard.

[Breny414]

I'd be for a consistent parking lot bill. One that treats all PRIVATE property owners as equal under the law: they are free to decide whether or not one can transport a firearm in their vehicle in their parking lot (employee or otherwise) regardless of what kind of business they are in. There are certain types of parking lots that are statutorily off limits. I don't like that one bit.

All citizens in Texas who can legally possess a firearm can carry in their vehicles. To deny transport of a firearm to/from a parking lot would be an undue burden on all people's right to defend themselves in their vehicles.

As for business people whose sole business is parking lots and parking garages, I doubt very seriously that their lobby had a strong opinion against vehicle carry on their parking lots. I could be wrong.