2nd amend becoming meaningless

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


parabelum
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2717
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#46

Post by parabelum »

Several great responses on this topic.

2A is not becoming meaningless. As a matter of fact, we've had many great victories over the last few years, incidentally.

As far as signs/property rights etc., your right to be free includes other persons right to be free from you. It is a door that swings both ways.

Carry, and carry often.

:tiphat:
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#47

Post by WildBill »

OlBill wrote:
Scott Farkus wrote:
DonFromTexas wrote:I have trouble understanding all this as well. From reading this then if an armed police officer comes to your door, you can tell him o buzz off and only come back after he has disarmed himself. That don't seem right either.
I think I disagree with the idea presented that the constitution ONLY applies to the government.


I can't speak to what authority an LEO does or does not have to disarm in your home, but for purposes of the discussion in this thread, we're specifically talking about commercial property, not someone's home. Neither I nor I dare say anyone who advocates my side of this argument would support a law forcing licensed concealed carriers to carry into someone's home (or private non-commercial land) land against the homeowner's wishes. But the rules change when you open your doors to commerce.
They shouldn't.
The constitution is the foundation of the system of our government. It defines the powers of the various branches of government.
It gives the power to pass laws to the congress, not to property owners.
NRA Endowment Member

chuck j
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 12:44 pm

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#48

Post by chuck j »

Agreed .
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 5072
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#49

Post by ScottDLS »

jed wrote:Folks, this is not a difficult concept to understand. Do you own part of the business? Do you pay their bills or payroll? No? Then you don't get a say in how they run their business. It's still private property and if they don't want us carrying on their property then they can say no. Shop somewhere else. I work too hard for my money to patronize some place who doesn't want me and my gun. It seems really simple. :banghead:
So how come businesses don't get to decide their property rights when it comes to their parking lots (employee parking lot law)? :shock:

And I do own part of many many businesses. ExxonMobil, WalMart, and Target... pretty much all of the S&P 500. Why I don't get to say what their Texas carry policies are? Maybe I should press for a shareholder resolution on Exxon's next proxy.

"Private" property for a large number of locations that we visit isn't Paw Walton's sawmill... with John Boy as the authority to act for the owner anymore. I'm a Starbucks (SBUX) owner (shareholder) and I want everyone to open carry in all "my" Texas stores. How do we know what the rest of the "owners" really want? Or more importantly, why do we care. Most of the owners of these crunchy left coast companies probably don't want Tea Party members in their store. We don't take a shareholder resolution for every operating decision... The board appoints the management to act in our (owners') fiduciary interest. Legally they can choose to post a 30.06... or they can make a statement of their "intent" to not have people carry in SBUX on their website or in USA Today. However, if they don't post under 30.06 I feel not the slightest guilt carrying concealed in MY Starbucks stores.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

pt145ss
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#50

Post by pt145ss »

jed wrote:Folks, this is not a difficult concept to understand. Do you own part of the business? Do you pay their bills or payroll? No? Then you don't get a say in how they run their business. It's still private property and if they don't want us carrying on their property then they can say no. Shop somewhere else. I work too hard for my money to patronize some place who doesn't want me and my gun. It seems really simple. :banghead:
I do not know if the law, as written, distinguishes a difference between private property and private property open to the public. It certainly seems to me the government has (and does) infringe on property rights from time to time, both private property and private property open to the public. In terms of private property, one only has to look as far as eminent domain. As for private property open to the public, one only needs to look as far as anti-discriminatory laws. In both cases the government certainly has a say in what happens on your private property.

Property rights are granted to us by our government. The right to self-defense is endowed to us by our creator. In those terms, which right is superior? Should someone’s property rights, granted by government, curtail our God given right to self-defense? In my opinion, No. BTW… Disarming us is curtailing us from effectively protecting ourselves from armed attackers. However, can there be a balance between the 2 rights? Absolutely. I think business owners and employers (with extremely few exceptions) should not be allowed to ban CC. I do think that business owners and employers should be able to choose whether to allow OC or not.

EDIT: Please note I used the terms buiness owners and employers which should infer private property open to the public... Not private property for personal use. Private property for personal use, the owner should be able to use that property however they want with very little to no govenment intrusion.

PhilBob
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 9:25 am

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#51

Post by PhilBob »

Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?

The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.

I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.
User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7875
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#52

Post by anygunanywhere »

Remember folks, what you want forced on someone else can be forced on you. The government is already doing this under the guise of protecting the common good.

If the government makes laws regarding domestic terrorists they get to define what domestic terrorists are and who they are.

If the government makes laws regarding mental illness they get to define what mental illness is and who is mentally ill.

If the government makes laws regarding private property they get to define what private property is and who can own it and how it is used.

If the government makes laws about firearms they get to decide who can own them and when they are used.

There are already more laws than can be enforced. All of the laws can and will be used against each and every one of us, eventually.

Liberty and freedom is about respecting each other's rights, and as others have pointed out, my rights end where another's start. I don't always like it, and it seems fluid at times, but that is the way it is.
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#53

Post by WildBill »

PhilBob wrote:Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?

The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.

I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.
People with LTCs are not a "protected class" and are not likely to become one.
NRA Endowment Member
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#54

Post by WildBill »

anygunanywhere wrote:Remember folks, what you want forced on someone else can be forced on you.
:iagree: Precisely.
NRA Endowment Member

Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4339
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#55

Post by Soccerdad1995 »

PhilBob wrote:Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?

The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.

I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.
Here's a thought. I believe that any owner can give notice allowing a LTC to walk past a compliant 30.06 / 30.07 sign. So if a property is owned by Exxon Mobile, and I am a part owner of that property because I own a part of Exxon Mobile, can I give myself and anyone else effective consent to carry on that property regardless of signage?

thetexan
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#56

Post by thetexan »

PhilBob wrote:Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?

The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.

I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.
A publicly owned corporation is one whose worth is divided into shares and publicly traded among many stockholders (as opposed to a few) on at least one trading organization such as NYSE. I believe they still enjoy private ownership rights as a conglomerate of multiple private owners. For example Microsoft can still put a fence around their property, control access, determine what their trespass rules will be, control guns, etc, all within the structure of their rule and policy making per their charter, determined either by the board with or without the direct input of the shareholders as prescribed. For example, the shareholders approve the bylaws which give the board day to day authority to control security and access. All of this under the umbrella of private ownership.

I think that's the way it works.

tex
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA Pistol Instructor, CFI, CFII, MEI Instructor Pilot
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#57

Post by WildBill »

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
PhilBob wrote:Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?

The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.

I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.
Here's a thought. I believe that any owner can give notice allowing a LTC to walk past a compliant 30.06 / 30.07 sign. So if a property is owned by Exxon Mobile, and I am a part owner of that property because I own a part of Exxon Mobile, can I give myself and anyone else effective consent to carry on that property regardless of signage?
As a stockholder you have part ownership in the company, but it is managed by the board of directors, not the stockholders.
Your best bet is to elect a new board that goes along with your position of LTC. I hope you own a whole lot of shares. :cool:
NRA Endowment Member

pt145ss
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#58

Post by pt145ss »

WildBill wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
PhilBob wrote:Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?

The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.

I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.
Here's a thought. I believe that any owner can give notice allowing a LTC to walk past a compliant 30.06 / 30.07 sign. So if a property is owned by Exxon Mobile, and I am a part owner of that property because I own a part of Exxon Mobile, can I give myself and anyone else effective consent to carry on that property regardless of signage?
As a stockholder you have part ownership in the company, but it is managed by the board of directors, not the stockholders.
Your best bet is to elect a new board that goes along with your position of LTC. I hope you own a whole lot of shares. :cool:
This is probably a bit of a stretch, but there is some case law here in Texas (I can’t recall the name off the top of my head), where a guy was OC in a common area on the grounds of a condominium. I do not recall the details but essentially the guy was arrested because of OC and I believe later convicted. I think the conviction was overturned on appeal mostly because as a condominium owner, who also owned a small fraction of the common area and therefore was OC on his own property. In that situation, it did not seem to matter that he owned only a very small percentage.

Also, just because you own stock, does not necessarily mean you have voting-stock. On the other hand, you, in theory, can own very little stock and have super-voting rights.
User avatar

rtschl
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#59

Post by rtschl »

What if the government forced a business owner to bake a cake they didn't want to because the are open to the public? Oh wait. Some states are already doing that. We need to be careful what we wish for. The slippery slope can be steep.

That being said, I do not like that it is automatically a government enforced penalty/crime. I do lean more towards the idea that if it is a place that is open to the general public and you do not leave when asked, then it becomes CT issue. I just don't know how we get there.
Ron
NRA Member
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: 2nd amend becoming meaningless

#60

Post by WildBill »

pt145ss wrote:
WildBill wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
PhilBob wrote:Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?

The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.

I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.
Here's a thought. I believe that any owner can give notice allowing a LTC to walk past a compliant 30.06 / 30.07 sign. So if a property is owned by Exxon Mobile, and I am a part owner of that property because I own a part of Exxon Mobile, can I give myself and anyone else effective consent to carry on that property regardless of signage?
As a stockholder you have part ownership in the company, but it is managed by the board of directors, not the stockholders.
Your best bet is to elect a new board that goes along with your position of LTC. I hope you own a whole lot of shares. :cool:
This is probably a bit of a stretch, but there is some case law here in Texas (I can’t recall the name off the top of my head), where a guy was OC in a common area on the grounds of a condominium. I do not recall the details but essentially the guy was arrested because of OC and I believe later convicted. I think the conviction was overturned on appeal mostly because as a condominium owner, who also owned a small fraction of the common area and therefore was OC on his own property. In that situation, it did not seem to matter that he owned only a very small percentage.

Also, just because you own stock, does not necessarily mean you have voting-stock. On the other hand, you, in theory, can own very little stock and have super-voting rights.
A real big stretch IMO. People who own condos actually have ownership of the property.

Maybe a good analogy is being in a partnership versus a corporation.
A partner owns a percentage of the business, but also takes part in running the business.
A stockholder owns a percentage, but delegates the operation of the business to the board of directions.
If you look up the state laws where the business was incorporated they explain this in more detail that I care to know.

IMO, an advantage of being a stockholder is that you can not be held liable for the actions of the corporate.
For example if your oil company has a spill and gets sued for billions of dollars you might lose the value of your shares, but
you can't be personally sued for damages. IANAL, but that is my understanding of how things work.
NRA Endowment Member
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”