For those concerned about property rights:

[mojo84]

This has been argued and debated to ad nauseam on here with no new arguments and no opinions changed.

search.php?keywords=Private+property+ri ... mit=Search

[twomillenium]

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.

[E.Marquez]

I also have stated the same thing many times. A business open to the public gives up some of its property rights.).

That of course is an opinion, not reality.
While I value your opinion, It goes against reality.

My opinion is, i do not want to live in a place where the few can dictate what i can do on my property.. The reality is, I live there and i don't like it , not enough to leave Texas, but enough to dislike it. Why anyone thinks thier rights supersede mine as a property owner defiles my understanding.. A very few have argued the point politely and legitimately and I thank them for that.., though most just stamp their feet and whine. Either way, I disagree within the opinion that an individual 2A right supersedes my rights as a person and property owner.

[Right2Carry]

I also have stated the same thing many times. A business open to the public gives up some of its property rights.).

That of course is an opinion, not reality.
While I value your opinion, It goes against reality.

My opinion is, i do not want to live in a place where the few can dictate what i can do on my property.. The reality is, I live there and i don't like it , not enough to leave Texas, but enough to dislike it. Why anyone thinks thier rights supersede mine as a property owner defiles my understanding.. A very few have argued the point politely and legitimately and I thank them for that.., though most just stamp their feet and whine. Either way, I disagree within the opinion that an individual 2A right supersedes my rights as a person and property owner.

Did I state it as fact? Did you support the parking lot bill which forced property owners to accept firearms in their car on private property? Remember property owners according to you have rights and yet the minority forced them to accept guns in their parking lots.

My opinion is based on public verses private.

[Oldgringo]

Sometimes you have to go where your firearms are not welcome. Most hospitals are posted. The attitude that you can just go somewhere else where your firearm is welcome is absurd and in no way relates to reality.

This is an American truth and in the case where there are no other choices, we just have to deal with it in a rational adult manner. FWIW, my hospital is not posted.

[chuck j]

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

[TVegas]

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

As a millenial,

[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?

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]

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

[chuck j]

What is in your heart ? Are you just rules and law and regulation and what you want ? Are guns the only thing you think about 24 hours a day? Are you incapable or respecting another persons belief or opinion ? You have missed the point !

[chuckybrown]

...Are guns the only thing you think about 24 hours a day........Are you incapable or respecting another persons belief or opinion ?

Hey Chuck (Nice name BTW), thanks for the colorful labels.

Here's what spurred my post: In my job I deal with thousands of governmental rules and regulations, in addition to other deed and property restrictions. By definition, EVERY one of them in some way is an inhibitor, a restriction, a rule, etc., on/of property rights. Some examples I've listed: ADA guidelines, building codes, environmental laws, storm water runoff design...and the list goes on.

So I wonder why we see things in regards to property rights in a different light? We let governmental agencies dictate these things to owners...and we're silent. But, let someone suggest that government should not be allowed to legislate carry language that might touch property rights...and we see that differently.

I am simply spurring thought.

Are guns the only thing you think about 24 hours a day?

It's a gun forum. I suppose it could be said that all I think about is fishing at 2cool, or hunting at TexasHuntingForums, or weather over at AcuRite, or ranching over at...you get the point. We come here to discuss things....and HERE it's guns/etc.

Merry Christmas to you and yours. Hopefully Santa bring that new holster I want tomorrow.....ooohhhh...there I go thinking about guns again....my bad....

[amtank]

In my opinion,

Quite similarly to the open records law requirements any organization that has a majority of its operations funed by government or governmental sourced money should be able to make any decisions in regards to carry because they are in fact a public entity. This would directly apply to say "Private" colleges or organizations who are funded by government who lease public space for public events and then effect gun bans during their festivals etc...

Secondly I think we should take deep reflection on other rules regarding public accommodation. If your a business open to the public there is no real valid reason to prohibit concealed carry with a sign. It has no true effect and is only a tool to satiate the simple minded. There is no effective difference between having a gun in your car vs in your pocket. Both has no effect on the property of a business owner.

[E.Marquez]

There is no effective difference between having a gun in your car vs in your pocket.

I assume there is a context to your stamentment not obviously clear.

Both has no effect on the property of a business owner.

Again there must be a context thing not clear.. as any marginally aware person paying attention to public opinion would see that to be false on its face..So I assume something in context is missing

[amtank]

Not really context isn't needed at all. We are discussing property rights. A business open to the public welcomes all. The content of the various individuals pants, purse, etc. that make up that public are generally irrelevant to the business. The fact that some people have a virulent stupidity about a specific configuration of plastic and metal has no effect on the business in any way if the gun is unseen. The point is that banning concealed carry has always and will continue to be foolhardy, pointless, and cost any business customers.

[ispray]

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"