Repeal 30.06

[K.Mooneyham]

I like both Mr. Cotton's idea on amending 30.06 and Beiruty's idea about diminishing the impact on a CHL holder.

[lbuehler325]

I find it odd that some people are so into their own rights, that they want to trample on other peoples rights...in order to expand on their own rights. Private business owners have every right to deny weapons in their place of business if they want to. They own it and can manage it however they want. With your logic, if someone was a guest in my home, I would not have the right to ask them to leave their weapon in their car or off my property if I wanted to. I'm sorry to say, but my property rights trump their rights in that case...and it is no different in a business.

Now, just like any right, comes the question on whether it is wise to exercise it and when. Businesses have the right to communicate their stance that they do not want concealed handguns in their buildings (via posting 30.06), but I also have the right to choose to not do business with them and go somewhere else. My stance is that it is unwise to post 30.06 signs and deny concealed carry (for a multitude of reasons), but free people are free to be stupid and make unwise decisions.

I personally really like 30.06. It is well defined with no (ok, maybe very little) wiggle room. I think Texas has one of the best defined mechanisms (30.06 signs, 51% signs, etc.) for helping citizens comply with others communicating their exercise of their property rights. 30.06 is necessary to protect the rights of both sides and does a very good job doing it!

I have to agree 100% with Superman on this one. We have to respect private property rights. Fact is; Texas is the only state I can think of that makes it so hard to prevent the armed citizen form coming onto their property. I mean, think about it: imagine if I were a business owner and wanted to deny service to one of those Westboro slimeballs... and I had to have a sign in 1" block lettering, posted at all entrances, with specific language just to keep them out. In reality, all I really have to do is scrawl some chicken scratch on a piece of paper saying I reserve the right not to service people I don't like.

Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I find it odd that some people are so into their own rights, that they want to trample on other peoples rights...in order to expand on their own rights. Private business owners have every right to deny weapons in their place of business if they want to. They own it and can manage it however they want. With your logic, if someone was a guest in my home, I would not have the right to ask them to leave their weapon in their car or off my property if I wanted to. I'm sorry to say, but my property rights trump their rights in that case...and it is no different in a business.

Now, just like any right, comes the question on whether it is wise to exercise it and when. Businesses have the right to communicate their stance that they do not want concealed handguns in their buildings (via posting 30.06), but I also have the right to choose to not do business with them and go somewhere else. My stance is that it is unwise to post 30.06 signs and deny concealed carry (for a multitude of reasons), but free people are free to be stupid and make unwise decisions.

I personally really like 30.06. It is well defined with no (ok, maybe very little) wiggle room. I think Texas has one of the best defined mechanisms (30.06 signs, 51% signs, etc.) for helping citizens comply with others communicating their exercise of their property rights. 30.06 is necessary to protect the rights of both sides and does a very good job doing it!

I have to agree 100% with Superman on this one. We have to respect private property rights. Fact is; Texas is the only state I can think of that makes it so hard to prevent the armed citizen form coming onto their property. I mean, think about it: imagine if I were a business owner and wanted to deny service to one of those Westboro slimeballs... and I had to have a sign in 1" block lettering, posted at all entrances, with specific language just to keep them out. In reality, all I really have to do is scrawl some chicken scratch on a piece of paper saying I reserve the right not to service people I don't like.

Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

When you are talking about one's home or other noncommercial property, I agree. But commercial property is different. When you open your property to others and invite them in to make money, you have certain duties to the public from whom you want money. The vast majority of those duties deal with the safety of those who you encourage to come into your business and I view carrying a self-defense handgun in that category.

Do you oppose fire codes or elevator codes that apply to commercial property?

Chas.

[C-dub]

This is an interesting discussion. I have not contemplated repealing 30.06 or restricting its use from commercial businesses. I like the idea either way as long as bun buster signs or anything similar did not have the force of law.

For those worried about trampling on the business owners rights, I'm curious about something. And this is an old argument, but by posting a 30.06 sign the only people that are going to abide by it are the folks you don't need to worry about. So, why would someone want to prohibit something they can't see and have no idea is there in the first place being carried by statistically some of the most law abiding people around? Is it just a control issue? I really don't understand this. Do businesses that post 30.06 signs think criminals will leave their guns in their cars because of its presence?

[lbuehler325]

Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

When you are talking about one's home or other noncommercial property, I agree. But commercial property is different. When you open your property to others and invite them in to make money, you have certain duties to the public from whom you want money. The vast majority of those duties deal with the safety of those who you encourage to come into your business and I view carrying a self-defense handgun in that category.

Do you oppose fire codes or elevator codes that apply to commercial property?

Chas.

Yes, I oppose all of those arbitrary codes (invisible taxes that penalize the business owners, and ultimately reward those who lobbied the government to impose such regulations). Let the consumer decide if they want to patronize an establishment. Any transaction is a voluntary contract. If you don't take the steps to safeguard your patrons, it is the patrons' decision whether they will support the establishment. I know that sounds very Milton Friedman, but I refuse to believe that government regulation has more benefit than what it endangers. The role of government should be strictly limited to its constitutional duties. IMHO.

[jmra]

Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

When you are talking about one's home or other noncommercial property, I agree. But commercial property is different. When you open your property to others and invite them in to make money, you have certain duties to the public from whom you want money. The vast majority of those duties deal with the safety of those who you encourage to come into your business and I view carrying a self-defense handgun in that category.

Do you oppose fire codes or elevator codes that apply to commercial property?

Chas.

Yes, I oppose all of those arbitrary codes (invisible taxes that penalize the business owners, and ultimately reward those who lobbied the government to impose such regulations). Let the consumer decide if they want to patronize an establishment. Any transaction is a voluntary contract. If you don't take the steps to safeguard your patrons, it is the patrons' decision whether they will support the establishment. I know that sounds very Milton Friedman, but I refuse to believe that government regulation has more benefit than what it endangers. The role of government should be strictly limited to its constitutional duties. IMHO.

What about health inspections at restaurants?
I agree with Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

When you are talking about one's home or other noncommercial property, I agree. But commercial property is different. When you open your property to others and invite them in to make money, you have certain duties to the public from whom you want money. The vast majority of those duties deal with the safety of those who you encourage to come into your business and I view carrying a self-defense handgun in that category.

Do you oppose fire codes or elevator codes that apply to commercial property?

Chas.

Yes, I oppose all of those arbitrary codes (invisible taxes that penalize the business owners, and ultimately reward those who lobbied the government to impose such regulations). Let the consumer decide if they want to patronize an establishment.

They can't make an informed decision about things that are beyond their knowledge or expertise. Fire codes, building codes, elevator codes, etc. came about because business owners wouldn't spend the money to reduce the risk to employees or customers.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Chas.

[chasfm11]

TPC §30.06 saved the Texas CHL program. Without §30.06, TPC §30.05 would apply to armed CHL's and the very stringent notice requirement (primarily sign posting) found is 30.06 is not in 30.05. TPC §30.06 must not be repealed under any circumstances.

However, I think it would be reasonable to change the law such that armed CHLs cannot be prohibited from carrying on commercial/business property. Yes, it is private property, but we regulate commercial property extensively now with building codes, fire codes, the Americans With Disabilities Act, local zoning laws, deed restrictions and HOA rules, etc. I think denying a business owner the ability to exclude an armed CHL is no different than denying entry based upon race, religion or any other of the protected classes. Noncommercial property like your home is a different matter.

Chas.

That is a great idea. CHL is the law of the State and as long as they are open for business to the general public, commercial businesses should have the same obligations for CHL as they do ADA.

Given the current complexion of our Texas Legislature, however, I see little chance of this change.

[Superman]

However, I think it would be reasonable to change the law such that armed CHLs cannot be prohibited from carrying on commercial/business property. Yes, it is private property, but we regulate commercial property extensively now with building codes, fire codes, the Americans With Disabilities Act, local zoning laws, deed restrictions and HOA rules, etc. I think denying a business owner the ability to exclude an armed CHL is no different than denying entry based upon race, religion or any other of the protected classes. Noncommercial property like your home is a different matter.

Chas.

So now we are equating having your CHL to be the same as a protected class? I don't think we can make that leap. Everyone has a right to bear arms, but they can choose to not exercise that right. You cannot choose your race and if I become disabled, I cannot leave my disability in my car.

If I'm starting a commercial business, where is the line drawn for me to choose how to run my business? Do I only get to run the day to day operations and I have to defer everything else to the government and their regulations? What about companies like Chic-fil-a that closes their doors on Sunday for religious purposes? Would you support a regulation stating that commercial businesses have to be open every day to customers except nationally recognized holidays? What about fancy restaurants that require you to wear a suit in order to dine there? I have a right to own and walk my dog, but a business can (and does) deny me entry into their business unless the dog stays outside (unless it's a disability dog of course). The reasoning for the building / fire codes and all the other regulations are very different than personal property rights vs 2A rights.

Taking away someones property rights is a very slippery slope.

[lbuehler325]

Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

When you are talking about one's home or other noncommercial property, I agree. But commercial property is different. When you open your property to others and invite them in to make money, you have certain duties to the public from whom you want money. The vast majority of those duties deal with the safety of those who you encourage to come into your business and I view carrying a self-defense handgun in that category.

Do you oppose fire codes or elevator codes that apply to commercial property?

Chas.

Yes, I oppose all of those arbitrary codes (invisible taxes that penalize the business owners, and ultimately reward those who lobbied the government to impose such regulations). Let the consumer decide if they want to patronize an establishment. Any transaction is a voluntary contract. If you don't take the steps to safeguard your patrons, it is the patrons' decision whether they will support the establishment. I know that sounds very Milton Friedman, but I refuse to believe that government regulation has more benefit than what it endangers. The role of government should be strictly limited to its constitutional duties. IMHO.

What about health inspections at restaurants?
I agree with Chas.

Ditto on health inspections. I know it sounds draconian, but there is responsibility associated with actions in a free society. That is where liability comes into play. If said restaurant gets me sick, I have the right to seek compensation. I also have the right to lead a boycott, and I have the right to expose the establishment for its unhealthy and/or unsafe practices. The argument that the masses are too ignorant to make these decisions is practically an admission on your part that the free market cannot succeed, and that we are too week to survive without government central control. That notion, I certainly disagree with.

Can someone who manages a eatery please tell me if they would all of a sudden disregard cleanliness and health practices if the regulation went away? If you truly would cease your sanitation program, then let me know. I'll be sure to scratch your establishment off my approved vendor list... the free market at work.

[Charles L. Cotton]

TPC §30.06 saved the Texas CHL program. Without §30.06, TPC §30.05 would apply to armed CHL's and the very stringent notice requirement (primarily sign posting) found is 30.06 is not in 30.05. TPC §30.06 must not be repealed under any circumstances.

However, I think it would be reasonable to change the law such that armed CHLs cannot be prohibited from carrying on commercial/business property. Yes, it is private property, but we regulate commercial property extensively now with building codes, fire codes, the Americans With Disabilities Act, local zoning laws, deed restrictions and HOA rules, etc. I think denying a business owner the ability to exclude an armed CHL is no different than denying entry based upon race, religion or any other of the protected classes. Noncommercial property like your home is a different matter.

Chas.

Given the current complexion of our Texas Legislature, however, I see little chance of this change.

No chance whatsoever.

Chas.

[MasterOfNone]

I'm sure there are logistical issues I'm missing here, but I think it's time that "no guns" sign no longer have "the force of law" any more than "no food/drink" signs do. Of course unlicensed carry (better known as unlawful possession of a concealed weapon) already has its own consequences and legal doctrine, and always has...

I think the technical point you may be missing is that trespass under 30.05 is a Class A misdemeanor if you are carrying a deadly weapon. Since violating 30.06 involves carrying a deadly weapon, it is the same penalty.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

When you are talking about one's home or other noncommercial property, I agree. But commercial property is different. When you open your property to others and invite them in to make money, you have certain duties to the public from whom you want money. The vast majority of those duties deal with the safety of those who you encourage to come into your business and I view carrying a self-defense handgun in that category.

Do you oppose fire codes or elevator codes that apply to commercial property?

Chas.

Yes, I oppose all of those arbitrary codes (invisible taxes that penalize the business owners, and ultimately reward those who lobbied the government to impose such regulations). Let the consumer decide if they want to patronize an establishment. Any transaction is a voluntary contract. If you don't take the steps to safeguard your patrons, it is the patrons' decision whether they will support the establishment. I know that sounds very Milton Friedman, but I refuse to believe that government regulation has more benefit than what it endangers. The role of government should be strictly limited to its constitutional duties. IMHO.

What about health inspections at restaurants?
I agree with Chas.

Ditto on health inspections. I know it sounds draconian, but there is responsibility associated with actions in a free society. That is where liability comes into play. If said restaurant gets me sick, I have the right to seek compensation.

According to your philosophy, this is not a viable action. You don't like regulation of business property, so there's no reason for the company to buy insurance. When the restaurant burns down killing dozens of people, there will be no money and no insurance to collect, so you won't won't be getting any compensation. The owner of the business will start again the next day under a new corporate structure and you won't be touching that entity either. When the new business' elevator falls because it is not properly maintained and kills your loved one, you find that the building and all assets are not owned by the business, but are rented from yet another company (owned by the same businessman) and guess what, there's no insurance here either.

What you espouse is a return to the days of the robber barons when there was no regulation of businesses or business property. It didn't work out too well then and it would work no better now.

Enough of this; you've made your point and I couldn't disagree with you more. There's nothing you or I can say that's going to change either opinion.

Now we're getting back to 30.06.

Chas.

[lbuehler325]

Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

When you are talking about one's home or other noncommercial property, I agree. But commercial property is different. When you open your property to others and invite them in to make money, you have certain duties to the public from whom you want money. The vast majority of those duties deal with the safety of those who you encourage to come into your business and I view carrying a self-defense handgun in that category.

Do you oppose fire codes or elevator codes that apply to commercial property?

Chas.

Yes, I oppose all of those arbitrary codes (invisible taxes that penalize the business owners, and ultimately reward those who lobbied the government to impose such regulations). Let the consumer decide if they want to patronize an establishment. Any transaction is a voluntary contract. If you don't take the steps to safeguard your patrons, it is the patrons' decision whether they will support the establishment. I know that sounds very Milton Friedman, but I refuse to believe that government regulation has more benefit than what it endangers. The role of government should be strictly limited to its constitutional duties. IMHO.

What about health inspections at restaurants?
I agree with Chas.

Ditto on health inspections. I know it sounds draconian, but there is responsibility associated with actions in a free society. That is where liability comes into play. If said restaurant gets me sick, I have the right to seek compensation.

According to your philosophy, this is not a viable action. You don't like regulation of business property, so there's no reason for the company to buy insurance. When the restaurant burns down killing dozens of people, there will be no money and no insurance to collect, so you won't won't be getting any compensation. The owner of the business will start again the next day under a new corporate structure and you won't be touching that entity either. When the new business' elevator falls because it is not properly maintained and kills your loved one, you find that the building and all assets are not owned by the business, but are rented from yet another company (owned by the same businessman) and guess what, there's no insurance here either.

What you espouse is a return to the days of the robber barons when there was no regulation of businesses or business property. It didn't work out too well then and it would work no better now.

Enough of this; you've made your point and I couldn't disagree with you more. There's nothing you or I can say that's going to change either opinion.

Now we're getting back to 30.06.

Chas.

We agree to disagree Charles. Except that the business owner could be held criminally liable... hard to start over when you are in jail for negligent homicide. Also, a bankrupted proprietor would have significant difficultly raising capital to 'start over' given their track record.

It is a slippery slope to assume that one property rights would be held secondary to another person's 2A rights. The basic principles of liberty dictate that the exercising of my rights should not infringe on another person's ability to exercise their rights. I personally like the idea of having my enemy post their disgust for me, so I can withhold my dollars from them. I will respect their right to live in fear, and they can respect mine to spend my money elsewhere.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Liberty is based on the idea that we should be able to do as we wish, so long as we aren't infringing on another's rights to their life, their liberty, or their property.

When you are talking about one's home or other noncommercial property, I agree. But commercial property is different. When you open your property to others and invite them in to make money, you have certain duties to the public from whom you want money. The vast majority of those duties deal with the safety of those who you encourage to come into your business and I view carrying a self-defense handgun in that category.

Do you oppose fire codes or elevator codes that apply to commercial property?

Chas.

Yes, I oppose all of those arbitrary codes (invisible taxes that penalize the business owners, and ultimately reward those who lobbied the government to impose such regulations). Let the consumer decide if they want to patronize an establishment. Any transaction is a voluntary contract. If you don't take the steps to safeguard your patrons, it is the patrons' decision whether they will support the establishment. I know that sounds very Milton Friedman, but I refuse to believe that government regulation has more benefit than what it endangers. The role of government should be strictly limited to its constitutional duties. IMHO.

What about health inspections at restaurants?
I agree with Chas.

Ditto on health inspections. I know it sounds draconian, but there is responsibility associated with actions in a free society. That is where liability comes into play. If said restaurant gets me sick, I have the right to seek compensation.

According to your philosophy, this is not a viable action. You don't like regulation of business property, so there's no reason for the company to buy insurance. When the restaurant burns down killing dozens of people, there will be no money and no insurance to collect, so you won't won't be getting any compensation. The owner of the business will start again the next day under a new corporate structure and you won't be touching that entity either. When the new business' elevator falls because it is not properly maintained and kills your loved one, you find that the building and all assets are not owned by the business, but are rented from yet another company (owned by the same businessman) and guess what, there's no insurance here either.

What you espouse is a return to the days of the robber barons when there was no regulation of businesses or business property. It didn't work out too well then and it would work no better now.

Enough of this; you've made your point and I couldn't disagree with you more. There's nothing you or I can say that's going to change either opinion.

Now we're getting back to 30.06.

Chas.

We agree to disagree Charles. Except that the business owner could be held criminally liable... hard to start over when you are in jail for negligent homicide. Also, a bankrupted proprietor would have significant difficultly raising capital to 'start over' given their track record.

1. No, there would not be criminal liability (which by the way is a form of regulation of property rights); 2) the business entity (corporation, LLC, etc.) would be bankrupt, not the individual stockholder(s); and 3) no one will lend money because of the very high risk due to the lack of regulation. (Again, this is the way it was before Teddy Roosevelt broke up the robber barons.)

Now I'll let you have the last word on this subject, then we're getting back to 30.06.

Chas.