For those concerned about property rights:

[Richbirdhunter]

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"

Try to tell them you won't bake a cake for a gay wedding.

[Scott Farkus]

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"

Exactly - private businesses enjoy property rights unless it violates that "something else". And there are already thousands of "something elses" besides the two you mentioned, including the parking lot law which I assume most of us here support.

The question is not "should the government ever tell a private business what it can and cannot do?" That's already been asked and answered, for better or worse, with a resounding YES. The question is "what should go on that list of "something else"?" and I can't see how adding "no banning of licensed concealed carriers" is any more problematic or than 99.9% of the things already on the list, particularly since it would cost the business exactly no additional money, and neither the business owner or other customers would ever even know. Not to mention it's a constitutional right.

[TVegas]

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"

Exactly - private businesses enjoy property rights unless it violates that "something else". And there are already thousands of "something elses" besides the two you mentioned, including the parking lot law which I assume most of us here support.

The question is not "should the government ever tell a private business what it can and cannot do?" That's already been asked and answered, for better or worse, with a resounding YES. The question is "what should go on that list of "something else"?" and I can't see how adding "no banning of licensed concealed carriers" is any more problematic or than 99.9% of the things already on the list, particularly since it would cost the business exactly no additional money, and neither the business owner or other customers would ever even know. Not to mention it's a constitutional right.

The problem is that the Supreme Court has not yet determined concealed carry to be a constitutional right. When that happens, everything will probably change.

[amtank]

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"

Exactly - private businesses enjoy property rights unless it violates that "something else". And there are already thousands of "something elses" besides the two you mentioned, including the parking lot law which I assume most of us here support.

The question is not "should the government ever tell a private business what it can and cannot do?" That's already been asked and answered, for better or worse, with a resounding YES. The question is "what should go on that list of "something else"?" and I can't see how adding "no banning of licensed concealed carriers" is any more problematic or than 99.9% of the things already on the list, particularly since it would cost the business exactly no additional money, and neither the business owner or other customers would ever even know. Not to mention it's a constitutional right.

The problem is that the Supreme Court has not yet determined concealed carry to be a constitutional right. When that happens, everything will probably change.

My point is that concealed carry does not effect the property owner at all. If an individual decided to ignore the signs it's highly likely no one would ever know. The only "person" harmed is this legal fiction that of all the things a customer has on their person that one thing I don't want.

[amtank]

In fact,

Simply eliminate 30.06. No "no guns" sign is valid. The 30.07 sign has no legal effect on concealed carry. To trespass a concealed carrier they would have to be asked to leave, so a retailer for instance that didn't want guns would have to gain some knowledge that the concealed carrier had the firearm in the first place. Further remove any enhancements for trespass with a firearm for a concealed carrier.

[TVegas]

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"

Exactly - private businesses enjoy property rights unless it violates that "something else". And there are already thousands of "something elses" besides the two you mentioned, including the parking lot law which I assume most of us here support.

The question is not "should the government ever tell a private business what it can and cannot do?" That's already been asked and answered, for better or worse, with a resounding YES. The question is "what should go on that list of "something else"?" and I can't see how adding "no banning of licensed concealed carriers" is any more problematic or than 99.9% of the things already on the list, particularly since it would cost the business exactly no additional money, and neither the business owner or other customers would ever even know. Not to mention it's a constitutional right.

The problem is that the Supreme Court has not yet determined concealed carry to be a constitutional right. When that happens, everything will probably change.

My point is that concealed carry does not effect the property owner at all. If an individual decided to ignore the signs it's highly likely no one would ever know. The only "person" harmed is this legal fiction that of all the things a customer has on their person that one thing I don't want.

I agree with you. I'm just saying that nothing will change until the Supreme Court holds that carrying a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. In fact, this very issue may not change if it were a constitutional right (think yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.)

[Scott Farkus]

In light of the HEB discussion, I thought I'd make this point about "property rights", or lack thereof.

Not long ago, a bunch of environmentalist types decided that plastic grocery bags were offensive and they wanted grocery stores and other retail shops to stop using them. They didn't wring their hands and say "oh, I don't like plastic bags but I would never try to tell the owner of a private business what to do". They didn't say "I'll politely ask the owner not to use plastic bags and if he or she refuses, I'll respectfully take my business elsewhere because private property rights trump all". Know what they did? They went to the local government, in this case the City of Austin but other cities have followed suit, and screamed "pass this law forcing all these private businesses to do what I want!!!". And guess what? The City of Austin did, and HEB, Sprouts and Whole Foods can no longer make the choice to use plastic grocery bags in their private businesses.

But they can choose to exclude open or concealed carriers from their stores, because we respect property rights.

This isn't fair. We can't be the only side that honors the rules. Commercial property is and always has been different.

[TVGuy]

In light of the HEB discussion, I thought I'd make this point about "property rights", or lack thereof.

Not long ago, a bunch of environmentalist types decided that plastic grocery bags were offensive and they wanted grocery stores and other retail shops to stop using them. They didn't wring their hands and say "oh, I don't like plastic bags but I would never try to tell the owner of a private business what to do". They didn't say "I'll politely ask the owner not to use plastic bags and if he or she refuses, I'll respectfully take my business elsewhere because private property rights trump all". Know what they did? They went to the local government, in this case the City of Austin but other cities have followed suit, and screamed "pass this law forcing all these private businesses to do what I want!!!". And guess what? The City of Austin did, and HEB, Sprouts and Whole Foods can no longer make the choice to use plastic grocery bags in their private businesses.

But they can choose to exclude open or concealed carriers from their stores, because we respect property rights.

This isn't fair. We can't be the only side that honors the rules. Commercial property is and always has been different.

While I hated the bag ban for the short time it was enacted in Dallas, I fail to see the parallel here. In that particular case, it wasn't because of what was happening on the property, but what happened with the bags after they were taken off the property.

There are a number of things that private property owners can't allow on their property. Think of fireworks, nudity in your front yard, the list could go on for days. There are reasons for all of these and reasonable restrictions are OK.

If you owned a fine dining establishment, would you want someone saying you can't enact and enforce a dress code? It's not fair I can't wear my ripped up shorts and tank top to the most expensive steakhouse in town?

[SewTexas]

In light of the HEB discussion, I thought I'd make this point about "property rights", or lack thereof.

Not long ago, a bunch of environmentalist types decided that plastic grocery bags were offensive and they wanted grocery stores and other retail shops to stop using them. They didn't wring their hands and say "oh, I don't like plastic bags but I would never try to tell the owner of a private business what to do". They didn't say "I'll politely ask the owner not to use plastic bags and if he or she refuses, I'll respectfully take my business elsewhere because private property rights trump all". Know what they did? They went to the local government, in this case the City of Austin but other cities have followed suit, and screamed "pass this law forcing all these private businesses to do what I want!!!". And guess what? The City of Austin did, and HEB, Sprouts and Whole Foods can no longer make the choice to use plastic grocery bags in their private businesses.

But they can choose to exclude open or concealed carriers from their stores, because we respect property rights.

This isn't fair. We can't be the only side that honors the rules. Commercial property is and always has been different.

did you really say "this isn't fair"?

life isn't fair, we deal with it.
life isn't fair if you're on the right side
life isn't fair if you're in the middle income bracket
life isn't fair if you're a decent person
life isn't fair if you're mostly white
life just plain isn't fair, deal with it and move on.

my kids learned that when they were 3.

[baldeagle]

This is going to be controversial (although it's true), but property owners gave up their rights when the federal Civil Rights legislation was passed. Since then they have been compelled to do all sorts of things that they might not have otherwise done. And since government is so clearly anti-gun, in this one area of life they "honor" property owners' rights.

For example, own a small store in a small community? Too bad. You MUST have handicapped spaces. It's the law. The law doesn't care if you can afford it. It's the law. The reason Christian bakers must serve gay people is because private businesses must serve African Americans. It's the law. Your rights aren't relevant.

Is it the right thing to do to serve African Americans and to accommodate handicapped people? Of course. Unquestionably. But forcing property owners to do so by passing laws has consequences far beyond what shortsighted politicians perceive. So property rights gave way to "civil rights" and now the First and Second Amendments are less meaningful because the rights of classes of people have been made supreme over the rights of the individual. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right, so it naturally suffers when made to compete with the rights of classes of people.

[amaly23]

Do it like Utah. The only places that would be banned to carry concealed are secured areas with notification via signs, a secure area of an airport, a courthouse, and a correctional facility. Any secure area must have a place for people to store their weapon before they enter. Of course if someone carries in a business they could still be told to leave or face trespassing charges. Eliminate the 30.06 signs but keep the 30.07 signs.

[Abraham]

Some of you think 30.06/30.07 "ought" to reflect other states and their gun laws.

Sorry, we're in Texas, but you can dream the impossible dream, fight the unbeatable foe,
bear with unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go...

Ah, get over it.

You're in Texas and we have 30.06/30.07.

Live with it or move.

[Scott Farkus]

Some of you think 30.06/30.07 "ought" to reflect other states and their gun laws.

Sorry, we're in Texas, but you can dream the impossible dream, fight the unbeatable foe,
bear with unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go...

Ah, get over it.

You're in Texas and we have 30.06/30.07.

Live with it or move.

Well, a year ago we might just as easily have said "In Texas we don't have Open Carry. Or Campus Carry. Live with it or move". But in Texas we also have a Legislature that's generally sympathetic to our issue and if we go about it the right way, or even the wrong way, we might be able to effect change in our favor. It doesn't seem inappropriate to me that we discuss whether 30.06/30.07 is the best way to go about things, and whether this might be something we want to consider asking our Legislators to change.

[Scott Farkus]

While I hated the bag ban for the short time it was enacted in Dallas, I fail to see the parallel here. In that particular case, it wasn't because of what was happening on the property, but what happened with the bags after they were taken off the property.

There are a number of things that private property owners can't allow on their property. Think of fireworks, nudity in your front yard, the list could go on for days. There are reasons for all of these and reasonable restrictions are OK. If you owned a fine dining establishment, would you want someone saying you can't enact and enforce a dress code? It's not fair I can't wear my ripped up shorts and tank top to the most expensive steakhouse in town?

Yes, exactly. That's the point - there are already restrictions, reasonable or otherwise, especially when it comes to commercial property. You already don't have an absolute right to do what you wish. I do not for the life of me understand why a law prohibiting a business from excluding licensed concealed carriers is in any way unreasonable, particularly in light of the thousands of other things they are already subject to that costs them (and ultimately the consumer) untold billions every year.

Just to be clear, we're talking about commercial property that is open to the public for commerce. The bar is raised significantly when it comes to someone's front yard.

[amaly23]

Some of you think 30.06/30.07 "ought" to reflect other states and their gun laws.

Sorry, we're in Texas, but you can dream the impossible dream, fight the unbeatable foe,
bear with unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go...

Ah, get over it.

You're in Texas and we have 30.06/30.07.

Live with it or move.

Some people would have also said that Texas would have never had open carry, we're fighting the unbeatable foe, etc. Or in 1993 we would have never had concealed carry with the current governor especially how she said she would never sign a concealed carry law. Or that we would have never had campus carry. If the Texas legislators and people had followed your advice then we would never have concealed carry in Texas. This forum might not even exist right now. But look where we are now. In 2017 it could be time for a clean up bill to remove many prohibited locations where we can carry and possibly a 30.06 removal could be included. I'm not sure how it's gonna happen. I'm not sure if Senator Birdwell is going to support such a bill especially with the way he supports private property rights. It would probably have to be amended on to the bill in the House. It would be great however to remove racetracks, 51% locations, colleges' ability to create gun free zones, and other schools and maybe other banned carry places from where we can't carry.