2nd amend becoming meaningless

[Scott Farkus]

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.

[Breny414]

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-commerical land) land against the homeowner's wishes. But the rules change when you open your doors to commerce.

If an officer doesn't have a warrant, or some immediate probable cause, then you don't have to let the LEO in, and you probably can tell them to get off of your property.

[Nortex]

Someone old enough to carry and doesn't understand basic property rights ?

You're kidding right? I lost count of how many people I have seen who don't have a clue. Just look at the many people you read about that allow the police to search their car or home with no warrant. Ever watch Cops?

For example take My deceased brother (RIP) who was foolish enough to run a stop sign in front of a police officer a few years back with several grams of meth in his car. Officer asked to search and he says "Sure, go ahead." I don't condone what he did but he didn't have a clue that he had no right to run a stop sign. (J/K) He may have got away if he had refused the search (which was his right if the officer had no warrant, and if they are asking they don't have a warrant, and no PC or reasonable suspician.) However if he hadn't passed on, he would have been sent up because this was not his first time, and they found the dope and he was arrested, because he consented to a search. He had no clue.

[Scott Farkus]

Well, if property owners could prevent us from carrying in our vehicles on to their property, which is accessible to the public, then they could effectively deny us the right to carry at all. So, that's a non-starter.

But the grocery store is also accessible to the public, that's exactly the point. And you could make a "non-starter" argument out of pretty much anything. If all grocery stores, or all banks, or all shopping malls posted 30.06 signs, you'd effectively be denied your right to carry on days when you had to go to those places to transaction business. But the point remains, at the end of the day, we decided (rightly, imho) that if you own a parking lot and you don't want guns on your property, that's too bad. Mr. Parking Lot Owner doesn't get his property rights because that creates too much of a burden on licensed carriers, but Mr. Grocery Store Owner gets his even though a concealed carry gun does absolutely no more harm inside his store as it does inside the car parked outside.

[WildBill]

Well, if property owners could prevent us from carrying in our vehicles on to their property, which is accessible to the public, then they could effectively deny us the right to carry at all. So, that's a non-starter.

But the grocery store is also accessible to the public, that's exactly the point. And you could make a "non-starter" argument out of pretty much anything. If all grocery stores, or all banks, or all shopping malls posted 30.06 signs, you'd effectively be denied your right to carry on days when you had to go to those places to transaction business. But the point remains, at the end of the day, we decided (rightly, imho) that if you own a parking lot and you don't want guns on your property, that's too bad. Mr. Parking Lot Owner doesn't get his property rights because that creates too much of a burden on licensed carriers, but Mr. Grocery Store Owner gets his even though a concealed carry gun does absolutely no more harm inside his store as it does inside the car parked outside.

People having a handgun in their car are not carrying under the authority of their LTC,
I know that some people don't like the current restrictions to open and concealed, but that is the current law.
I know that some people think that if a business is open to the public then they should have unfettered access.
Even with all of the but, but, buts, that is wishful thinking, but it is still not the reality.

[Breny414]

Well, if property owners could prevent us from carrying in our vehicles on to their property, which is accessible to the public, then they could effectively deny us the right to carry at all. So, that's a non-starter.

But the grocery store is also accessible to the public, that's exactly the point. And you could make a "non-starter" argument out of pretty much anything. If all grocery stores, or all banks, or all shopping malls posted 30.06 signs, you'd effectively be denied your right to carry on days when you had to go to those places to transaction business. But the point remains, at the end of the day, we decided (rightly, imho) that if you own a parking lot and you don't want guns on your property, that's too bad. Mr. Parking Lot Owner doesn't get his property rights because that creates too much of a burden on licensed carriers, but Mr. Grocery Store Owner gets his even though a concealed carry gun does absolutely no more harm inside his store as it does inside the car parked outside.

I understand where you're coming from. It's a compromise, for sure. The balance of property rights, individual rights, 2A rights, and on and on. As it is, I have only had to turnaround once due to 30.06, and that's in Austin of all places. I've been keeping up with this forum and Texas3006 and, so far, I can get around with no problem.

[Scott Farkus]

People having a handgun in their car are not carrying under the authority of their LTC,
I know that some people don't like the current restrictions to open and concealed, but that is the current law.
I know that some people think that if a business is open to the public then they should have unfettered access.
Even with all of the but, but, buts, that is wishful thinking, but it is still not the reality.

It was my understanding that employees who keep their firearms in their otherwise posted/prohibited employer's parking lot are doing so under CHL/LTC authority, but regardless, the point remains that we have intruded upon that parking lot owner's private property rights.

And as far as wishful thinking vs. reality, that can be said about essentially everything including the carry laws we do have. They weren't reality, but then we passed a law that made them so.

[tiger1279]

This thread has been interesting and informative. I figured it would since most people are pretty passionate when it comes to rights. The comments seem to boil down to this: my Constitutional rights are guaranteed only when I'm in a public place. Step onto private property, be it a business or somebody's land, and I'm subject to the whelms and attitudes of the owner/manager. I guess that's just the way it is. It's not only the 2nd amend that is relevant here, the 1st amend is also involved. There is a statement in my apartment lease that says I can be evicted if I make a derogatory remark about the management. So free speech is out too. I don't like that, but then management's attitude is if i don't like it I can move. So there you have it. Thanks for your comments, guys, I stand "educated".

[OlBill]

Simple answer is because the constitution limits the powers of government. In the instance of the signs, the government is not restricting your right (unless posted improperly on gov. property), the signs are just a legal notification that the property owner does not want you to carry there.

That's the right answer.

"Constitutional rights" is a misnomer. They are Constitutionally recognized rights. My rights don't come from the Constitution, the prohibitions and limitations on the government do.

Of course the 2nd has long been infringed upon, as have others.

In my mind, the interstate commerce clause is one of the most abused writings in history.

We have already compromised. It's time to get back to The Law.

[OlBill]

This thread has been interesting and informative. I figured it would since most people are pretty passionate when it comes to rights. The comments seem to boil down to this: my Constitutional rights are guaranteed only when I'm in a public place. Step onto private property, be it a business or somebody's land, and I'm subject to the whelms and attitudes of the owner/manager. I guess that's just the way it is. It's not only the 2nd amend that is relevant here, the 1st amend is also involved. There is a statement in my apartment lease that says I can be evicted if I make a derogatory remark about the management. So free speech is out too. I don't like that, but then management's attitude is if i don't like it I can move. So there you have it. Thanks for your comments, guys, I stand "educated".

As has been said elsewhere, we do not have a right to even be on another's property, much less decide in what condition we will do so.

[OlBill]

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.

[ralewis]

So far, the government's answer has been that property owner's rights trump individuals rights, unless of course, we are talking about the right to have a cake made for your gay wedding, or the right to eat at the same counter as people of a different race. The government views these as more important than the right to property ownership, and so property owners are forced, ultimately at the point of a gun, to give in to these demands. A citizen's right to keep and bear arms is viewed by the government as being less important than these other rights so property owners are not forced to accommodate this right. At least for now.

My personal opinion is that CONCEALED CARRY should be treated no differently than any other PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION protected class. That is how many other states, FL for example, handle concealed carry on private property OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

We don't have that protection in TX though.

I mostly agree with the Public Accommodation position. Though I understand the practical political rationale for the 30.06 sign with penalties that make it a crime to trespass, I can't immediately think of another sign that makes it illegal to carry/wear/do something on private property. I would prefer Texas be like PA where you need to be told/refuse to leave before it's a crime, but I accept that it's not likely to change.

[thetexan]

This thread has been interesting and informative. I figured it would since most people are pretty passionate when it comes to rights. The comments seem to boil down to this: my Constitutional rights are guaranteed only when I'm in a public place. Step onto private property, be it a business or somebody's land, and I'm subject to the whelms and attitudes of the owner/manager. I guess that's just the way it is. It's not only the 2nd amend that is relevant here, the 1st amend is also involved. There is a statement in my apartment lease that says I can be evicted if I make a derogatory remark about the management. So free speech is out too. I don't like that, but then management's attitude is if i don't like it I can move. So there you have it. Thanks for your comments, guys, I stand "educated".

You've missed it. You Do have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, IF YOU CAN MAKE IT ONTO THE GUYS PROPERTY WITHOUT TRESSPASSING...and since the owner determines what constitutes trespassing on his property then you may only exercise that right with his consent. Just like you have a right to free speech...unless the owner doesn't want to hear you political opinion then he can require you to leave taking your free speech with you when you go!!!

As to your apartment...you entered into a contractual agreement with them where they essentially told you what their limit of welcomed 1st amendment free speech would be essentially telling you up front at what point they would consider you in violation of the contract. You exercised your constitutional right by freely entering into that agreement. You could have easily not done so.

Come on!!?? You don't really believe this stuff do you?

tex

[WildBill]

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.

But, but, but, they do.

[jed]

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.