Fix 30.06 & 30.07 Sign Requirements

[RiverKing]

The required text of 30.06 and 30.07 signs should end with a nice legal statement to the effect that "Posting this sign also means that you or your next of kin can sue us for everything we're worth if you are harmed in any way that might have been prevented if we had not denied your rights as described by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We also hereby accept full criminal responsibility for such incidents."

[infoman]

I disagree with your post. you as the consumer shouldn't shop there/eat there if you don't like them posting a 30.06/30.07 sign. 2nd amendment is about people owning guns in their own homes.

[n5wmk]

2nd amendment is about people owning guns in their own homes.

Where in the constitution or the 2nd Amendment does it say that? Seems to me "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" pretty much applies anywhere, not only in my own home.

[mayor]

you as the consumer shouldn't shop there/eat there if you don't like them posting a 30.06/30.07 sign.

2nd amendment is about people owning guns in their own homes.

say what???

[warnmar10]

I disagree with your post. you as the consumer shouldn't shop there/eat there if you don't like them posting a 30.06/30.07 sign. 2nd amendment is about people owning guns in their own homes.

... just like the first ammendment guarantees your right to say anything you want behind the closed door of your home.

[srothstein]

2nd amendment is about people owning guns in their own homes.

Where in the constitution or the 2nd Amendment does it say that? Seems to me "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" pretty much applies anywhere, not only in my own home.

It is not in the Constitution as far as I know, but it is in the Heller decision. So far, Heller and MacDonald only recognized that right and no further. The carrying outside the home is receiving conflicting results from the circuits and has not yet been decided. And if the members of this forum cannot agree, I can certainly see why the circuit courts cannot.

Of course, I say it is the only absolute right in the Constitution. There is no way around the phrase "shall not be infringed" to make it as subject to interpretation or regulation as any other right (using the words Unreasonable search, etc.). And since it says "keep and bear" arms, I have to say I think it covers carrying outside the home. The courts have not agreed with me on either of those points yet.

[infoman]

I like that we have a license a person must qualify for to legally carry in public. All you have to do is obey the law & you can get an LTC. Those that break the laws & are not eligible based on our current criteria don't deserve to enjoy the same priveledges as good law abiding citizens. As far as the places posting 30.06/30.07 signs, that's their right as property owners. If you don't like it- take your business somewhere else.

[ScottDLS]

I like that we have a license a person must qualify for to legally carry in public. All you have to do is obey the law & you can get an LTC. Those that break the laws & are not eligible based on our current criteria don't deserve to enjoy the same priveledges as good law abiding citizens. As far as the places posting 30.06/30.07 signs, that's their right as property owners. If you don't like it- take your business somewhere else.

I think there should be a license to write articles on the Internet, and if you don't meet the requirements and pay the $140 fee for your LTW then you don't deserve the same 1st amendment privileges as good rule following citizens...

And if somebody puts up a circle slash elephant (Republican) sign on their private business, then it's their right to have you arrested and incarcerated by the state for going into their business with a Trump hat on. It's like a "no shirt-no shoes no service" sign or a circle slash Beretta sticker. Kind of like a dress code for politics.

The first and second amendment are only limited to protecting you from the government, and are therefore invalid on private property. And the government can impose common sense restrictions like requiring you to keep your gun disassembled at home, or prohibiting making a movie about a candidate during election season. In fact, per election law, you can't publish a book trying to influence an election unless you are a licensed journalist, or limit your support of the book to a certain amount determined by the FEC.

Also if you are part of a corporation you don't have any 1st or 2nd amendment rights. Corporations are not people and in order to keep dark money from the 1% from influencing elections you need to be silenced. Only unions and illegal aliens have rights under the 1st and 2nd amendment.

[srothstein]

The first and second amendment are only limited to protecting you from the government, and are therefore invalid on private property.

I know that you wrote this sentence with your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek, but it is really an accurate statement and we should all think about it. The Second Amendment does not apply to my private property if I, as the owner, says it does not. It is solely a restriction on the government, which is also why the government cannot legally post 30.06 signs.

The First Amendment also does not apply on private property (except in a few very rare cases). I do not have to allow you on my property to post any sign I do not want there. I do not have to allow you to post anything I want on an Internet web site that I own. You have full freedom of speech when the government does not do anything to restrict you, but certainly may censor you on my page. And as a quite simple proof that we all recognize this, I will point out how many people have been banned from this forum. I know that Charles is very tolerant of dissenting opinions, but banning people for the way they express that opinion (for example profanity or personal attacks) is still a form of censorship that we all accept, and possibly even request. I the lack of personal attacks and courtesy shown are some of the reasons I like the forum.

[KLB]

2nd amendment is about people owning guns in their own homes.

Troll alert! Troll alert!

[KLB]

And since it says "keep and bear" arms, I have to say I think it covers carrying outside the home. The courts have not agreed with me on either of those points yet.

A good-faith interpretation of the right to bear arms, in my view, necessarily entails the right to carry outside the home in at least some circumstances. If courts were to apply ordinary principles of construction to the Second Amendment, I think they would come to the same conclusion. Many courts now, however, do not want to apply ordinary principles to the Second Amendment, because they do not like the result. And after Hillary is elected and gets a judge on the Supremes, Heller, McDonald, and the entire Second Amendment will be read out of practical existence. That's as clear as the sun rising in the East.

[ScottDLS]

The first and second amendment are only limited to protecting you from the government, and are therefore invalid on private property.

I know that you wrote this sentence with your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek, but it is really an accurate statement and we should all think about it. The Second Amendment does not apply to my private property if I, as the owner, says it does not. It is solely a restriction on the government, which is also why the government cannot legally post 30.06 signs.

The First Amendment also does not apply on private property (except in a few very rare cases). I do not have to allow you on my property to post any sign I do not want there. I do not have to allow you to post anything I want on an Internet web site that I own. You have full freedom of speech when the government does not do anything to restrict you, but certainly may censor you on my page. And as a quite simple proof that we all recognize this, I will point out how many people have been banned from this forum. I know that Charles is very tolerant of dissenting opinions, but banning people for the way they express that opinion (for example profanity or personal attacks) is still a form of censorship that we all accept, and possibly even request. I the lack of personal attacks and courtesy shown are some of the reasons I like the forum.

The government doesn't HAVE to grant you the "privilege" of excluding people with force of law from carrying on your publicly open property by using a sign... In fact in Texas they don't, if you're a cop, or employee carrying in your vehicle. I'm also still not convinced that a "no Trump hats" sign in your publicly open business (say Grapevine Mills Mall) invokes criminal trespass if someone ignores it.

Common carriers like the phone and internet company are forced to accept all payers regardless of the content of the traffic, unless such traffic is illegal (like child porn or communication in furtherance of a crime).

A private forum like this one may post conduct rules and edit, delete, ban users or posts, but it's doubtful whether criminal trespass could be invoked (under the concept of trespass to chattel) in advance for someone breaking the rules....Maybe if they hacked into the board AFTER being warned off.

The newspaper doesn't HAVE to take your gun ad because of the 1st amendment, but if you sneak it in the classifieds, the paper can't use the government to prosecute you criminally for posting it...can they?

[infoman]

2nd amendment is about people owning guns in their own homes.

Troll alert! Troll alert!

I'm not a troll, I've been on this forum since 2008 or 09 & probably know more about CHL/LTC than you do.

[TreyHouston]

2nd amendment is about people owning guns in their own homes.

Troll alert! Troll alert!

I'm not a troll, I've been on this forum since 2008 or 09 & probably know more about CHL/LTC than you do.

So why does the 3rd amendment specifically say in your home when the second does not?

[Beiruty]

I think one has to be reasonable.

Say, a Mall like Grapevine Mall, where it is 100% accessible to the public (and terrorists). Posting 30-06/30-07 should not be allowed OR the Mall should be have measurable security measures to assure safety of the visitors and failure to do so would make the Mall "entity" liable for failure to ensure said safety of its visitors.

Companies where access to the premises is controlled are exempted from the above.