Desired CHL Reform

[Dragonfighter]

OK. All legalese aside, lets get something, from a common sense point of view.

My house is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Your appartment or dorm room is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Albertson's, Wally World, Sears Roebuck, the Mall are all privately owned property that, during regular bussiness hours, allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to enter. They are Public in nature and, as such, entry is no different than walking down the street. This is NOT the same as the home.

Private property rights should be a two-way street. If the nature of your bussiness is such that every monkey with a crew cut can just walk through the door, then I (should) have the same rights as when I was walking across the parking lot to get to the door. I (should) have the right to protect myself from those around me, who would do me harm.

Yes? No?

Much more succinct than my arguement. Well put.

[Ol Zeke]

OK. All legalese aside, lets get something, from a common sense point of view.

My house is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Your appartment or dorm room is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Albertson's, Wally World, Sears Roebuck, the Mall are all privately owned property that, during regular bussiness hours, allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to enter. They are Public in nature and, as such, entry is no different than walking down the street. This is NOT the same as the home.

Private property rights should be a two-way street. If the nature of your bussiness is such that every monkey with a crew cut can just walk through the door, then I (should) have the same rights as when I was walking across the parking lot to get to the door. I (should) have the right to protect myself from those around me, who would do me harm.

Yes? No?

Much more succinct than my arguement. Well put.

Actually, your argument helped me put it into the context of my....

"eighth grade edgycation and good Christian raisin'"

[blue]

--"YES"--

Ol Zeke nailed it dead center! (with a little help!)

Excellent description.

Very well said!

WELL DONE!



Blue


(-----sticky somewhere????---)

[tornado]

Agreed, with one suggested change:

... I (should) have the same rights as when I was walking on the public sidewalk to get to the door.

because some parking lots are (currently) posted (even though under this proposal, they couldn't be).

[dicion]

You all have covered the big things.. I'll mention a few little things

Define the following words/phrases specifically & exactly in regards to CHL:
-School or Educational Institution
-Professional Sporting Event

46.035 (b)(4),(b)(5),(b)(6) & (c), and subsequently (i) completely removed from the statutes, as they mean nothing anyways.

[ericlw]

i like the park lot bill stuff, but really i think if you shoot someone and the state finds you not guilt then no one should be to sue you civally.

that's already the case in Texas.

so the victums family is not able to sue you for any reason?

[chabouk]

OK. All legalese aside, lets get something, from a common sense point of view.

My house is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Your appartment or dorm room is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Albertson's, Wally World, Sears Roebuck, the Mall are all privately owned property that, during regular bussiness hours, allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to enter. They are Public in nature and, as such, entry is no different than walking down the street. This is NOT the same as the home.

You're free to invite the public into your home. People do so all the time when their realtors throw "open house" viewings, where any Tom, Dick or Harry can enter. You can also revoke that invitation at any time, or tell any particular person that they're not welcome and must leave, for whatever reason you choose.

A store that is open to the public is private property, every bit as privately owned as your home. The only difference is that they have extended a general invitation to the public, but they still have the right to revoke that invitation at any time, for any reason, other than banning a broad class of people who are protected under the law due to race, etc.

Zeke, if you go to church, what would you do in that private property that issues a general invitation to the public to enter (as almost all churches do), if someone wore a shirt with an offensive slogan, or shouted a profanity every time the congregation gave an "amen!"? Would you consider it a violation of their First Amendment rights to tell them to leave? Or to have them removed under an order of trespass if they didn't leave?

Privately owned property is privately owned, whether it's open to the public or surrounded by razor wire and moats.

[UpTheIrons]

i like the park lot bill stuff, but really i think if you shoot someone and the state finds you not guilt then no one should be to sue you civally.

that's already the case in Texas.

so the victums family is not able to sue you for any reason?

They can sue anybody they want at any time for any reason, but they will not win if it was a righteous shooting. It shouldn't even wind up being filed. What should happen is that they get laughed out of the courthouse for bringing the paperwork for something so foolish.

[Venus Pax]

This is a great thread.

1. Parking lot bill. I don't believe this infringes upon the owners' property rights nearly as much as it infringes on the individual's RKBA & private property rights. Remember--the vehicle is an extension of the home.

2. Campus Carry. I would like to see this start with colleges/universities, but extend in later sessions to include pre-k through 12 schools (public and private).

3. Reduce the fees associated with obtaining a CHL. I haven't heard/read one single, reasonable argument why the fees are so high. In a sense, these fees are discriminatory, making obtaining a CHL a hardship on lower wage-earners.

4. Simplify the renewal process. Do people really need to get fingerprinted again? Do fingerprints change? As for the picture, I haven't taken a new driver's license picture since I was 22. And I can assure you that the new picture would look quite different.
Personally, I think that walking into a DPS office and renewing every five or ten years and paying a small fee (someone mentioned $25) would be acceptable.

Need to add more later. I'm being summoned by my 16-pound boss.

ETA now that the Baby New Year is in bed:

5. Take the 30.06 option away from hospitals & professional buildings. When most of us enter a hospital, we're usually doing it because we're required to do so at one level or another. (If we're a patient, we obviously can't back out there.. and it puts undue hardship on people caring for sick relatives.) This makes people vulnerable when walking through the parking garages.


I realize that Rome wasn't built in a day, but am glad that the TSRA is making a lot of progress. I'm glad to hear that we will be focusing on the first two this session. We can build on them in later sessions.

[sjfcontrol]

2. Campus Carry. I would like to see this start with colleges/universities, but extend in later sessions to include pre-k through 12 schools (public and private).

Wow! Packing Pre-Schoolers!! (Least they wouldn't get busted for pointing a "finger" gun anymore!)

[RHenriksen]

i like the park lot bill stuff, but really i think if you shoot someone and the state finds you not guilt then no one should be to sue you civally.

that's already the case in Texas.

so the victums family is not able to sue you for any reason?

They can sue anybody they want at any time for any reason, but they will not win if it was a righteous shooting. It shouldn't even wind up being filed. What should happen is that they get laughed out of the courthouse for bringing the paperwork for something so foolish.

Right - in legalese, if the surviving family filed a civil suit against you for wrongful death or somesuch, your attorney should be able to file what's called a Motion for Summary Judgement. In effect, it just says to the judge, 'this suit has no merit due to law XYZ'. The judge should at that point throw the suit out of court, with little or no basis for any further appeal.

HOWEVER, IANAL.

[hirundo82]

Albertson's, Wally World, Sears Roebuck, the Mall are all privately owned property that, during regular bussiness hours, allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to enter. They are Public in nature and, as such, entry is no different than walking down the street. This is NOT the same as the home.

In legal jargon, they are a public accomodation.

I tend to agree that somwhere that allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry to come in off the street should not be able to prohibit legal carry, or at least should be explicitly liable if they do choose so and something happens.

[A-R]

2. Campus Carry. I would like to see this start with colleges/universities, but extend in later sessions to include pre-k through 12 schools (public and private).

Wow! Packing Pre-Schoolers!! (Least they wouldn't get busted for pointing a "finger" gun anymore!)

I completely agree with Venus Pax on this one. And, while I'm sure sjfcontrol is just kidding, "packing pre-schoolers" is exactly the kind of infantile rebuttal we're likely to hear from the antis. Of course, anyone under the age of 21 can't own/possess a handgun anyway, but as soon as this bill passes they'll all be legally carrying handguns to school somehow

Legal CHL should be allowed in all schools of all grades public or private for one very simple reason - It is my right to keep and bear arms to protect myself and my family; by enrolling my child in MANDATORY public school (my wife and I don't make enough money for one of us to stay home and home-school our children or to send them to a private school - so in order to comply with the law - and of course ensure our children get an education - we will be sending them to public school. When and where did I give up my second amendment rights when I enrolled my child in school? This state-mandated ban on CHL in schools is especially egregious on private schools. All those who think private property owners should continue to be able to choose whether to ban us with 30.06, what about a private property owner who runs a pre-school/day care and is prohibited from CHOOSING to not ban us?

When I walk from the school door to my truck with my toddlers in tow UNARMED I am more vulnerable than at any other time or place during the course of a day. Who is being "protected" by disarming me in this manner? Same applies to grade school and high school, except in those cases the law makes it MORE dangerous because I have to leave my gun unattended in my car when I go visit my public school teacher wife and any punk 17-year-old can smash a window and grab my gun, right there on campus. Let's see them try that in a Wal Mart parking lot or anywhere else

ok, glad I got that out of my system

/rant

[Venus Pax]

2. Campus Carry. I would like to see this start with colleges/universities, but extend in later sessions to include pre-k through 12 schools (public and private).

Wow! Packing Pre-Schoolers!! (Least they wouldn't get busted for pointing a "finger" gun anymore!)

Teach them early!

[Ol Zeke]

OK. All legalese aside, lets get something, from a common sense point of view.

My house is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Your appartment or dorm room is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Albertson's, Wally World, Sears Roebuck, the Mall are all privately owned property that, during regular bussiness hours, allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to enter. They are Public in nature and, as such, entry is no different than walking down the street. This is NOT the same as the home.

You're free to invite the public into your home. People do so all the time when their realtors throw "open house" viewings, where any Tom, Dick or Harry can enter. You can also revoke that invitation at any time, or tell any particular person that they're not welcome and must leave, for whatever reason you choose.

A store that is open to the public is private property, every bit as privately owned as your home. The only difference is that they have extended a general invitation to the public, but they still have the right to revoke that invitation at any time, for any reason, other than banning a broad class of people who are protected under the law due to race, etc.

Zeke, if you go to church, what would you do in that private property that issues a general invitation to the public to enter (as almost all churches do), if someone wore a shirt with an offensive slogan, or shouted a profanity every time the congregation gave an "amen!"? Would you consider it a violation of their First Amendment rights to tell them to leave? Or to have them removed under an order of trespass if they didn't leave?

Privately owned property is privately owned, whether it's open to the public or surrounded by razor wire and moats.

If I “open my house to the public” as in an “Open House”, I am making it a “Public Accommodation” (as hirundo82 states) and it is open to the public only for the duration of the Open House (I’m not even there). I can’t dictate who may attend. When the Open House is over, no one may enter without an invitation from me (“Closed for Bussiness”). I guess, if I was so inclined, I could post a 30.06 sign. I can’t discriminate against male, female, gay, straight, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Black, Brown, Yellow, Red, Green, or White. Why am I allowed to discriminate against “Law Abiding Citizens” wanting, only, to be safe in their travels?

A business may close it’s doors and “revoke it’s invitation” to the public, at any time it chooses. True, but it must revoke it’s invitation to all. It cannot deny access to one group (see above) over another.

As for the Church scenario, what would I do? Well…. pray for them, of course!