Repeal 30.06

[txbirddog]

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.

So please tell me where I can open my cigar smoking restaurant in Dallas?????? The government regulates you at every turn running your own business.......

[RottenApple]

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.

So please tell me where I can open my cigar smoking restaurant in Dallas?????? The government regulates you at every turn running your own business.......

Exactly. You already have to defer to the government and its regulations in numerous areas. Building codes, liquor licensing, anti-smoking ordinances, etc. What's the difference here?

As for not being a protected class, I disagree. Oh, not from a legal/political standpoint, of course. Those who carry, openly or concealed, aren't a protected class in that sense. But the RKBA is a Constitutionally protected right. There s no good reason for a business that is open to the public to discriminate against those who carry. A "closed" business (closed in the sense that they are not open to the public), well, that's a different story.

[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.

So please tell me where I can open my cigar smoking restaurant in Dallas?????? The government regulates you at every turn running your own business.......

Didn't answer my question...where is the line drawn? Smoking in public places falls into the realm of public health safety so that's not really apples to apples. I have a right to life and so others have a duty to not end my life. Second hand smoke violates that duty...so regulating smoking is not an issue. Allowing a concealed handgun or not does not harm any other patron of a public business, so the businesses right should not be taken away in that area.

[Liberty]

Didn't answer my question...where is the line drawn? Smoking in public places falls into the realm of public health safety so that's not really apples to apples. I have a right to life and so others have a duty to not end my life. Second hand smoke violates that duty...so regulating smoking is not an issue. Allowing a concealed handgun or not does not harm any other patron of a public business, so the businesses right should not be taken away in that area.

Emphasis mine.
We carry our weapons to keep us safe. a 30.06 is denies us of that right. Gun free zones are just potential killing fields and those that post these signs show either ignorance or a disregard for the public's safety.

[Superman]

We carry our weapons to keep us safe.

I completely agree.

a 30.06 is denies us of that right.

That assumes that you have an absolute right to go into the location that is posted with 30.06. In the vast majority of places, that is not the case. I don't have a right to enter Walmart except Walmart has allowed me to. Walmart gives everyone permission to enter until they decide to revoke that permission (for a multitude of possible reasons, like if I'm breaking things or being obnoxious to their other customers). If Walmart posts a 30.06 sign, they are giving permission to enter on the condition that I am not carrying a concealed handgun. Entrance is conditional in that case. Walmart has a right to put conditions on it giving permission to enter its place of business.

Gun free zones are just potential killing fields

I completely agree.

... and those that post these signs show either ignorance or a disregard for the public's safety.

I disagree, those are probably just two of a multitude of reasons...I'm not sure all of us combined could think of them all.




A business is owned by people. They get to dictate the rules of their business. If they said everyone had to wear purple in their business in order to enter, that is their right. It would not be wise because they would lose a lot of business, but they have that right (similar to 30.06, not wise but it is their right to post if they want and that just makes it clear and up front that they don't want my business). They can even say no one is allowed on their premises if they want. It is privately owned. Whoever does not own it does not get to have a say (except in the obvious public safety issues).

Government property is owned by the citizens of the government (all of us) so therefore we should be able to exercise our 2A rights anywhere on that property. I think the government has overstepped its bounds with restricting on government property.

That's my 2 cents (probably 40 cents by now)...

[jmra]

Superman wrote
If Walmart posts a 30.06 sign, they are giving permission to enter on the condition that I am not carrying a concealed handgun. Entrance is conditional in that case. Walmart has a right to put conditions on it giving permission to enter its place of business.

A 30.06 allows Walmart to deny entry to an armed CHL only because the state said so. There are states that do not have 30.06 and gun buster signs are not legally prohibitive to CHLs.
A 30.06 sign does not stop an off duty officer from entering a commercial business armed. How are they any better than us? The fact of the matter is a CHL is less likely to commit a crime than that officer is. IMHO we should be able to carry anywhere an off duty officer is allowed to carry.

[Superman]

A 30.06 allows Walmart to deny entry to an armed CHL only because the state said so.

The "because the state said so" argument could be said of our 2A right too, but that doesn't make it true. Both rights are God given (or natural).

There are states that do not have 30.06 and gun buster signs are not legally prohibitive to CHLs.

That's beneficial to us CHL'ers for sure, but that doesn't mean the business owner does not have the right to ask a patron to leave if they find out. This is how I would prefer it...concealed is concealed, if they don't know it doesn't hurt them. I think business owners have the right and 30.06 is just Texas' way of facilitating the communication and creating the "rules of the game." Whether the state should take on that role is another topic I think (I'm not convinced they should take on that role and I do not agree with the level of punishment associated with it...I like the idea of it being the exact same as trespass if you are asked to leave and do not).

A 30.06 sign does not stop an off duty officer from entering a commercial business armed. How are they any better than us? The fact of the matter is a CHL is less likely to commit a crime than that officer is. IMHO we should be able to carry anywhere an off duty officer is allowed to carry.

I completely agree that CHL'ers should be able to carry anywhere an off duty officer is allowed to carry. An off duty officer should be no different than the rest of us. Either restrict them to where we can carry, or expand where we can to match them (obviously my preference is to expand ours).

[jmra]

A 30.06 allows Walmart to deny entry to an armed CHL only because the state said so.

That argument could be said of our 2A right too, but that doesn't make it true. Both rights are God given (or natural).

There are states that do not have 30.06 and gun buster signs are not legally prohibitive to CHLs.

That's beneficial to us CHL'ers for sure, but that doesn't mean the business owner does not have the right to ask a patron to leave if they find out. This is how I would prefer it...concealed is concealed, if they don't know it doesn't hurt them. I think business owners have the right and 30.06 is just Texas' way of facilitating the communication and creating he "rules of the game." Whether the state should take on that role is another topic I think (I'm not convinced they should take on that role and I do not agree with the level of punishment associated with it...I like the idea of it being the exact same as trespass if you are asked to leave and do not).

A 30.06 sign does not stop an off duty officer from entering a commercial business armed. How are they any better than us? The fact of the matter is a CHL is less likely to commit a crime than that officer is. IMHO we should be able to carry anywhere an off duty officer is allowed to carry.

I completely agree that CHL'ers should be able to carry anywhere an off duty officer is allowed to carry. An off duty officer should be no different than the rest of us. Either restrict them to where we can carry, or expand where we can to match them (obviously my preference is to expand ours).

At least we agree on your last statement.