Greg Abbott and OC

[srothstein]

You can already remove anybody from your property you dislike, as you are the RO. However, you shouldn't be able to BAN a group or type of people. It's just prejudice IMO, and then to make it legally criminally punished is absurd. The right to refuse service must be reserved, but not right to discriminate against a group of people who have done no wronging to be kicked out.

Your pink thong analogy I think actually makes the point. If you don't like pink thongs, you can ask them to leave, but you can't post a sign making it a crime if you discover they are wearing a pink thong. I for one would much rather have to be asked to leave if I'm carrying vs. it automatically being a crime. I understand a lot of why we have the 30.06 situation. Just wish it was like wearing a pink thong...

The pink thong analogy makes the point, but not quite the way you think it does. You can post a sign making it illegal to be found wearing a pink thong ont he premises and the person can be convicted of a crime for doing so. All you need is any sign by the entrance that says "Do not enter if you are wearing a pink thong" or very similar words and the person would be committing criminal trespass if they do enter.

And while pink thongs may make the analogy humorous or seem ridiculous, I will point out that there are many of these types of signs in lots of businesses. Have you ever seen a sign saying no one is allowed in wearing "biker" or "gang" attire? The ones that spell out what they are looking for (leather vests, red bandanas, etc.) are legally enforceable.

As for the other part of the thread, we seem to have forgotten about a third class of property. There is a lot of commercial property that is open to the public but the public is not solicited for entry like a store. Think of office buildings where the customers are generally from other businesses instead of the retail public. Would you allow them to ban? What about members only businesses like Costco? The problem when you try to make divisions like this is that there are always too many one-off cases to make a law. The law needs to be a flat line that applies to all private property, either you can ban or you cannot.

As for me, I strongly support private property rights and want to see the removal of many of the laws we already have restricting those rights. That includes popular laws like anti-discrimination and zoning, too. Ah well, that is the libertarian in me, I guess. I know it will not happen.

[Charlies.Contingency]

Would need to get gun carriers classified as a protected class. Until then, feel free to ban anyone that doesn't carry a gun. Business may differ but I think you have the right to do it.

When government can tell someone who they have to do business with and that you cannot decide who you want on your property you've bought and paid for our leased, you no longer have the right to run your own business for which you are risking your money and livelihood. Next the government will tell you who you have to make cakes for and who preachers have to marry. Oh wait, we are already there.

The public accommodation act addresses discrimination and accommodation for those that fall in a protected class. CHL and gun carriers do not fall in a such a class. No one is more pro 2nd than I. I am also pro property rights and believe I should be allowed to determine with whom I do business and sell insurance to within reason.

Matter of fact, I'd like to give a discount to those that have a CHL and carry. However, it is against the law as that would be considered illegal rebating. Then I could get a visit from one of those armed police insurance department investigators I don't believe is need but is being paid for with my tax dollars.

It's really crummy the way it works out. One crowd can tell the other they're not welcome in their stores because of the other groups belief and right to legally carry a gun. Very one sided... :/ Does this mean I can strictly forbid anybody from my premises if they're liberal, wearing genital jewelry, or are wearing a pink thong? They go against my beliefs, so Could. I post a sign banning them? I don't think it's fair to them, but if I couldn't tell, and them doing business does not cause an issue, why is it right that I can ban them? I will never know about your pink thong if you conceal it properly, but if you start showing it of, I believe i should be able to kick you yo the curb if it bothers me. If you don't cause a nuasance and show off your stuff, then why should I be predjudice? Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I'm there to shoot somebody, nor does a liberal always intend to preach to me about how we need smaller government. Long odds make for big countermeasures?

and that you cannot decide who you want on your property

You can already remove anybody from your property you dislike, as you are the RO. However, you shouldn't be able to BAN a group or type of people. It's just prejudice IMO, and then to make it legally criminally punished is absurd. The right to refuse service must be reserved, but not right to discriminate against a group of people who have done no wronging to be kicked out.

Your pink thong analogy I think actually makes the point. If you don't like pink thongs, you can ask them to leave, but you can't post a sign making it a crime if you discover they are wearing a pink thong. I for one would much rather have to be asked to leave if I'm carrying vs. it automatically being a crime. I understand a lot of why we have the 30.06 situation. Just wish it was like wearing a pink thong...

Thanks, I did my best, and it was the best I could come up with!

You wish it was like wearing a pink thong? That kinda insinuates you've worn one IMO!

[Charlies.Contingency]

You can already remove anybody from your property you dislike, as you are the RO. However, you shouldn't be able to BAN a group or type of people. It's just prejudice IMO, and then to make it legally criminally punished is absurd. The right to refuse service must be reserved, but not right to discriminate against a group of people who have done no wronging to be kicked out.

Your pink thong analogy I think actually makes the point. If you don't like pink thongs, you can ask them to leave, but you can't post a sign making it a crime if you discover they are wearing a pink thong. I for one would much rather have to be asked to leave if I'm carrying vs. it automatically being a crime. I understand a lot of why we have the 30.06 situation. Just wish it was like wearing a pink thong...

The pink thong analogy makes the point, but not quite the way you think it does. You can post a sign making it illegal to be found wearing a pink thong ont he premises and the person can be convicted of a crime for doing so. All you need is any sign by the entrance that says "Do not enter if you are wearing a pink thong" or very similar words and the person would be committing criminal trespass if they do enter.

And while pink thongs may make the analogy humorous or seem ridiculous, I will point out that there are many of these types of signs in lots of businesses. Have you ever seen a sign saying no one is allowed in wearing "biker" or "gang" attire? The ones that spell out what they are looking for (leather vests, red bandanas, etc.) are legally enforceable.

As for the other part of the thread, we seem to have forgotten about a third class of property. There is a lot of commercial property that is open to the public but the public is not solicited for entry like a store. Think of office buildings where the customers are generally from other businesses instead of the retail public. Would you allow them to ban? What about members only businesses like Costco? The problem when you try to make divisions like this is that there are always too many one-off cases to make a law. The law needs to be a flat line that applies to all private property, either you can ban or you cannot.

As for me, I strongly support private property rights and want to see the removal of many of the laws we already have restricting those rights. That includes popular laws like anti-discrimination and zoning, too. Ah well, that is the libertarian in me, I guess. I know it will not happen.

So if I wear a red bandana over my head and eye to cover up my scars and disfiguration from being shot with a shotgun, I can be criminally prosecuted? I still don't like the sound of it. But we are talking about something concealed and not visibly open for all to see at the moment. We strayed from the OC topic a bit, because what someone sees, and what they can't, should IMO be treated very differently. If you don't want OC at you pizza joint, then fine, I'll CC. But making it illegal simply by signage to walk into a place with something nobody can see, complain, or worry about, such as you CCW, pink thong, or prince albert, is just wrong IMO. For something in plain view, it's a bit different, but it's a gray topic I guess...

[gdanaher]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

[Charlies.Contingency]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

[anygunanywhere]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

So you do not support constitutional carry? How many more rights do you want restricted by requiring certain qualifications?

[joe817]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

[anygunanywhere]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

CHLs are permission slips to exercise a right.

[Charlies.Contingency]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

So you do not support constitutional carry? How many more rights do you want restricted by requiring certain qualifications?

And you would support felons allowed to walk around unhindered with an AK and Pistol on their side because it's our right to bear arms.

I'm for common sense and for life preservation. I am not for restrictions as you so accuse, I am for safety and proficiency training, and a ID stating that you are not a felon and have accomplished certain training to help you better protect yourself and others.

[Charlies.Contingency]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

CHLs are permission slips to exercise a right.

CHL's are an acknowledgement that you are legally practicing your rights IMO, not something you have to show your school teacher to leave school early. If you are so heavily against the CHL, why do you have this evil thing in your pocket? Wouldn't that mean you are supporting the CHL program?

[Charlies.Contingency]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

Thanks Joe, I am ANTI-restrictions as much as practically possible. I just want everybody to be safely practicing their rights.

[Charles L. Cotton]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

So you do not support constitutional carry? How many more rights do you want restricted by requiring certain qualifications?

And you would support felons allowed to walk around unhindered with an AK and Pistol on their side because it's our right to bear arms.

You need to read Rep. Stickland's bill before making this statement.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

Thanks Joe, I am ANTI-restrictions as much as practically possible. I just want everybody to be safely practicing their rights.

That's dangerous territory. What about First Amendment rights for example?

Chas.

[anygunanywhere]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

So you do not support constitutional carry? How many more rights do you want restricted by requiring certain qualifications?

And you would support felons allowed to walk around unhindered with an AK and Pistol on their side because it's our right to bear arms.

I'm for common sense and for life preservation. I am not for restrictions as you so accuse, I am for safety and proficiency training, and a ID stating that you are not a felon and have accomplished certain training to help you better protect yourself and others.

Of course I do not support felons doing such and your throwing that out in response is a straw man. Felons cannot now legally own and possess firearms and constitutional carry does not negate those protections as is evident in Arizona. I guess before you take the fifth amendment to protect yourself or demand a search warrant or hand property over to the government you need to take a college course on rights to make certain you are trained.

Reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws have exterminated hundreds of millions of people globally.

[Charles L. Cotton]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

I support the bill to the extent it removes the requirement to obtain a CHL in order to carry a handgun. I don't like the fact that it leave all off-limits areas intact, but repealing those provisions would never fly. The best way to handle this issue would be to remove remove the off-limits areas for people who choose to obtain a CHL.

This is a good bill that has virtually no chance of passing.

BTW, it would be a good idea to stop referring to a legal concept that does not exist, i.e. "constitutional carry." Now matter how appealing this buzz phrase may be, it diminishes one's arguments in favor of unlicensed carry of firearms when one grounds those arguments on a nonexistent premise. Until the SCOTUS issues an opinion stating that the Second Amendment includes an unfettered right to carry handguns, there is no such constitutional right. This is especially true in light of dicta in the Heller case and the SCOTUS' recent refusal to hear a New Jersey case challenging that State's "may issue" statute on Second Amendment grounds. I disagree with the Court, but that means nothing.

Chas.