TexasCHLforum.com

steveincowtown wrote:

rotor wrote:
This is of course the question. I don't have the answer but in my mind I believe the right to self defense far outweighs a property owners right to decide who can or can not enter private property. After all, we live by the term Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. If you can not protect your life you have nothing. Property rights are important but not above the right to life, therefore the ability to defend ones self. So, in my mind if a property owner takes away my right to self defense he/she should provide for my defense.

I have a novel idea. How about property owner's retain 100% of their rights to ask you to leave, but that the TX government quits providing a sign that makes it an automatic crime.

Jusme wrote:

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I think we need to strike a balance between property rights and individual rights. The real question we are all debating is about where we draw that line.

There are those who assert that property rights should be absolute. That I should be able to tell visitors that they can only come onto my property if they are willing to give up certain of their rights. Taken to its' extreme, this position would allow me to compel a handyman to submit to a strip search (to ensure that he does not steal anything) as a condition of entry into my home. If he agrees (by walking past a sign giving notice, or otherwise), presumably I could use agents of the state to compel the search under threat of arrest. Another example would be forcing visitors to give up their RKBA as a condition of entry to my property, again under the threat of arrest. I'm sure we could all come up with other examples besides these from the fourth and second amendments.

Personally, I think we should try for a balance between these competing rights instead on treating the rights of one party as absolute to the detriment of the rights of another party. I advocate that a property owner should have the absolute right to limit entry to their property to only those people they choose. I further believe that a property owner should be able to later change their mind and order any previously invited visitor to leave, for any reason whatsoever. If anyone eithers enters after being told not to, or stays after being told to leave, then the property owner should be able to seek the assistance of LEO to help enforce their wishes. I think this strikes a balance that is very much in favor of the rights of property owners.

Where I disagree with current law is that I do not believe a property owner should be able to preemptively restrict the rights of people they have invited onto their property, under threat of arrest, when the exercise of those rights does not directly harm the property owner, or anyone else, and isn't even evident to anyone other than the visitor themselves. This applies to more than just the RKBA. I also should not be able to have you arrested because you have previously exercised your first amendment rights by speaking in favor of something I oppose. If I discover this, maybe because you are wearing an "I'm with her" button, then I should be able to tell you to leave, but you should only be subject to arrest if you refuse to actually leave.

This is of course the question. I don't have the answer but in my mind I believe the right to self defense far outweighs a property owners right to decide who can or can not enter private property. After all, we live by the term Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. If you can not protect your life you have nothing. Property rights are important but not above the right to life, therefore the ability to defend ones self. So, in my mind if a property owner takes away my right to self defense he/she should provide for my defense.

The problem with this argument, is that you are/were not compelled by law to enter the private property in question. Even if it a condition of employment, the argument could be made, that you could get another job. Therefore you always have the option of walking away.
Even agent's of the state are forbidden to enter private property without either the consent of the property owner, or after obtaining a warrant.

A person should have the option to decide what behavior, is tolerated on their property. That includes the carrying of firearms. The problem with the argument of having the right to life outweighing the rights of the property owner, comes down to the fact that, by not entering the property, your life is in no danger, so the property owner is under no obligation to protect you, if you choose to enter and follow the rules, by disarming.

The only place that I go where I really have no choice, is when I visit someone in a hospital. There is not another posted business, that I have run across, that I didn't have another option to take my money.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I think we need to strike a balance between property rights and individual rights. The real question we are all debating is about where we draw that line.

There are those who assert that property rights should be absolute. That I should be able to tell visitors that they can only come onto my property if they are willing to give up certain of their rights. Taken to its' extreme, this position would allow me to compel a handyman to submit to a strip search (to ensure that he does not steal anything) as a condition of entry into my home. If he agrees (by walking past a sign giving notice, or otherwise), presumably I could use agents of the state to compel the search under threat of arrest. Another example would be forcing visitors to give up their RKBA as a condition of entry to my property, again under the threat of arrest. I'm sure we could all come up with other examples besides these from the fourth and second amendments.

Personally, I think we should try for a balance between these competing rights instead on treating the rights of one party as absolute to the detriment of the rights of another party. I advocate that a property owner should have the absolute right to limit entry to their property to only those people they choose. I further believe that a property owner should be able to later change their mind and order any previously invited visitor to leave, for any reason whatsoever. If anyone eithers enters after being told not to, or stays after being told to leave, then the property owner should be able to seek the assistance of LEO to help enforce their wishes. I think this strikes a balance that is very much in favor of the rights of property owners.

Where I disagree with current law is that I do not believe a property owner should be able to preemptively restrict the rights of people they have invited onto their property, under threat of arrest, when the exercise of those rights does not directly harm the property owner, or anyone else, and isn't even evident to anyone other than the visitor themselves. This applies to more than just the RKBA. I also should not be able to have you arrested because you have previously exercised your first amendment rights by speaking in favor of something I oppose. If I discover this, maybe because you are wearing an "I'm with her" button, then I should be able to tell you to leave, but you should only be subject to arrest if you refuse to actually leave.

twomillenium wrote:

rotor wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

RiverKing wrote: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."

I could agree with that if there were a law that required or forced someone to do business with the businesses that post. That law would even be more foolish than this post.
Folks have the right to choose and it doesn't always have to be my way, but I also have the right to choose where I do business and only the through negligence of that business should that business be liable. Especially when I choose to do business after they post the signs, that would be my negligence not the businesses.

Have you heard of ObamaCare. Ugh! Technically you can say no and be taxed.

I apologize, I thought this thread was about 30. signs.

twomillenium wrote:

RiverKing wrote: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."

I could agree with that if there were a law that required or forced someone to do business with the businesses that post. That law would even be more foolish than this post.
Folks have the right to choose and it doesn't always have to be my way, but I also have the right to choose where I do business and only the through negligence of that business should that business be liable. Especially when I choose to do business after they post the signs, that would be my negligence not the businesses.