rp_photo wrote:I don't see 30.06 as a sacred property right but rather a public accommodation issue.
Anyone who opens their property to the public must agree to not discriminate against various classes, which in my opinion should include legal carriers.
Along with that, property owners who don't post should be shielded from liability over actions of a legal carrier on their property, but being exposed to liability for the death and injury of a disarmed legal carrier if they choose to post. Note that this would provide a crucial upside to not posting which is missing now.
You have a choice to carry, the supposed various legal classes did not. I support individual property owners rights over the rights of the public, don't do business with them if you don't like the way they run their business. If you come in and tell me that I have to let legal carriers in my place of business, I would have to tell you I do not have to do so
, I allow them to do so. Then I would tell you to leave because of I have enough stupidity for the whole place and you need to take yours elsewhere.
On this forum, this topic is rehashed often, and it usually ends up at a point where it's perceived as a binary issue: "Which is more important, private property rights or our rights to carry?" I suggest that reducing it to A vs B is a good way to kill the discussion, rather than enable it.
But what has been highlighted here on this thread is there is a middle ground that allows both to be respected. Private property is (and should be) sacrosanct, but it already has some limitations in place. You can post signs that say, "No red shoes", "No shirt no service", "No earrings", etc., but those signs do NOT have the force of law unless you then offer an oral notification as well.
Those of us that advocate the middle ground do not ask for private property rights to be subordinate to carry rights. We simply ask that the 3006 sign have the same legally binding status as do the other signs listed in the previous paragraph. We believe that one sign, for that one choice, for one class of people who voluntarily do one thing, having legal force of law as something we'd like to see evened out with all other signs.
But we're not suggesting that we should come in and tell you that you have to let legal carriers in your place of business. That's extending our position further than what we're stating.
Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
When those fail, aim for center mass.www.HoustonLTC.com
: Texas LTC Instructor & NRA Pistol Instructor | www.Texas3006.com
Moderator | Armored Cav. | Tennessee Squire