Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


OlBill
Senior Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby OlBill » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:43 pm

twomillenium wrote:
skeathley wrote:For 50 years it has been law that a business that is open to the public must serve ALL the public. That includes races, religions, genders, and people carrying diseases. Why would that not include people legally carrying guns?

:confused5

Because we are not slow-thinking snowflakes!

That's not a very good answer in my opinion.


OlBill
Senior Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby OlBill » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:52 pm

twomillenium wrote:I agree that LTC holders should be able to carry all if not most places where LEOs can. Your definition of private property is your opinion and not the definition. Private property owners legal rights should always trump rights of the public whether or not they invite the public to come in or not, even if I don't agree with the private property owners choice, I as a free-thinking citizen can always choose to participate or not and I can keep my reasons to myself if they are not PC. If I want to participate but fear the night, then I go in the daytime. Again, it is my choice.

Should, but don't and never will again.

I own a cafe. I put up a sign that says "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." But I can't.

I can't reserve the right to refuse service to a person because of their race.

Or sexual orientation.

Or...

But not only can I refuse service to an armed person. If they refuse to leave or walk past my sign, they go to jail.

The 2nd Amendment protects a class of people - citizens.

I didn't blur the lines between public and private, but they are blurred and will stay that way. It is folly to pretend otherwise.

If I have to serve them because of their sexual orientation, why don't they have to serve me because of my arms orientation?


twomillenium
Senior Member
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:42 pm
Location: houston area

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby twomillenium » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:29 pm

OlBill wrote:
twomillenium wrote:
skeathley wrote:For 50 years it has been law that a business that is open to the public must serve ALL the public. That includes races, religions, genders, and people carrying diseases. Why would that not include people legally carrying guns?

:confused5

Because we are not slow-thinking snowflakes!

That's not a very good answer in my opinion.

Your right I will correct it.
Because almost all of us are not slow-thinking snowflakes. :thumbsup:
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA pistol instructor, RSO, NRA Endowment Life , TSRA, Glock enthusiast (tho I have others)
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to add it to a fruit salad.

You will never know another me, this could be good or not so good, but it is still true.

User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts: 6631
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: La Grange, Texas

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby anygunanywhere » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:19 am

Tex1961 wrote:
LDB415 wrote:I don't believe property owner's rights trump legal citizens Constitutional rights.


Seriously???

You come on my property and start exercising your 1A rights and start bad mouthing me or my family or whatever else I take offense to, I'm going to show you where the door is and not let it hit your behind on the way out.

So... Did I just violate your constitutional right? And are you saying that I don't have any rights as a property owner??

Ok... So that was a bit strong and I admit it... But you understand that you either accept the whole constitution or not... I'm as much for being able to CC anywhere as anybody, but once you start limiting some rights then you begin to limit them all... Or you become a liberal... Both I think...


I’m not sure about where you get your information on what is constitutionally protected speech but someone “bad mouthing” you or yours in your house isn’t protected. You need a better argument.
1911s should be carried openly as God and John Moses Browning (PBUH) intended them to be.
III%


OlBill
Senior Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby OlBill » Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:30 pm

The problem as I see it is "open to the public" has been intentionally changed to mean "publicly owned and we're going to tell you how to run your business".

Grammar is very, very important and the left understands that.

There are many examples. Federal, federalist, gay (deliberate choice), etc.

User avatar

spectre
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby spectre » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:34 pm

Going back to the liability question, I was taught if a homeowner has a swimming pool and doesn't have a fence, they have civil liability if a trespasser drowns in the pool. If that's true, the same attractive nuisance reasoning should apply to business owners who ban licensed handguns and create soft targets. If they don't have metal detectors and other means to prevent bad guys from entering with weapons, they should have civil liability if anybody is shot or stabbed on their property.
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society,
over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it
and a moral code that glorifies it. - Frédéric Bastiat


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2646
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:05 pm

Tex1961 wrote:
LDB415 wrote:I don't believe property owner's rights trump legal citizens Constitutional rights.


Seriously???

You come on my property and start exercising your 1A rights and start bad mouthing me or my family or whatever else I take offense to, I'm going to show you where the door is and not let it hit your behind on the way out.

So... Did I just violate your constitutional right? And are you saying that I don't have any rights as a property owner??

Ok... So that was a bit strong and I admit it... But you understand that you either accept the whole constitution or not... I'm as much for being able to CC anywhere as anybody, but once you start limiting some rights then you begin to limit them all... Or you become a liberal... Both I think...


But can you have that person arrested for stating political beliefs that are opposed to your own? No, you can't (unless they refuse to leave after being asked).

And to get to an actual example that is equivalent to the current 30.06 laws, you can't have someone arrested because you caught a glimpse of their pro-Hillary button that they had attempted to conceal under their jacket. Even if you put up a huge sign saying "No Hillary supporters are allowed to enter this building". You can be an adult and ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave, after being asked to do so, then and only then can you call the police for assistance.

Can you come up with any examples that are actually equivalent to our 30.06 restrictions? I'd like to see just one example where a person who runs a business that is open to the public can have someone arrested, before even asking them to leave, because that person had something that is legal, but which the business owner disliked, and which was not in open view, like a belief or an object concealed under clothing.

The closest I can come up with that I have actually seen is a movie theater or restaurant banning outside food. But for some reason I have never heard of them calling LE and having the offending customers arrested unless that customer refused to leave when asked.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

LDB415
Senior Member
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:01 am
Location: Houston south suburb

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby LDB415 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:16 pm

Tex1961 wrote:
LDB415 wrote:I don't believe property owner's rights trump legal citizens Constitutional rights.


Seriously???

You come on my property and start exercising your 1A rights and start bad mouthing me or my family or whatever else I take offense to, I'm going to show you where the door is and not let it hit your behind on the way out.

So... Did I just violate your constitutional right? And are you saying that I don't have any rights as a property owner??

Ok... So that was a bit strong and I admit it... But you understand that you either accept the whole constitution or not... I'm as much for being able to CC anywhere as anybody, but once you start limiting some rights then you begin to limit them all... Or you become a liberal... Both I think...


But your argument has carried us from concealed carry into open carry. Using your example, no offense meant, if I come on your property and think bad thoughts about you and your choice of motor vehicle you don't know that and never will. You have no reason to not want me there or to ask me to leave. I can have any thought inside my head that I want and it is completely unknown to you.

I'll concede a 30.07 sign, begrudgingly maybe, but ok. Just as I agree I can't come on your property and tell you what an incredibly ugly shirt you are wearing without possibly being shown the door.

But no, I don't believe my Second Amendment right to CC is trumped by any other right of any other person.
NRA Life Member, CCC Life Member, GSSF Member
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.
Common sense is only right wing if you are too far to the left.
A pistol without a round chambered is an expensive paper weight.


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts: 3841
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby srothstein » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:02 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:And to get to an actual example that is equivalent to the current 30.06 laws, you can't have someone arrested because you caught a glimpse of their pro-Hillary button that they had attempted to conceal under their jacket. Even if you put up a huge sign saying "No Hillary supporters are allowed to enter this building".


I have seen this and similar arguments posted before. I strongly disagree and think you can have the person arrested for criminal trespass in a case like this.

PC 30.05 says a person commits an offense if they enter without effective consent. Consent must be communicated in some manner. A big sign saying "No Hillary supporters are allowed to enter this building" would constitute notice, IMO, that there is no consent to enter the building for people who support Hillary. Thus, a person walking in who is wearing a button indicating their support for Hillary has violated the law the moment he walks in the door, whether you can see the button or not. And you can call the police and have him arrested the minute you see the button (or earlier if you already know him to be a Hillary supporter). No where in PC 30.05 does it say anything about orally asking the person to leave before the offense is committed.

I believe the problem is that you, and others who think this, are conflating what the law says with how things are normally done. As a police officer, if you called me about this, I would normally try to get the person to leave instead of arresting him because I almost always tried to achieve a peaceful resolution to a problem of this nature. But if a complainant called the police and then insisted that they wanted the person arrested and charges filed, I would be denying the arrest at the peril of a suspension when they complain tot eh department. If I did not arrest but wrote a report and filed the charges so they could be arrested later, I might be OK but they charge would probably go through and get a warrant issued.

Be careful when reading too much into the law. PC 30.05 does NOT require a property owner to confront any trespasser before calling the police.
Steve Rothstein


rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby rp_photo » Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:01 pm

Tex1961 wrote:I think you have a good argument, but it's flawed. By state law, a private business, entity has the right to post 30.06 / 30.07 signs. As such I can't see where they would incur any liability as a result.


In my opinion, they should face greater liability so that the decision to post would have a downside.

I also believe that 30.06 signs are deserving of "discretion" in some instances.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"


Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests