Search found 3 matches

by thetexan
Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:29 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: 30.07 ?
Replies: 24
Views: 4406

Re: 30.07 ?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
thetexan wrote:STOP already!

They are not infringing on our rights. The state of Texas says our right ends at the door of a owner who wishes to exercise HIS right to prohibit guns on his property. I have a right to mow my grass but my next door neighbor has the right to prohibit me from mowing HIS grass. He is not infringing on my right to mow my grass or to mow grass in general. Are we going to not be neighborly because he is "infringing" on our God given constitutional right to mow grass?

Our right to carry a handgun in this state is limited, lawfully, by statute and supported by SCOTUS. If one wants to exercise more of their rights and take their business elsewhere then they can have at it.

This is a compromise of equally entitled rights as is so many other things. If an owner posts and someone feels the owner is undeserving of patronage then he might just as logically keep someone out even without a gun because he doesn't want the business of someone who likes guns...as is HIS right.

I will go into a business and carry, lawfully, no matter what I perceive the owner's feelings about me are...if I choose...if it PLEASES me or serves MY purpose at the time...or is at or for MY convenience at the time. I don't change my actions because the owner indicates he doesn't like guns with a 30.07 sign. I will then carry concealed, lawfully and by statute.

What I do insist on is that the owner exercise his rights in any prohibition by abiding completely by the same statutes I have to live by.

And if he does so then God bless him. He has the right to exercise his right. Just as I do in the reverse...lawfully. None of this is about right infringement. This is all about personality conflicts or disagreements in philosophies.

tex
We can agree to disagree. IMHO rights are granted by our creator. The state may say that they will allow a private property owner to infringe on some rights. But that does not mean those rights no longer exist. It also does not mean that those rights are not being infringed upon. It just means that the state is OK with the infringement. The infringement may be legal, but it is still infringement.

I don't disagree. In fact I emphatically agree. It is your right, by virtue of the constitution. Whether or not that right is endowed by our creator, and by being so thus beyond the touch of human interference, is a matter of BELIEF. It was certainly the inspiring belief of our founding fathers. That belief in divine endowment, however, is not what makes it a right LEGALLY. It is the constitution that makes it a legal right. As for me I also, to my core, believe that right IS given to me by my creator and so...we agree again.

What is clear is that the owner is also endowed by HIS creator to have sovereignty over his property and that endowed right is also bestowed upon him in that very same constitution.

The constitution was created under the inspiration of that very "divine endowment" belief...belief...BELIEF!!! (And I believe that also). And, to the best of the founder's ability, they created it to support those believed endowments. How then can our endowed "right" be more deserved than the owner's endowed "right"? Obviously, it can't. So we live in a society where we must balance our collective divinely endowed, constitutionally bestowed rights to live in any kind of harmony.

The reason I would not patronize a theater that is posted is because that posting is the equivalent to a public notice that everyone inside is unarmed and easy targets. It's dangerous to be there...certainly in today's day and age. It's not because I do not think the owner is "worthy" of my patronage because he is stepping on my God given right to carry. If one does not want to come visit me at my home because I insist that they do not smoke inside my home because I am infringing on their "God given right" then I'm not sure their friendship is worth the effort. I have a God given right also.

We 2nd amendment believers sometimes rationalize to the point that we loose the big picture.

I, and everyone reading this, could come up with a hundred examples of how each of our conflicting "rights" must be respected and not be used as a point of contention...as hard as it is for me to do that myself. I could start with the "don't yell fire in the theater" example. Can the yeller of "fire" argue that his God given right to speak freely is being infringed by the legal decision that he cannot do so...that the constitution does not grant him that "God given" right. And that's just one of hundreds of examples.

Many of the people who get worked up because a store owner won't let someone on their property with a gun are the same people who, after yelling "STOP" would shoot a person coming onto THEIR yard or property with a gun, ironically, using the same "sovereignty of ownership" doctrine! Can the guy coming onto your yard with a gun (assuming you don't want that) argue with you as he continues to peacefully walk onto your yard, that he has a God endowed right????!!! I think not.

As I stated earlier, I insist that the owner exercise HIS GOD ENDOWED CONSTITUTIONALLY BESTOWED right to keep me off his property with a gun by the precise requirements of the law...just as he and society insists that you, me, and all of us exercise our GOD ENDOWED CONSTITUTIONALLY BESTOWED right to carry our guns by the precise requirements of the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

That is why I say this is not legitimately a issue of right infringement. It is more of an issue of us gun carriers thinking our God endowed, constitutionally bestowed right is more important, or has higher priority, than the other guy's God endowed, constitutionally bestowed right of sovereignty over his property. Or...that we just don't like people we think are liberal, anti-gun fanatics, which, by the way, many are not; they post simply because they think it has an economic impact on their business.

But it still irritates me that I don't get MY way. That's one of several unseemly forms of human nature we all struggle with. I just have to search my true motivations and rationale when I get this way.

To quote James T. Kirk...."Why... can't we all....just......get along!" :boxing

tex
by thetexan
Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:42 am
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: 30.07 ?
Replies: 24
Views: 4406

Re: 30.07 ?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Abraham wrote:ScottDLS ,

Hhhmmm, I've got a couple questions: Do you do that,carry a concealed rifle into 30.06 businesses or are you simply stating one can legally do that?

Plus, why (and certainly it's your choice) give a 30.06 your business or do you do this only when you can't avoid a 30.06 posted business like maybe your doctor's office or someplace similar?
I'm not Scott, but I do sometimes carry a concealed rifle past a valid 30.06 sign.

I agree that the first choice is to not give any patronage to a business that is openly against our civil rights, including our right to keep and bear arms. But unfortunately, there are some locations where I must still visit even though they believe in this type of oppression. A classic case would be to visit a relative in a hospital that is posted.

In these limited cases, I believe that it would be completely and totally irresponsible for me to willingly give up the means to defend myself and my loved ones from a potential violent assault. So I do what I am legally allowed to do to defend myself. I agree that a concealed rifle is not the best choice. I would much rather have a 1911 on my hip. But my Sub 2000 fits nicely into a computer bag, and I can have it deployed and ready to act in a matter of seconds. So I have decided that it is my next best option.

And to answer your follow on post, yes it is rare.
STOP already!

They are not infringing on our rights. The state of Texas says our right ends at the door of a owner who wishes to exercise HIS right to prohibit guns on his property. I have a right to mow my grass but my next door neighbor has the right to prohibit me from mowing HIS grass. He is not infringing on my right to mow my grass or to mow grass in general. Are we going to not be neighborly because he is "infringing" on our God given constitutional right to mow grass?

Our right to carry a handgun in this state is limited, lawfully, by statute and supported by SCOTUS. If one wants to exercise more of their rights and take their business elsewhere then they can have at it.

This is a compromise of equally entitled rights as is so many other things. If an owner posts and someone feels the owner is undeserving of patronage then he might just as logically keep someone out even without a gun because he doesn't want the business of someone who likes guns...as is HIS right.

I will go into a business and carry, lawfully, no matter what I perceive the owner's feelings about me are...if I choose...if it PLEASES me or serves MY purpose at the time...or is at or for MY convenience at the time. I don't change my actions because the owner indicates he doesn't like guns with a 30.07 sign. I will then carry concealed, lawfully and by statute.

What I do insist on is that the owner exercise his rights in any prohibition by abiding completely by the same statutes I have to live by.

And if he does so then God bless him. He has the right to exercise his right. Just as I do in the reverse...lawfully. None of this is about right infringement. This is all about personality conflicts or disagreements in philosophies.

tex
by thetexan
Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:55 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: 30.07 ?
Replies: 24
Views: 4406

Re: 30.07 ?

And visa versa...

Return to “30.07 ?”