Businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL!

[pt145ss]

I am sitting here envisioning the uproar ensuing if I owned a business and posted:

NO CELL PHONES, PDAS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ELECTRONIC DEVICES ALLOWED

All persons caught in possession of such devices on this premises without the owner's specific permission will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law per section 30.05 of the Texas Penal Code

Or some such thing - I'll bet it would make the evening news on four networks and TXscan.

OTOH, I could also post "NO NON-CHLs ALLOWED, be prepared to show ID."

I wonder how those would work.

There already is one like this in polling places on election day...Maybe not in reference to 30.05, but it is the law here in Texas...

Yeah, but polling places are truly public, not private businesses like we are discussing here, therefore they are subject to different rules.

I think that because it is a public place it makes things worse. The feds or any other municipality should not be allowed to legislate such things unless the can prove some overwhelming public safety issue or something. Public property should be open, free, and un-limiting whenever possible. The reason being is that at some level we all own and should have access public property…we all should have equal say in the use of that property. Versus private property where the property owner should decide for themselves what to allow on their property…because the only one who as any interest in that private property is the property owner. We already see this with current CHL laws. A municipality can not legally post 30.06 on city property. City property is completely open to CHL carry with some very special exemptions…and that is the way it should be.

I do not agree with banning electronics from a polling place...that is unless they can prove the ability to tamper with the electronic polling machine using such devices. And if they can prove that, then they need to go back and figure out a more secure system.

[aardwolf]

There already is one like this in polling places on election day...Maybe not in reference to 30.05, but it is the law here in Texas...

Do you have a reference for this? I know photography and recording of voters isn't allowed and guns are banned but I can't find anything that bans possession of a cell phone at a polling place on election day.

[Keith B]

There already is one like this in polling places on election day...Maybe not in reference to 30.05, but it is the law here in Texas...

Do you have a reference for this? I know photography and recording of voters isn't allowed and guns are banned but I can't find anything that bans possession of a cell phone at a polling place on election day.

My understanding The reason they don't want cell phones or PDA's (Blackberry's) is the potential for interference to the new electronic ballot system. The 30.06 is to keep a CHL from getting upset and shooting the new electronic ballot system when it doesn't work properly.

[aardwolf]

Do you have a reference for the law? (about the phones )

[Keith B]

Here is the statute for cell phones in polling places and the House Bill that brought it into effect. It was concern for recording devices (cameras or sound) and not the interference.

§61.013 added to prohibit the use within 100 feet of a voting station of a wireless communication
device or a mechanical or electronic means of recording images or sound. The presiding judge
may enforce the prohibition by requiring the person who is in violation to either turn off the
device or leave the polling place. (HB 1921)

House Bill 1921 - Prohibits the use of a wireless communication device (e.g. cell phones) in a polling place. It authorizes the presiding judge at a polling place to require a person to turn off the device or to leave the polling place. (Section 61.013). It further authorizes the election judge to post a notice of the prohibition against use of wireless and recording devices where voters are waiting to vote and requires the Secretary of State to create the wording of such a notice. (Section 62.0111). It provides that if poll watchers leave the polling place in order to use the wireless communication device AND promptly return, they are considered to have served continuously as that term is used for calculating their continuous 5 hours, which allows them to come and go.

Section 61 of the Election Code defines penalties for loitering, so while they can ask you to turn off the phone or leave, if you refuse they can charge you with a Class C misdemeanor. No penalties defined I can find for the use of the wireless itself unless you were recording with it.

[aardwolf]

It looks like concealed carry of a cell phone or pda is allowed, but the election judge can make you turn it off or leave if you'e using it.

To head back on topic, I think it's reasonable for a business owner to prohibit people from waving guns around in their store or restaurant, just like they can ban smoking, loud music and talking, and other activities that disturb or directly affect other customers. They can choose not to take foreign currency as payment. But there's a difference between use and mere possession, especially concealed. Like I said yesterday,

Businesses should be allowed to bar licensed possession of a handgun to the same extent they can bar possession of shoes, cigarettes, prescription drugs, (concealed) religious symbols, certain books/magazines/newspapers, iPods, foreign money, et cetera. Not just the overt use of those things but the mere possession of them (even hidden under clothing) on their property.

[asleepatthereel]

I dont know. Maybe Im playing the Devils advocate here, but the businesses are not rufusing to serve anyone, they just dont want guns on their property. In my opinion, as much as I disagree with their thinking, if thats the way they want it, its their property to do with as they please. I dont agree with it, on the other hand, I will respect it. Its not like they are saying "no CHL holders allowed", even if thats what the sign effectively reads for me. If a business is posted, I will simply take my business elsewhere. No hard feelings.

I work in a hospital. The administration was considering posting. After they saw what a legal sign actually looks like, and listened to reasonable dialog, they are reconsidering. No sign will stop a BG from entering any establishment they want to enter. It will however stop law abiding citizens who have cleared very demanding FBI background checks from entering. I would rather have a couple hundred legal carrying CHL holders walking around here than to have one BG carrying.

What would be nice is to have a counter 30.06 sign. One that would say to the effect that the carrying of weapons by licensed CHL holders is encouraged on these premises. Put two businesses side by side, one posted with 30.06, and the other posted with the counter sign, and see who gets robbed or shot up first. I know it sounds like crazy talk, im just saying its something to think about. I bet the owner of the property with the 30.06 would reconsider his signage.

[Liberty]

I find the discussion of whether the RKBA or Property rights should prevail very interesting. I believe there is another concideration of privacy. It is no property owners business what I have on my person as long as it is legal and properly conceaaled. Some folks don't like piercings or tattoos. I believe that they have a right to bar one from their property if they are exposed. But it is none of their business if a client has concealed tats, or piercings. Why should CHLers with concealed guns be treated any differently? Why should the penalties be higher?

This same arguement can be made about the parking lot bills. It is no ones business what is in my car, or person as long it is legal, secure and concealed.

[pt145ss]

I find the discussion of whether the RKBA or Property rights should prevail very interesting. I believe there is another concideration of privacy. It is no property owners business what I have on my person as long as it is legal and properly conceaaled. Some folks don't like piercings or tattoos. I believe that they have a right to bar one from their property if they are exposed. But it is none of their business if a client has concealed tats, or piercings. Why should CHLers with concealed guns be treated any differently? Why should the penalties be higher?

This same arguement can be made about the parking lot bills. It is no ones business what is in my car, or person as long it is legal, secure and concealed.

I think privacy is a totally different animal. I believe, but could be wrong, that the law guides its self on a "reasonable expectation" principal. When you start looking at privacy rights in a given situation one has to ask them selves do I have a reasonable right to privacy here. In most cases, you will find that you do not. This is how the tabloids get away with what they do. Once a celebrity (or any person for that matter) leaves their home, they no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Inside your own home, you have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Restrooms and changing rooms in a business, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In my place of business, I can film you, and even sell that film to the tabloids, if I wish. This is because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in my place of business.

Suppose we buy into the privacy theory. What happens if you are carrying at my store and you set off the RDFI (false alarm or otherwise), as discussed in other threads on this forum, my loss prevention guys can and will search you. If you are protected by virtue of privacy, then my LP guys would not be allowed to search because we would be violating your right to privacy.

[aardwolf]

Suppose we buy into the privacy theory. What happens if you are carrying at my store and you set off the RDFI (false alarm or otherwise), as discussed in other threads on this forum, my loss prevention guys can and will search you. If you are protected by virtue of privacy, then my LP guys would not be allowed to search because we would be violating your right to privacy.

If your employees touch me without my permission I will call 911 and I will press charges for assault.

[pt145ss]

Suppose we buy into the privacy theory. What happens if you are carrying at my store and you set off the RDFI (false alarm or otherwise), as discussed in other threads on this forum, my loss prevention guys can and will search you. If you are protected by virtue of privacy, then my LP guys would not be allowed to search because we would be violating your right to privacy.

If your employees touch me without my permission I will call 911 and I will press charges for assault.

I thought the same thing until others on this forum pointed me to the statues that allow a business owner to detain and search someone who they “reasonably believe� (does not even require “probable cause�) might be stealing; I think the consensus was that they could even disarm you for their safety.

[aardwolf]

Good luck with that.

[anygunanywhere]

Public Property is defined as property that is owned or controlled by a state or community. All other property is private property (real or otherwise).

The definition needs to be corrected.

If you agree that rights should not limited by legislation then why would you support the rights of property owners being limited by legislation. By forcing a property owner to submit to CHL holders you are in fact legislatively limiting their rights. Or are you only against legislatively limiting the rights that concern you?

Under my definition of what constitutes private property, there does not need to be any legislation since under my definition a person operating a public business can not infringe on my RKBA. The public business owner would need legislation to infringe on my RKBA.In the truest sense of freedom, why would a business owner want to restrict my RKBA?

Pt145ss, why are you continuing to step up to the plate and bat for the side that insists on reasonable restrictions that do not keep us safe? Do you enjoy walking up on posted businesses? I understand your side of the debate here and I will continue to stand on the side that holds an uninfringed RKBA as the ideal. It can not work any other way, especially if the msiconception that firearm free killing zones are an inherent right just because someone owns property.

I respect your opinion, but I will never agree with it.

Anygunanywhere

[pt145ss]

Public Property is defined as property that is owned or controlled by a state or community. All other property is private property (real or otherwise).

The definition needs to be corrected.

Ok...what is the correct definition?

[pt145ss]

How about this:

public property n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public.

private property n. land not owned by the government or dedicated to public use.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com