Businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL!

[shootthesheet]

CHL is not a right. It is a privilege we buy from the state of Texas. It will only change if the state changes the Constitution to allow CC and/or OC by all lawful citizens or somehow restrains its ability to control the "wearing of arms".

Property rights should remain on the side of the owner so we are not all forced to allow anyone into our property or house at their desire. It is happening all around the world in the name of fairness and equality.

What I think we should look at is governments restricting CHL and actual " keep and bear arms" rights. It is they that are the problem. It is mostly the fed but the state needs a swift kick in the pants, in my opinion. They will restrict what we allow them to restrict. If we do not ALL work to regain our rights under the 2A then we will continue to only get crumbs from a table where we should be seated.

[CJATE]

Business owners should be able to restrict any type of any body. Be it CHL or “order in English� or cash only customers

I believe CHL should be harder to obtain, and less restrictions in public. But we can’t have it both ways.

[KBCraig]

If you can get the government to dictate what others do with their property, then you've invited the government to do the same to you.

And what makes you think they dont!?!

Yet another wrong piled atop the heap, doesn't make the rest of them right.

I won't do wrong to someone else, just because wrong is being done to me. When the government is the wrongdoer, I want to stop them, not extend the misery to others.

[KBCraig]

CHL is not a right. It is a privilege we buy from the state of Texas.

Concealed carry (and open carry) is a right. The CHL is the ransom we pay to the State of Texas to stop their denial of this right.

[bdickens]

Yowch! I had no idea this thread would take off so fast!

I figured the propery rights thing would come up and I've prepared for it.

We've already decided in this country that business owners can not arbitrarily exclude enire classes of citizens. You can't put up a sign that says "No Blacks" or "No Jews" and expect to get away with it. Putting up a sign that says "No CHL," I submit, is the same thing. Whether the sign is a "gunbusters" or a legitimate 30.06 sign, it is an attempt to discriminate against an entire class of law-abiding citizens.

A business, private property or not, is not the same as a private residence or a private club. By being open to the public, it has to serve the entire public. Disagree and moan about "property rights" all you want, but that's the fact and that's the law.

[tbranch]

You can't put up a sign that says "No Blacks" or "No Jews" and expect to get away with it. Putting up a sign that says "No CHL," I submit, is the same thing.

While I follow your logic, CHL Holders are not a protected class under Federal or state laws and do not have the same protections.

Tom

[tallmike]

Personally I think Nevada has it more right than any other state I have been to.

Property owners do not give up their private property rights just because they open the door to the public.

They may restrict guns on their property with nothing more than a gun-buster sign (or any other sign that clearly states their intent) at each entrance.

Ignoring the property owners wish and carrying on their property will result in a $25 trespassing ticket, if you are caught.



My instructor in Nevada explained it best "If you carry your gun past a no guns sign and you are forced to pull it out to protect your life, I will write you a $25 ticket for trespassing when I get there" (he was a police officer).

I think that is the perfect balance. The property owners retain their rights, and CHL holders dont risk too much by ignoring their signs.

[shaggydog]

We've already decided in this country that business owners can not arbitrarily exclude enire classes of citizens. You can't put up a sign that says "No Blacks" or "No Jews" and expect to get away with it. Putting up a sign that says "No CHL," I submit, is the same thing. Whether the sign is a "gunbusters" or a legitimate 30.06 sign, it is an attempt to discriminate against an entire class of law-abiding citizens.

Who is "we". Of course a business owner can discriminate against any "class" of citizen he wishes. If I own a business and do not want to cater to blacks or Jews then I have every right to do so. I won't be in business long, but I have the right, If I wish, to openly and publicly exclude anyone I wish.

By being open to the public, it has to serve the entire public.

This is patently false.

[Keith B]

We've already decided in this country that business owners can not arbitrarily exclude enire classes of citizens. You can't put up a sign that says "No Blacks" or "No Jews" and expect to get away with it. Putting up a sign that says "No CHL," I submit, is the same thing. Whether the sign is a "gunbusters" or a legitimate 30.06 sign, it is an attempt to discriminate against an entire class of law-abiding citizens.

Who is "we". Of course a business owner can discriminate against any "class" of citizen he wishes. If I own a business and do not want to cater to blacks or Jews then I have every right to do so. I won't be in business long, but I have the right, If I wish, to openly and publicly exclude anyone I wish.

By being open to the public, it has to serve the entire public.

This is patently false.

Actually, a business that is open to the public CAN'T discriminate against certain protected classes of people.

From Wikipedia (ans this is accurate!)

Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes groups of people who are protected from discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:

Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Ethnicity
Religion or sect - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Political affiliation

CHL's are NOT in the protected category and the business owner has every right to refuse service to you if you are armed. If that is the grounds they use to prohibit you from coming into their business then no unlawful discrimination has occured. No different than refusing to allow a vagrant with no shirt or shoes to enter.

However, as has been stated many times ( AKA ), I have the right to refuse to patronize that business for their not allowing me to carry in it.

[Charger]

CHLs are certainly not a class of citizen, any more than those that wear open toe shoes are. You choose to have a CHL and choose to carry, you dont choose to be black.

Businesses have to comply with volumes of laws regarding how they will run their business, so dont deceive yourself that the gov. doesnt already regulate all kinds of things: handicap access, lighting, emergency exit signage, maximum occupancy bla bla bla it goes on for ever. Those rules are there for a reason: to ensure the business owner is meeting certain standards for the safety of their patrons. In the case of firearms, they are given a choice though. I'm not sure that the average business owner should be allowed to decide this any more than they are allowed to decide wether or not to run high voltage wires along the floor in front of the sales counter. I can see the argument both ways, but I'm fairly sure people dont decide +/- guns based on statistical evidence and fact, and this is not about maintaining "ambiance" or other subjective measures that result in rules such as "no shirt, no shoes, no service", rather the safety of the patrons.

The business is (usually) liable if you suffer injuries on their premises. It would be quite interesting to see the outcome of a lawsuit against a 30.06 posted business by a CHL that had left their gun in the car and was then injured by an assailant or an employee.

[shaggydog]

Actually, a business that is open to the public CAN'T discriminate against certain protected classes of people.

This will be my last beating of this dead horse.

I stand by my assertion that, as a business owner I CAN discriminate. I may well be sanctioned by some authority for doing so, and I may lose revenue for doing so, but I can do so if I wish.

There are night clubs even today, that require prospective patrons to line up behind velvet ropes outside the establishment and then are selectively allowed in based solely upon an arbitrary criteria determined by the owner. Those criteria may be race, gender, religion, dress, morphology or CHL status, but the fact remains that the owner of the business determines who he wishes to serve.

[Keith B]

Actually, a business that is open to the public CAN'T discriminate against certain protected classes of people.

This will be my last beating of this dead horse.

I stand by my assertion that, as a business owner I CAN discriminate. I may well be sanctioned by some authority for doing so, and I may lose revenue for doing so, but I can do so if I wish.

There are night clubs even today, that require prospective patrons to line up behind velvet ropes outside the establishment and then are selectively allowed in based solely upon an arbitrary criteria determined by the owner. Those criteria may be race, gender, religion, dress, morphology or CHL status, but the fact remains that the owner of the business determines who he wishes to serve.

Yes you CAN discriminate as much as you want, anyone can. It's done every day. However, if you discriminate against a protected class for the reason they are protected, then your loss of revenue will come not only in their lost business, but from the punitive damages a lawsuit settlement will probably bring.

Folks discriminate all the time, but use other reasons (excuses) as their filter. It really comes down to how they do it and how slick they are at covering their actual intentions. If they do it for the wrong reasons, then they stand the chance of being liable for discrimination.

That being said, if I am a shop keeper and a protected class person walks in, I can say I sent them packing because I didn't like their hair. If they decide to challenge my refusal of service, and can get a judge or jury to believe I did it because they were a minority and I didn't allow minorities in my business, then I am gonna have to pay.

EDIT TO ADD: And that's why Chas makes the big bucks!!

[pt145ss]

CHLs are certainly not a class of citizen, any more than those that wear open toe shoes are. You choose to have a CHL and choose to carry, you dont choose to be black.

I would be careful with this argument. Although I agree that under current legislature CHL is not a protected class of citizenry. However I would not make the argument that protected classes are those classes in which the individual does not have a choice. Granted some of the protected classes the individual does not have a choice but there are plenty in which the individual does have a choice. For example, Religion…one can choose to be Jewish or Catholic, Policital Affiliation is a choice; This may be arguable, but sexual orientation is a choice; Family Status is a choice; Some could even argue that sex is a choice (Sex reassignment surgery).

[G.A. Heath]

I agree that a business should not prohibit CHLs from carrying, but at the same time I do agree they have that right. Its just like I think people shouldn't say some things and yet I agree that they do have the right to do so. As for legislative action I think we should encourage business owners to allow CHL with a carrot and stick approach. Perhaps a bill stating that a 30.06 sign should increase their liability in the event of an armed attack and that number doubles if an unarmed CHL holder is present (This is the stick). The bill should also state that their liability is severely limited IF they do not post 30.06 signs and include in their employee training/handbook that verbal notice is prohibited.

[Charger]

Quite right pt145, choice is not a very good differentiator of class. Keith said if much better than I did