TexasCHLforum.com

MeMelYup wrote:

Ipconfig wrote:Seen this sign yesterday

[ Image ]

Maybe it's just me,but I have a problem with permitted.

Why? It is absolutely the correct term given you have no right to carry on privately owned property.

jmra wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

Ipconfig wrote:Seen this sign yesterday

[ Image ]

Maybe it's just me,but I have a problem with permitted.

Why? It is absolutely the correct term given you have no right to carry on privately owned property.

I also don't have a problem with the term permitted. However, you do technically have a legal right to carry on private property, unless the property owner makes it a condition of entry that you do not.

ScottDLS wrote:

jmra wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

Ipconfig wrote:Seen this sign yesterday

[ Image ]

Maybe it's just me,but I have a problem with permitted.

Why? It is absolutely the correct term given you have no right to carry on privately owned property.

I also don't have a problem with the term permitted. However, you do technically have a legal right to carry on private property, unless the property owner makes it a condition of entry that you do not.

No. It's not a right. Carrying on private property is legally permissive absent signage, but it is not a right unless you own it or control it.

If instead of permitted, it said welcome it would be better.

MeMelYup wrote:If instead of permitted, it said welcome it would be better.

Semantics. Much bigger issues to worry about than that little one.

jmra wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

jmra wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

Ipconfig wrote:Seen this sign yesterday

[ Image ]

Maybe it's just me,but I have a problem with permitted.

Why? It is absolutely the correct term given you have no right to carry on privately owned property.

I also don't have a problem with the term permitted. However, you do technically have a legal right to carry on private property, unless the property owner makes it a condition of entry that you do not.

No. It's not a right. Carrying on private property is legally permissive absent signage, but it is not a right unless you own it or control it.

I have the right to be carrying my gun right now. But if anybody else were here, it would be a privilege, as I could take it away if I felt like it. If it were a "Right" legally, I could not take it away, but since it's not, I can tell somebody to shove off and get lost if I have to. If I told people they had the right to carry in my business, then where would my grounds be if they don't not exercise that right safely or responsibly in my opinion? I don't mind people carrying in my business, but I want them to be responsible, and I don't particularly want to know about it, unless of course we talk about guns and stuff and it comes up.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

jmra wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

jmra wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

Ipconfig wrote:Seen this sign yesterday

[ Image ]

Maybe it's just me,but I have a problem with permitted.

Why? It is absolutely the correct term given you have no right to carry on privately owned property.

I also don't have a problem with the term permitted. However, you do technically have a legal right to carry on private property, unless the property owner makes it a condition of entry that you do not.

No. It's not a right. Carrying on private property is legally permissive absent signage, but it is not a right unless you own it or control it.

I have the right to be carrying my gun right now. But if anybody else were here, it would be a privilege, as I could take it away if I felt like it. If it were a "Right" legally, I could not take it away, but since it's not, I can tell somebody to shove off and get lost if I have to. If I told people they had the right to carry in my business, then where would my grounds be if they don't not exercise that right safely or responsibly in my opinion? I don't mind people carrying in my business, but I want them to be responsible, and I don't particularly want to know about it, unless of course we talk about guns and stuff and it comes up.

Since were arguing semantics, I said "legal right". Assuming you have a CHL it's legal to carry on publicly open private property unless the owner affirmatively moves to prohibit it. Just as you have the legal right to enter private property that is open to the public, you have the legal right to enter armed until the owner revokes it. You don't have to have the sign telling you it's ok, only the sign telling you it's not OK. Oh yeah, and a cop has the legal right to enter publicly open property armed always, whether you post or not. In Texas their LEO rights trump your private property "rights".

Zachs BBQ in Willis has both a "your legal handgun is welcome......" sign on their front door and they fly the NRA flag outside.

TVGuy wrote:Stating "not all businesses are bad" is akin to saying "most businesses are bad".


The capitalist in me is cringing at this comment, I would argue that the vast majority of businesses are good.

In the first place, it depends on what you mean by good. Do you mean ethically good or good at what they do? I rarely find a business I'd consider good in terms of product and service. Most are just adequate or a little better. OTOH, I rarely encounter a business that is dishonest or discourteous to customers. I can only think of one business I deal with that has consistently provided good product and good service, and that's Amazon --a company that has yet to even make a profit after about two decades.

When I get down to small independent operations like painters, contractors, and fence builders, in my experience I'd say the vast majority are not even adequate. I've found one builder that does great work but his service is lousy. He does a great job and gives what I want and more if he shows up....the problem is getting him to show up. I've been waiting weeks now to get some concrete work done. To his credit I guess, he doesn't make excuses, you just never hear from the guy until he actually shows up. I keep using him because he does great work and I can trust him to build what I want verbally without any kind of plans or drawings, and because he does show up eventually, and I'm not sure anyone else would even show up. I've contacted several fence builders, all of whom advertised, presumably to get more business, but after months of trying have yet to get even one to provide an estimate, much less actually build a fence. They make appointments, don't show up, and you never hear from them again. If you contact them again they lie.

And it's not unique to fence builders. When we lived in town we had the same problem with painters. Out of 5 who said they'd provide estimates only one actually did. He got the job even though I had no idea how good his estimate was. Then, when he did show up, he tried to weasel more money so I told him to pack his gear and leave (he then decided his estimate wasn't too low after all). So apparently, these days, you don't even have to be adequate to stay in business.

OK, I thought of a couple other businesses that I"d consider good: our vet is good, and I like my doctor. The doctor is good and the vet has gone above and beyond.

ScottDLS wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

jmra wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

jmra wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

Ipconfig wrote:Seen this sign yesterday

[ Image ]

Maybe it's just me,but I have a problem with permitted.

Why? It is absolutely the correct term given you have no right to carry on privately owned property.

I also don't have a problem with the term permitted. However, you do technically have a legal right to carry on private property, unless the property owner makes it a condition of entry that you do not.

No. It's not a right. Carrying on private property is legally permissive absent signage, but it is not a right unless you own it or control it.

I have the right to be carrying my gun right now. But if anybody else were here, it would be a privilege, as I could take it away if I felt like it. If it were a "Right" legally, I could not take it away, but since it's not, I can tell somebody to shove off and get lost if I have to. If I told people they had the right to carry in my business, then where would my grounds be if they don't not exercise that right safely or responsibly in my opinion? I don't mind people carrying in my business, but I want them to be responsible, and I don't particularly want to know about it, unless of course we talk about guns and stuff and it comes up.

Since were arguing semantics, I said "legal right". Assuming you have a CHL it's legal to carry on publicly open private property unless the owner affirmatively moves to prohibit it. Just as you have the legal right to enter private property that is open to the public, you have the legal right to enter armed until the owner revokes it. You don't have to have the sign telling you it's ok, only the sign telling you it's not OK. Oh yeah, and a cop has the legal right to enter publicly open property armed always, whether you post or not. In Texas their LEO rights trump your private property "rights".

Not trying argue, don't get me wrong, but my participation on this site would be moot if I didn't voice my opinion on topics.

And on the LEO part, they can enter public or private armed. I'm sure you know, but you only mentioned "legal right to enter publicly open property armed always." However, it's not a right, it's a privileged, because it can be taken away, restricted, and suspended by their boss. Mere technicality I guess, but I think of it as a permission as a LEO to be able to carry. They aren't a superior class of citizen with more rights, there just a citizen with more privileges. I can imagine that such statement may be contested, from what I have been taught, that is a fact.

In other words though, you are right, absent the "right," you can carry unless otherwise notified.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

jmra wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

jmra wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

Ipconfig wrote:Seen this sign yesterday

[ Image ]

Maybe it's just me,but I have a problem with permitted.

Why? It is absolutely the correct term given you have no right to carry on privately owned property.

I also don't have a problem with the term permitted. However, you do technically have a legal right to carry on private property, unless the property owner makes it a condition of entry that you do not.

No. It's not a right. Carrying on private property is legally permissive absent signage, but it is not a right unless you own it or control it.

I have the right to be carrying my gun right now. But if anybody else were here, it would be a privilege, as I could take it away if I felt like it. If it were a "Right" legally, I could not take it away, but since it's not, I can tell somebody to shove off and get lost if I have to. If I told people they had the right to carry in my business, then where would my grounds be if they don't not exercise that right safely or responsibly in my opinion? I don't mind people carrying in my business, but I want them to be responsible, and I don't particularly want to know about it, unless of course we talk about guns and stuff and it comes up.

Since were arguing semantics, I said "legal right". Assuming you have a CHL it's legal to carry on publicly open private property unless the owner affirmatively moves to prohibit it. Just as you have the legal right to enter private property that is open to the public, you have the legal right to enter armed until the owner revokes it. You don't have to have the sign telling you it's ok, only the sign telling you it's not OK. Oh yeah, and a cop has the legal right to enter publicly open property armed always, whether you post or not. In Texas their LEO rights trump your private property "rights".

Not trying argue, don't get me wrong, but my participation on this site would be moot if I didn't voice my opinion on topics.

And on the LEO part, they can enter public or private armed. I'm sure you know, but you only mentioned "legal right to enter publicly open property armed always." However, it's not a right, it's a privileged, because it can be taken away, restricted, and suspended by their boss. Mere technicality I guess, but I think of it as a permission as a LEO to be able to carry. They aren't a superior class of citizen with more rights, there just a citizen with more privileges. I can imagine that such statement may be contested, from what I have been taught, that is a fact.

In other words though, you are right, absent the "right," you can carry unless otherwise notified.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you can differentiate a right from a privilege based on whether or not one or the other can be taken away. As a practical matter both can be and are taken away and restricted. 2nd Amendment rights are restricted severely in many states, and the right to bear arms doesn't exist in some states as a matter of practice.

How did this post morph from a comment about a gun friendly business to what is being discussed now?

howdy wrote:How did this post morph from a comment about a gun friendly business to what is being discussed now?

Agreed.

Please bring it back on topic folks, or start a new one. Forum Rule #10.

--One of your friendly neighborhood moderators

howdy wrote:How did this post morph from a comment about a gun friendly business to what is being discussed now?

You beat me to it...

Oldgringo wrote:

howdy wrote:How did this post morph from a comment about a gun friendly business to what is being discussed now?

You beat me to it...

Whataburger is bad, and what about open carry?