TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:NotRPB,

Please correct me if I'm wrong: Are you advocating carry a concealed long gun where handguns are prohibited?

Or, are you simply saying, one could legally if one wanted to?

If the latter, I don't understand your point?

Thanks!

My point is, that 30.06/30.07 signs do not prohibit concealed >>> tactical assault flashlights, tactical assault pens, tactical assault tasers, tactical assault pepper spray, tactical assault metal pointy combs, pointy scratchy eye-gouging tactical assault car keys, Cane-Fu Fighting Hickory walking canes for elderly & disabled, Cigarette lighters and Tactical Assault Flame-throwing Hair Spray, Tactical Assault Fingernail Clippers, Tactical Assault Folding Pocket Knives, nor personal defense rifles ... yes, I carry various non-prohibited weapons in various places where they are not prohibited by law. I follow the laws to the extent of trying to not even step a foot on the grass at a Post Office, but Staying off/walking around their entire property if I'm armed with whatever they prohibit.

If they want to ban any items I listed above, or other items such as Golf Clubs, Screwdrivers, Tire-irons, crowbars, boxes of salt, Sharp Potato Peelers, chocolate malts, or whatever they wish to prohibit under 30.05, they certainly can post a 30.05 notice along with the 30.06 and 30.07 notices, in which case I'll refrain from carrying whichever item they list. In Junior High once (Middle School) I used a pear core as a weapon against a bully once, it surprised him so much he backed off and I won ... I hope they don't ban pears.

Advocating? I'm not recommending anyone do or not do anything.

If they ban my Cane-Fu Hickory walking cane, I know a good Americans With Disabilities Act lawyer

accidentally hit quote instead of edit ... won't let me delete ...

chuckybrown wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:Private property rights are overwhelmingly supported on this forum you will find out.

....selectively. It seems it's ok for the government to tell us what we can do with our property, how to build, where to build, type of construction, and who you must provide service to, etc.

But don't let government tell you that you cannot exclude licensed firearms carriers, because that's a property right by goodness.

Shouldn't we see them (rights) in the same light?

I didn't say I agreed with it, just that the majority on this forum believe it.

I think the calculus of many of the businesses that post 30.06 signs is that is that robbery (aggravated or otherwise) will more than likely play out like the "hipster robs Starbucks" scenario that is active on the forum right now. viewtopic.php?f=108&t=81236. To them, whatever money is lost in the robbery is small potatoes, and the risk of the situation elevating to murder are small.

In the past, 7-11 has not allowed employees to be armed for that reason... they think it's not worth it. I'm not sure where they stand now. Also, many 7-11 employees have lost their lives to armed robbery/murder.

In the overall scheme of things these businesses are probably correct in their analysis. However, I don't want to be a statistic on the bad side of that, and prefer to be an active participant in my own defense.

n5wd wrote:The Texas Hospital Association is the trade group representing many hospitals throughout the state. They provide a lot of regulatory information to hospital owners, and also provide their membership with "best practices" in clinical, maintenance, financial, and operational aspects - running a hospital is no easy task these days.

THA recommends hospitals post their buildings with 30.06 notifications and, I'm sure, by now, they'll have the new 30.06 and 30.07 notifications ready for their members.

I don't know that it's so much political orientation as the belief that they want their facilities to be havens of healing, and away from the real world as much as possible. Katrina changed a lot of ideas in areas of safety and security, but I don't see THA changing their minds about the 30.06/30.07 notifications anytime soon.

That namby pamby "places of healing away from the outside world" is leftist political orientation all the way (like whoever thought if it was doing so while smoking pot while sitting in front of a camp fire with long hair playing a guitar).

I was at Memorial Herman in Houston last night and they already have the 30-07 posting up. (That's what prompted this thread)

If harm ever comes to mine/my way, I intend to hold any property owner responsible for prohibiting the ability to protect ourselves.

Such malicious fun to imagine calling property management & request a security escort from & to my vehicle and then just at the entrance exclaim, "dadgummit, we gotta go back to the car, forgot my hat, cmon!"

chuckybrown wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:Private property rights are overwhelmingly supported on this forum you will find out.

....selectively. It seems it's ok for the government to tell us what we can do with our property, how to build, where to build, type of construction, and who you must provide service to, etc.

But don't let government tell you that you cannot exclude licensed firearms carriers, because that's a property right by goodness.

Shouldn't we see them (rights) in the same light?

Don't confuse acknowledgement of the law with support.

There are many laws I acknowledge but do not support. There is a difference.

With that said, I believe property rights provide the right to make a decision about the conditions of entry.

You guys that always try to apply absolutes to everything amuse me considerably.

Abraham wrote:Cdub,

"The problem really is that, I think, they honestly think these signs will prevent a bad guy from coming in with his or her gun."

"It's not that they're stupid or anything."

No...?

Not really. What they are is "childish". Children think their parents are the most powerful people they know, and they believe (hopefully) that their parents will protect them from any harm. That is how hospital administrators view self-defense. They honestly believe that there will always be someone there to protect them. After all, they hire a bunch of security officers, don't they? And not excusing their logic - which is highly flawed as you know - in some sense they are correct........ When I worked in the ER, there were ALWAYS cops walking around there. It's easy for administrators to adopt the attitude that, since there are always cops right there, they are protected. They also issue guidelines to their employees to ask for security staff to escort them to their cars late at night, etc., etc.

Of course, they are wrong, but that is their thought process.

mojo84 wrote:You guys that always try to apply absolutes to everything amuse me considerably.

No....it's being able to think on a macro level.

Peace

Abraham wrote:Cdub,

"The problem really is that, I think, they honestly think these signs will prevent a bad guy from coming in with his or her gun."

"It's not that they're stupid or anything."

No...?

I've known some really smart people that sometimes the simplest thing can just completely elude them. I'm sure many of us have known people like that. Lots of book smarts, but a bit lacking in some basic common sense or street smarts.

C-dub wrote:

Abraham wrote:Cdub,

"The problem really is that, I think, they honestly think these signs will prevent a bad guy from coming in with his or her gun."

"It's not that they're stupid or anything."

No...?

I've known some really smart people that sometimes the simplest thing can just completely elude them. I'm sure many of us have known people like that. Lots of book smarts, but a bit lacking in some basic common sense or street smarts.

My mom has published 17 books, got her PhD summa cum laude from the Sorbonne in Paris, and was a Caltech professor. She's not a stupid person. But she is absolutely and deliberately ignorant about guns. She hates them. But her attitude is also colored by her experience of having survived a nazi occupation and the deadliest war the world has ever known. You can't argue with her, because her mind is made up.

But she isn't stupid. She's just wrong.