TexasCHLforum.com

CleverNickname wrote:

skeathley wrote: I often wonder why it is not legal to ban someone from your business because they are asian, or black, or whatever, but it is legal to ban them because they are legally carrying a weapon.

As I understand it, if a business is open to the public, they have to accommodate ALL the public. So why are businesses allowed to discriminate against a group of people who have almost no history of being a danger to the public?

Because (the opinion of Rachel Dolezal and transexuals notwithstanding) race and sex are immutable personal characteristics, but firearm ownership and possession isn't.

What about religion?

I'm a strong believer in property rights, but the debate here brings up some interesting points. Once you open your property to the public (to operate a business) you enter a completely different realm of what you can restrict.

I'm certainly not well versed in quoting statutes that apply, but the idea of "equal protection under the law" comes to mind while reading the debate going on in this thread. We have made a choice to carry a firearm for our protection. Most of us have also made a choice about our religious beliefs. Are those two things treated differently under the law? Probably.

I am really surprised that liberal leaning Colorado requires the presence of metal detectors and paid security as the only places that a person may not enter wearing a concealed weapon. But I like the idea. I am old enough to remember what it was like here in Texas before the first CHL permits were issued. We have made gains since then, but the political climate in Colorado must have been something very different from here when they passed their current law regarding CHL permits.

I work behind 30.06/30.07 signs. I get to carry at work because we have a policy where ownership may grant permission to employees to carry on the property. The public, however, may not carry. I know my owner would be offended if he found out that he no longer had the option of putting up those signs. Was he offended when he had to build ramps and designate handicapped parking? Not so much. He didn't like the expense, but I don't think he was offended by it any more than complying with OSHA regulations. Should business have to accept us they way they have to accept people who fall under ADA? Maybe so. But far too many are so uneducated about permit holders that their personal perception of us as a group is far distorted from the truth. Perception is everything.

Possibly the best thing that could happen to strengthen our cause would be an ad campaign that educates the public on crime statistics regarding LTC holders, and statistics about how many times LTC holders have intervened to protect themselves and others. Of course, I hate statistics. Actually, I hate the presentation of statistics and how they are most often twisted and skewed to support an argument. Statistics themselves don't lie, but people using them often intentionally mislead. There is also the reality that no organization exists in Texas with the desire and the available funds to embark on such an ad campaign. But it's a nice thought.

Lynyrd wrote:I'm a strong believer in property rights, but the debate here brings up some interesting points. Once you open your property to the public (to operate a business) you enter a completely different realm of what you can restrict.

Exactly.

Lynyrd wrote:Should business have to accept us they way they have to accept people who fall under ADA?

Does that business expect to enjoy the benefits of the US Constitution? So do I.

Lynyrd wrote:Perception is everything.

I don't mean to pick on you... I agree with you and realize that you are being mostly rhetorical with your post.. The only bit I'd disagree with is the above... Perception is important, but, if the legislature can impose restrictions and/or conditions on private property (in this case, business) rights based on concepts that are not explicitly expressed in the Constitution, only implied (equal protection), then shouldn't an enumerated right have at least as much standing, regardless of whether it's "popular"?

Should I be able to stop you from carrying a gun into my house? Certainly. My house is private property.
Should I be able to stop you from carrying a gun into my place of business? No! Not if my business is open to the public and subject to the myriad other impositions placed on public businesses by the government.

The notion of "property rights" trumping 2A in a public setting is a terrible hypocrisy. IMO, YMMV.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Lynyrd wrote:I'm a strong believer in property rights, but the debate here brings up some interesting points. Once you open your property to the public (to operate a business) you enter a completely different realm of what you can restrict.

Exactly.

Lynyrd wrote:Should business have to accept us they way they have to accept people who fall under ADA?

Does that business expect to enjoy the benefits of the US Constitution? So do I.

Lynyrd wrote:Perception is everything.

I don't mean to pick on you... I agree with you and realize that you are being mostly rhetorical with your post.. The only bit I'd disagree with is the above... Perception is important, but, if the legislature can impose restrictions and/or conditions on private property (in this case, business) rights based on concepts that are not explicitly expressed in the Constitution, only implied (equal protection), then shouldn't an enumerated right have at least as much standing, regardless of whether it's "popular"?

Should I be able to stop you from carrying a gun into my house? Certainly. My house is private property.
Should I be able to stop you from carrying a gun into my place of business? No! Not if my business is open to the public and subject to the myriad other impositions placed on public businesses by the government.

The notion of "property rights" trumping 2A in a public setting is a terrible hypocrisy. IMO, YMMV.

I should have been more verbose.

With the "perception" comment, I was referring the the fact that some people would be offended by having to let us in, while not be offended at having to accommodate other groups. Those people "perceive" us differently. And my point was, their perception of us is false. If we could change that perception, they would be much more receptive to our presence.

What offends me about this whole 30.06 thing is that the signs attempt to restrict what I'm wearing that unexposed to anyone. I can carry a pocket knife or a can of mace or leftist propoganda in my pants it's nobodys business but my own. I don't believe that any business or private citizen should have the right to regulate what is in my pants. Whats in my pants shouldn't need Jarod's permission or stamp of approval.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

skeathley wrote: I often wonder why it is not legal to ban someone from your business because they are asian, or black, or whatever, but it is legal to ban them because they are legally carrying a weapon.

As I understand it, if a business is open to the public, they have to accommodate ALL the public. So why are businesses allowed to discriminate against a group of people who have almost no history of being a danger to the public?

Because (the opinion of Rachel Dolezal and transexuals notwithstanding) race and sex are immutable personal characteristics, but firearm ownership and possession isn't.

What about religion?

How easy is it for someone to change religions?
How easy is it for someone to remove a holstered firearm?

The only purpose for 30.06/07 use I can think about is to enable those which think gun control of that sort can prevent mass shootings. I also think that exactly those kind of thinker is the enabler for mass shootings and force feed nonsense to mainstream media.

Lynyrd wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Lynyrd wrote:I'm a strong believer in property rights, but the debate here brings up some interesting points. Once you open your property to the public (to operate a business) you enter a completely different realm of what you can restrict.

Exactly.

Lynyrd wrote:Should business have to accept us they way they have to accept people who fall under ADA?

Does that business expect to enjoy the benefits of the US Constitution? So do I.

Lynyrd wrote:Perception is everything.

I don't mean to pick on you... I agree with you and realize that you are being mostly rhetorical with your post.. The only bit I'd disagree with is the above... Perception is important, but, if the legislature can impose restrictions and/or conditions on private property (in this case, business) rights based on concepts that are not explicitly expressed in the Constitution, only implied (equal protection), then shouldn't an enumerated right have at least as much standing, regardless of whether it's "popular"?

Should I be able to stop you from carrying a gun into my house? Certainly. My house is private property.
Should I be able to stop you from carrying a gun into my place of business? No! Not if my business is open to the public and subject to the myriad other impositions placed on public businesses by the government.

The notion of "property rights" trumping 2A in a public setting is a terrible hypocrisy. IMO, YMMV.

I should have been more verbose.

With the "perception" comment, I was referring the the fact that some people would be offended by having to let us in, while not be offended at having to accommodate other groups. Those people "perceive" us differently. And my point was, their perception of us is false. If we could change that perception, they would be much more receptive to our presence.

Sorry Lynyrd...... I quoted your post as a place from which to expand on, definitely not to criticize.. I believe we are of similar minds on this issue. I'm just a bit further along at being fed up by what I see as a hypocritical excuse for denying citizens the full measure of their 2A protections. Apologies if my post came across otherwise.

Regarding perceptions, I agree with you that perceptions--> votes --> change. I'd be ok with legislators saying just that, instead of (IMO) hiding behind "property rights". The perceptions/votes argument is easier to counter with "Constitution" and "Natural Rights" than the "Property Rights" excuse.

CleverNickname wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

skeathley wrote: I often wonder why it is not legal to ban someone from your business because they are asian, or black, or whatever, but it is legal to ban them because they are legally carrying a weapon.

As I understand it, if a business is open to the public, they have to accommodate ALL the public. So why are businesses allowed to discriminate against a group of people who have almost no history of being a danger to the public?

Because (the opinion of Rachel Dolezal and transexuals notwithstanding) race and sex are immutable personal characteristics, but firearm ownership and possession isn't.

What about religion?

How easy is it for someone to change religions?
How easy is it for someone to remove a holstered firearm?

Very easy to change religions. You don't need to fill out any paperwork or get the government's permission. It's much harder to decide that you want to carry a firearm (legally). You need to ask the government to please let you exercise this right, pay a fee, pass a background check, etc.

Unholstering a firearm is more akin to walking into a church, IMHO. It's something you do based on the underlying decision.

Liberty wrote:What offends me about this whole 30.06 thing is that the signs attempt to restrict what I'm wearing that unexposed to anyone. I can carry a pocket knife or a can of mace or leftist propoganda in my pants it's nobodys business but my own. I don't believe that any business or private citizen should have the right to regulate what is in my pants. Whats in my pants shouldn't need Jarod's permission or stamp of approval.

Can you imagine a situation where a business could legally post a sign saying "no thong underwear" and then call the cops and have someone cited with a misdemeanor when they bend over and their underwear choice becomes evident? That's not a world I want to live in. Property owners (including businesses) should have the right to ask anyone to leave. They should also be able to get police assistance if someone refuses to leave. But it is asinine to me that property owners should be able to use the government to control what people are wearing underneath their clothing, or what they are thinking, etc.

People should be free to do as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else. If someone offends you, then ask them to leave your property. If your on their property, then you are free to move along. It's really that simple. We don't need "safe spaces" including spaces that are safe from the presence of those scary guns that you can't even see.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Liberty wrote:...

Can you imagine a situation where a business could legally post a sign saying "no thong underwear" and then call the cops and have someone cited with a misdemeanor when they bend over and their underwear choice becomes evident? That's not a world I want to live in.

...

Why would anyone regulate garments?

OlBill wrote:Are we not a protected class by virtue of the 2nd Amendment?

I cannot resist pointing out that we are, from one point of view, the best protected class. Unfortunately, humor aside, we are not a protected class under the law. It is not the constitution that makes the protected classes, and there is no penalty provided for violating the constitution. It is the laws passed to implement the protections of the constitution that both define the protected classes and provide for punishment. So far, none of the civil rights laws, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (yes, 18), mention being armed. I believe we are slowly working on that and making progress towards it, but we are not there yet.

It will be a long, tough fight to get to the point where being armed is not only considered a right, but also a duty. The good news is that I see us making steady progress towards it. Not fast, but steady progress. At least in Texas, it seems to be getting easier to fight off the attacks on gun rights, even if we do not make any gains in the field. This is the type of steady progress that will win in the long run. Courts are also beginning to rule our way more, though there are still a lot of courts where this isn't true yet (9th Circuit).

More progress to go, but we are getting there slowly.

I just felt it important to address one of your poll choices.

I can easily get a potato with shredded BBQ on it. I had one for dinner two nights ago. Granted, it was from 'Serious Texas BBQ', but still...it's in Colorado.

I guess we are for now stuck with 30.06/07 laws as a compromise to get concealed carry through the legislature. My personal feeling is that a business open to the public should not be able to post 30.06 but could post 30.07 as open carry might upset other patrons. But nobody cares about my opinion.
Hopefully there is a point where we eliminate at least 30.06 completely. Not so sure about 30.07. If I walked into a store and a bunch of people had swastikas tattooed on their foreheads I would be upset but it doesn't mean management would ask the Nazi's to leave even though they upset me. Now if those swastikas were concealed I wouldn't even know about it. I believe in private property rights but since there are so many ridiculous infringements on them now by "protected" classes why LTC holders are picked on is beyond me.
In getting concealed carry through there were compromises I am sure. It may take awhile but we need to work on the legislators to get things changed.

Folks, this is what we call cherry picking. Find one aspect of another states gun law and say if they can do it why can’t we.
How quickly we forget that just a few years ago companies and people were threatening to leave the state of CO over anti gun legislation being passed. I challenge those making the comparison to look at all of CO gun laws and ask yourself if you are willing to trade TX gun laws in total for CO gun laws. I believe most people would say heck no. But if your answer is yes I have to wonder why you still live in TX.
People might also want to review the history of 30.06 to better understand that without its passage Chl/LTC would have died on the vine.
Should we continue to push for less restrictive laws? Yes, but cherry picking others states laws that are convenient to our argument is counter productive.