TexasCHLforum.com

From taa.org (Texas Apartment Association) list of 2017 legislative victories:

"Gun liability
Several bills were filed this session that could have shifted liability on a property owner depending on whether concealed carry and/or open carry was allowed on the premises. TAA expressed concerns about bills that would have changed longstanding premises liability law and those that created a cause of action against a property owner for prohibiting guns. (HB 606 by Rep. Drew Springer)."

I do not see that any of the business or private properties can require that you do business with them or go to their property. It is the right and decision of the LTC holder to go to these places, so they have made the choice to unarm themselves, (fully knowing that they are disarmed) and go into these businesses or properties. Folks who demand that others be responsible for the choices these folks have made are usually called snowflakes. I guess there are a few snowflakes in every group. The legal rights of a business or property owner should remain sacrosanct on their own properties, just as the legal choices a individual makes in their own lives should remain sacrosanct. As with all choices there are consequences, good and not so good. Be careful about wanting the government to decide in your favor when it comes to the legal rights of others because the day is coming when the government will decide against your legal right (already happening). The government then says the way to correct this, is for the government to control even more of the choices available to you and everyone else.
Sounds like a slippery slope doesn't it. Well, we are already sliding.
Just saying

twomillenium wrote:I do not see that any of the business or private properties can require that you do business with them or go to their property. It is the right and decision of the LTC holder to go to these places, so they have made the choice to unarm themselves, (fully knowing that they are disarmed) and go into these businesses or properties. Folks who demand that others be responsible for the choices these folks have made are usually called snowflakes. I guess there are a few snowflakes in every group. The legal rights of a business or property owner should remain sacrosanct on their own properties, just as the legal choices a individual makes in their own lives should remain sacrosanct. As with all choices there are consequences, good and not so good. Be careful about wanting the government to decide in your favor when it comes to the legal rights of others because the day is coming when the government will decide against your legal right (already happening). The government then says the way to correct this, is for the government to control even more of the choices available to you and everyone else.
Sounds like a slippery slope doesn't it. Well, we are already sliding.
Just saying

I would agree with you if there were no protected classes. And there are some places that you need to go even though they are posted. Hospitals are some of them as most seem posted. Once the concept of protected classes was introduced it meant that the government did interfere with private property rights. The problem for LTC holders is that we are not a protected class. If I had a sign saying no LGBT people I would be in violation of the law. Protected class. A LGBT person doesn't have to enter the store with the sign but if they want to they can and actually sue the store owner. A LTC holder may be giving up his or her life though going in unarmed to a posted place and can not sue if injured. Business put up with restrictions all the time. So many handicap parking spots, so many fire extinguishers, so many bathrooms, etc. They tell you where to place signs for your employees, OSHA makes inspections, you name it and the concept of private property rights has already been nullified. So, I just don't accept that a business has a private property right to ban carry but I live with it and hope the law changes.

rotor wrote:
I would agree with you if there were no protected classes. And there are some places that you need to go even though they are posted. Hospitals are some of them as most seem posted. Once the concept of protected classes was introduced it meant that the government did interfere with private property rights. The problem for LTC holders is that we are not a protected class. If I had a sign saying no LGBT people I would be in violation of the law. Protected class. A LGBT person doesn't have to enter the store with the sign but if they want to they can and actually sue the store owner. A LTC holder may be giving up his or her life though going in unarmed to a posted place and can not sue if injured. Business put up with restrictions all the time. So many handicap parking spots, so many fire extinguishers, so many bathrooms, etc. They tell you where to place signs for your employees, OSHA makes inspections, you name it and the concept of private property rights has already been nullified. So, I just don't accept that a business has a private property right to ban carry but I live with it and hope the law changes.

Agreed. If we are not going to respect private property for protected classes, then there is no private property open to the public. Those days are gone.

I say the 2nd Amendment makes us a protected class.

As for hospitals, are they taking tax money?

Yes, I know I sound like a lib.

OlBill wrote:As for hospitals, are they taking tax money?

Yes, I know I sound like a lib.

Yes, almost all of them take tax money. And those that are "non-profit" which is a true misnomer pay no property or sales tax. What does them taking tax money have to do with 30.06/07 though? There are 2 hospitals in my town, the private one is not posted and does take tax money in the form of medicare payments. The "non-profit" is posted. Only one, the non-profit, is a full service hospital so if you have a heart attack that's where you go and it is posted. Also, it's in a bad neighborhood and if you are there as a visitor it's not a very nice walk from parking which is where you leave your gun to the front door. Once in the hospital security is armed but between parking and the front door especially at night is where you get mugged.

rotor wrote:

OlBill wrote:As for hospitals, are they taking tax money?

Yes, I know I sound like a lib.

Yes, almost all of them take tax money. And those that are "non-profit" which is a true misnomer pay no property or sales tax. What does them taking tax money have to do with 30.06/07 though? There are 2 hospitals in my town, the private one is not posted and does take tax money in the form of medicare payments. The "non-profit" is posted. Only one, the non-profit, is a full service hospital so if you have a heart attack that's where you go and it is posted. Also, it's in a bad neighborhood and if you are there as a visitor it's not a very nice walk from parking which is where you leave your gun to the front door. Once in the hospital security is armed but between parking and the front door especially at night is where you get mugged.

If they take tax money they are public funded and no longer private enterprises. The courts use it all the time to force behavior compliance.

For 50 years it has been law that a business that is open to the public must serve ALL the public. That includes races, religions, genders, and people carrying diseases. Why would that not include people legally carrying guns?

OlBill wrote:

rotor wrote:

OlBill wrote:As for hospitals, are they taking tax money?

Yes, I know I sound like a lib.

Yes, almost all of them take tax money. And those that are "non-profit" which is a true misnomer pay no property or sales tax. What does them taking tax money have to do with 30.06/07 though? There are 2 hospitals in my town, the private one is not posted and does take tax money in the form of medicare payments. The "non-profit" is posted. Only one, the non-profit, is a full service hospital so if you have a heart attack that's where you go and it is posted. Also, it's in a bad neighborhood and if you are there as a visitor it's not a very nice walk from parking which is where you leave your gun to the front door. Once in the hospital security is armed but between parking and the front door especially at night is where you get mugged.

If they take tax money they are public funded and no longer private enterprises. The courts use it all the time to force behavior compliance.

They will rule it as a educational school or amusement park.

If you are open to the public sector you are no longer private property during times your “store or whatever” is open. There is no basis to ban conceled wepons from LTC members when LEOs can carry there. Who has more of a chance to shot them accidentally?

skeathley wrote:For 50 years it has been law that a business that is open to the public must serve ALL the public. That includes races, religions, genders, and people carrying diseases. Why would that not include people legally carrying guns?

Because we are not slow-thinking snowflakes!

TreyHouston wrote:

OlBill wrote:

rotor wrote:

OlBill wrote:As for hospitals, are they taking tax money?

Yes, I know I sound like a lib.

Yes, almost all of them take tax money. And those that are "non-profit" which is a true misnomer pay no property or sales tax. What does them taking tax money have to do with 30.06/07 though? There are 2 hospitals in my town, the private one is not posted and does take tax money in the form of medicare payments. The "non-profit" is posted. Only one, the non-profit, is a full service hospital so if you have a heart attack that's where you go and it is posted. Also, it's in a bad neighborhood and if you are there as a visitor it's not a very nice walk from parking which is where you leave your gun to the front door. Once in the hospital security is armed but between parking and the front door especially at night is where you get mugged.

If you are open to the public sector you are no longer private property during times your “store or whatever” is open. There is no basis to ban conceled wepons from LTC members when LEOs can carry there. Who has more of a chance to shot them accidentally?

I agree that LTC holders should be able to carry all if not most places where LEOs can. Your definition of private property is your opinion and not the definition. Private property owners legal rights should always trump rights of the public whether or not they invite the public to come in or not, even if I don't agree with the private property owners choice, I as a free-thinking citizen can always choose to participate or not and I can keep my reasons to myself if they are not PC. If I want to participate but fear the night, then I go in the daytime. Again, it is my choice.

The property rights of a property owner who engages in business on his property are certainly not the same (and are less) than those of property owners who do not invite the public in, such as at one's home (assuming business is not conducted in the home). One may think the business owner should have absolute rights over his property, or at least the same as at his home, but that ship sailed long ago and it ain't coming back anytime soon.

Thus the rights, or probably more properly today, the powers a business owner can exercise (and the obligations he assumes) over his business property, particularly property where he invites the public in, are in fact subject to moderation by the legislature and the courts.

I don't believe property owner's rights trump legal citizens Constitutional rights.

LDB415 wrote:I don't believe property owner's rights trump legal citizens Constitutional rights.

Seriously???

You come on my property and start exercising your 1A rights and start bad mouthing me or my family or whatever else I take offense to, I'm going to show you where the door is and not let it hit your behind on the way out.

So... Did I just violate your constitutional right? And are you saying that I don't have any rights as a property owner??

Ok... So that was a bit strong and I admit it... But you understand that you either accept the whole constitution or not... I'm as much for being able to CC anywhere as anybody, but once you start limiting some rights then you begin to limit them all... Or you become a liberal... Both I think...

Tex1961 wrote:

LDB415 wrote:I don't believe property owner's rights trump legal citizens Constitutional rights.

Seriously???

You come on my property and start exercising your 1A rights and start bad mouthing me or my family or whatever else I take offense to, I'm going to show you where the door is and not let it hit your behind on the way out.

So... Did I just violate your constitutional right? And are you saying that I don't have any rights as a property owner??

Ok... So that was a bit strong and I admit it... But you understand that you either accept the whole constitution or not... I'm as much for being able to CC anywhere as anybody, but once you start limiting some rights then you begin to limit them all... Or you become a liberal... Both I think...

I believe we are talking about a public business during open times.... I doubt that the health department has any jurisdiction in your kitchen...