TexasCHLforum.com

E.Marquez wrote:

flechero wrote: why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property..

Some get it, some dont.
I often wonder how many that dont, are not property owners.. (as much as one can "own" property in the US).

And if they are property owners, can they with a straight face say, they have no reservations or concerns about giving free and unrestricted access of their property by others as long as it "does not affect the property"?
Keeping in mind as well, "doesn't affect" is in the opinion of the non property owner person, and it is not a fixed standard..

I'm sure there are some property owners willing to seed that control to a third party... The Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi I suppose, but Ive not met the person who would yet.

"Oh your just being extreme and exaggerating"

Ok, perhaps in illustrating the point.. So try this property owner who thinks, a third party should be able to bring with them anything they want that "does not affect" the property..

Remember it is the third party, not you that gets to decide what is not affecting your property and ok to bring with them. For those advocating such a thing... speak up..and we can play this out to see if you will admit, there are things a third party might want to bring on your privet property you would like them not to...but under your idea of right and wrong, they are allowed to, because they dont think it affect your property.

If you are invited on my property you are welcome to carry. If I catch a stranger walking across a pasture you are trespassing and if you are armed you are probably poaching. Say hello to the Deputy.

E.Marquez wrote:

flechero wrote: why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property..

Some get it, some dont.
I often wonder how many that dont, are not property owners.. (as much as one can "own" property in the US).

And if they are property owners, can they with a straight face say, they have no reservations or concerns about giving free and unrestricted access of their property by others as long as it "does not affect the property"?
Keeping in mind as well, "doesn't affect" is in the opinion of the non property owner person, and it is not a fixed standard..

I'm sure there are some property owners willing to seed that control to a third party... The Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi I suppose, but Ive not met the person who would yet.

"Oh your just being extreme and exaggerating"

Ok, perhaps in illustrating the point.. So try this property owner who thinks, a third party should be able to bring with them anything they want that "does not affect" the property..

Remember it is the third party, not you that gets to decide what is not affecting your property and ok to bring with them. For those advocating such a thing... speak up..and we can play this out to see if you will admit, there are things a third party might want to bring on your privet property you would like them not to...but under your idea of right and wrong, they are allowed to, because they dont think it affect your property.

We are not talking about allowing unfettered access to your property. We are talking about restrictions that a property owner should be able to place on people that they have INVITED onto their property. I am throwing a birthday party for my son tomorrow. I have invited a number of people, children and adults, to come onto my property for this party. Should I be able to restrict what they can bring with them? What if that thing does not impact me, or anyone else in any way, and in fact is not even visible, so I can't even have my sensibilities "offended" by seeing it? Further, should I be able to use LE resources with their arrest powers to enforce any random restrictions I want to make on guests that I have INVITED onto my property? That is what we are talking about here.

As an example, let's say that I really dislike any pictures of Abraham Lincoln. Should I be able to post a sign saying that no one may enter if they are in possession of any U.S. pennies bearing his likeness (older ones are OK)? I'd say "sure". Should I be able to call the police and have an invited guest arrested if I discover that they in fact do have any pennies, even if I haven't asked them to leave? I'd say no. That is the question here. Not allowing others to do whatever they want with your property.

RossA wrote:Yep, the NRA has had too many missteps in its history in terms of compromise on gun rights. There was a period of years a few decades ago where I intentionally let me membership lapse because of the weak leadership. We don't need that again.

Please list the NRA compromises.

Chas.

flechero wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:In Texas, private property owners are legally allowed to limit the civil rights of visitors, even if the exercise of those civil rights do not harm the property owners or anyone else in any way. Some of us cheer this as a win for private property rights. Some of us think this is unfortunate and do not believe that private property rights should extend to all aspects of a visitors life. I'm in the second category.

IMHO, a pro 2A organization should not endorse a private property owners' decision to ban firearms, even if such a decision is legal.

I'm with you... why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property... whether my attire, what's in my pocket or concealed on my belt?

Because he owns the property. We don't even have a right to be there, much less set terms and conditions.

OlBill wrote:

flechero wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:In Texas, private property owners are legally allowed to limit the civil rights of visitors, even if the exercise of those civil rights do not harm the property owners or anyone else in any way. Some of us cheer this as a win for private property rights. Some of us think this is unfortunate and do not believe that private property rights should extend to all aspects of a visitors life. I'm in the second category.

IMHO, a pro 2A organization should not endorse a private property owners' decision to ban firearms, even if such a decision is legal.

I'm with you... why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property... whether my attire, what's in my pocket or concealed on my belt?

Because he owns the property. We don't even have a right to be there, much less set terms and conditions.

We have no right whatsoever to be on someone else's property. UNLESS the property owner invites us to come onto their property.

It's real simple. If you don't want people on your property, then put up big "no trespassing" signs and enjoy the peace and quiet. If you do want some people but not others, then send notice to only the people you want and invite them to come visit. If you want to issue a general invitation to everyone (say for a business) then take down your "no trespassing" signs, and replace them with signs saying "welcome, we are open for business, please visit". Regardless of what you decide, the beauty is that you can change your mind later and ask any invited guest to please leave. If they refuse, the police will even come and help you get them off your property. Ain't life grand?

But you can't have someone arrested because they came at your invitation but really prefer cats over dogs even though you have a sign saying "cat people not allowed". You can ask the cat lover to get the heck off your property if you are sufficiently offended by their preferences, but you need to actually tell them to leave before the police will come and arrest them.

Right now we make an exception for people who are offended by the presence of guns. They can call the police and have a person issued a $200 fine without having to confront the "offensive" freedom loving person at all. But those poor cat haters? They have to man up and actually confront the offensive cat lover before they can have them arrested.

flechero wrote:
I'm with you... why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property... whether my attire, what's in my pocket or concealed on my belt?

Funny thing when I posted that comment I originally thought about a delineation between business and residential property...

My intent in that comment was about business and retail property where the "public" is welcome. I do believe that if you invite the public in for profit, you give up your right to dictate every aspect. Whether I am shopping and have a rock in my pocket or a snub nose revolver, it make no difference to the property owner, his bottom line or his other customers, assuming I'm not assaulted while inside.

I respect the rights of a homeowner to prohibit carry in his or her own house. I won't visit them, but won't argue as I don't have to be there.

flechero wrote:

flechero wrote:
I'm with you... why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property... whether my attire, what's in my pocket or concealed on my belt?

Funny thing when I posted that comment I originally thought about a delineation between business and residential property...

My intent in that comment was about business and retail property where the "public" is welcome. I do believe that if you invite the public in for profit, you give up your right to dictate every aspect. Whether I am shopping and have a rock in my pocket or a snub nose revolver, it make no difference to the property owner, his bottom line or his other customers, assuming I'm not assaulted while inside.

I respect the rights of a homeowner to prohibit carry in his or her own house. I won't visit them, but won't argue as I don't have to be there.

I also agree with you on the homeowner situation. If someone tells me that they don't want X in their home, then I will either respect their wishes, or (more likely) will not visit them. If there is a reason behind the request then I'm more likely to go with respecting their wishes and still visiting. Like if they ask me not to bring any peanut products because someone has severe allergies, then I'll probably still show up. But capricious restrictions like "no red underwear", "no socks", "no watches" - I'm more likely to just decline their invitation.

flechero wrote:

flechero wrote:
I'm with you... why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property... whether my attire, what's in my pocket or concealed on my belt?

Funny thing when I posted that comment I originally thought about a delineation between business and residential property...

My intent in that comment was about business and retail property where the "public" is welcome. I do believe that if you invite the public in for profit, you give up your right to dictate every aspect. Whether I am shopping and have a rock in my pocket or a snub nose revolver, it make no difference to the property owner, his bottom line or his other customers, assuming I'm not assaulted while inside.

I respect the rights of a homeowner to prohibit carry in his or her own house. I won't visit them, but won't argue as I don't have to be there.

Exactly this.
I have no expectation about being allowed to carry into a persons private residence or any property that is not open to the public. But when you invite the public into your business, there are myriad things that the government requires you to do. ADA compliance, fire extinguishers, health code, volumes of workplace laws. There are, literally, hundreds (thousands?) of pages of laws that trump "property rights" in public businesses, many of them for good reason. So why do we allow legislators to hide behind "property rights" as a reason to vote against pro-law-abiding and pro-gun legislation? Is a God-given, enumerated right subordinate to a need for a fire extinguisher?

RoyGBiv wrote:

flechero wrote:

flechero wrote:
I'm with you... why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property... whether my attire, what's in my pocket or concealed on my belt?

Funny thing when I posted that comment I originally thought about a delineation between business and residential property...

My intent in that comment was about business and retail property where the "public" is welcome. I do believe that if you invite the public in for profit, you give up your right to dictate every aspect. Whether I am shopping and have a rock in my pocket or a snub nose revolver, it make no difference to the property owner, his bottom line or his other customers, assuming I'm not assaulted while inside.

I respect the rights of a homeowner to prohibit carry in his or her own house. I won't visit them, but won't argue as I don't have to be there.

Exactly this.
I have no expectation about being allowed to carry into a persons private residence or any property that is not open to the public. But when you invite the public into your business, there are myriad things that the government requires you to do. ADA compliance, fire extinguishers, health code, volumes of workplace laws. There are, literally, hundreds (thousands?) of pages of laws that trump "property rights" in public businesses, many of them for good reason. So why do we allow legislators to hide behind "property rights" as a reason to vote against pro-law-abiding and pro-gun legislation? Is a God-given, enumerated right subordinate to a need for a fire extinguisher?

...

This is an extremely good point.

Thank you for bringing it into consideration as this may have actually brought me off the fence on this issue. (Along with merely having a sign make you 'a criminal'... Even trespass if by accident has the opportunity to correct your actions without a crime having occurred)

I went to school with Ollie North, and I served with him. He sold his soul for thirty pieces of silver. You make your own decision, I have made mine.

Visitors have the right to not visit where or when a property owner's restrictions offend them.

This is interesting. Seems the case could be applied to carry and businesses open to the public. Same line of thinking...

OlBill wrote:

flechero wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:In Texas, private property owners are legally allowed to limit the civil rights of visitors, even if the exercise of those civil rights do not harm the property owners or anyone else in any way. Some of us cheer this as a win for private property rights. Some of us think this is unfortunate and do not believe that private property rights should extend to all aspects of a visitors life. I'm in the second category.

IMHO, a pro 2A organization should not endorse a private property owners' decision to ban firearms, even if such a decision is legal.

I'm with you... why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property... whether my attire, what's in my pocket or concealed on my belt?

Because he owns the property. We don't even have a right to be there, much less set terms and conditions.

So, my opinion doesn't include churches, but with regards to businesses, we absolutely do. The state has the authority to regulate commerce. Commerce is not a unilateral contract. Commerce is an agreed on relationship between the public and the merchant and the public via regulations and laws can dictate its side of that contract.

I have in the past used my "purple underwear law" as an example. If you're wearing purple underwear and nobody can see it except you, it would be ridiculous to pass a law saying that you are committing criminal trespass on a merchant's property because you walked in wearing purple underwear under you pants and tucked in shirt and not visible to any customer or employee.

But the "but mah property rights" crowd think that's a perfectly acceptable position when purple underwear becomes a concealed handgun.

Sorry, what's under my clothes is not you business even if I walk into your store to buy a new hat.

oohrah,

Please elaborate on Col. North as I haven't a clue what you're referring to regarding his behavior...

Thanks!

Oldgringo wrote:Visitors have the right to not visit where or when a property owner's restrictions offend them.