TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote: We could get technical and say that USAA has not kept me from carrying concealed by posting a 30.06 sign. Technically they have just asked the government to restrict my ability to do so on their property, with the accompanying threat of government enforcement through imprisonment, fines, etc. This may be technically true, but the end result is an infringement of my rights.

That sounds like a reach to me, but we can agree to disagree.

Bryanmc wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: USAA has infringed on this right for their employees and to a lesser extent for their customers. They may well support other freedoms, just not this one.

That's an interesting way to look at it. You feel that your 2A rights trump their property and business owners rights. The 2nd protects you from the government not allowing you to keep and bear arms, not private citizens on their property. Just my opinion of course.

So does the State of Texas since they REQUIRE that USAA allow employees to carry in their car on private property.

And by the way, the private property of USAA is mine, since it's a mutual insurance company and owned by the policyholder/members. I am a member and I want everyone to carry on "my" property.

ScottDLS wrote: And by the way, the private property of USAA is mine, since it's a mutual insurance company and owned by the policyholder/members. I am a member and I want everyone to carry on "my" property.

Your membership is an undivided interest along with all others.

Every year they elect directors and hold a meeting. That's our chance!

JALLEN wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: And by the way, the private property of USAA is mine, since it's a mutual insurance company and owned by the policyholder/members. I am a member and I want everyone to carry on "my" property.

Your membership is an undivided interest along with all others.

Every year they elect directors and hold a meeting. That's our chance!

Could conceivably be like an interest in condo common areas, so maybe members can carry despite the sign.

More importantly, this is my answer to people who consider it an affront to private property rights to carry against the owner's wishes. Since I am the (partial) owner, I don't consider CC a violation of my wishes. Additionally, I really don't consider it a matter for the criminal power of the State to be used to enforce the unknown wishes of the multiple owners.

mojo84 wrote:

suthdj wrote:

mojo84 wrote:My insurance agency is extremely pro-2nd Amendment and encourages people to carry.

And who are they?

PM sent.

I would also be interested in knowing. I may be looking for a new insurance agent soon.

ScottDLS wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: And by the way, the private property of USAA is mine, since it's a mutual insurance company and owned by the policyholder/members. I am a member and I want everyone to carry on "my" property.

Your membership is an undivided interest along with all others.

Every year they elect directors and hold a meeting. That's our chance!

Could conceivably be like an interest in condo common areas, so maybe members can carry despite the sign.

More importantly, this is my answer to people who consider it an affront to private property rights to carry against the owner's wishes. Since I am the (partial) owner, I don't consider CC a violation of my wishes. Additionally, I really don't consider it a matter for the criminal power of the State to be used to enforce the unknown wishes of the multiple owners.

Private property owners can and should be able to exercise a very high degree of control over their property. If a private property owner, such as a business owner, puts out an open invitation for all to come on to their property, they should still have the ability to tell anyone to leave at any time for any reason. I don't know how you can get much more pro-property rights than that.

My only objection is that property owners should not have the ability to legally exclude an entire group of people because of something that the property owner can not see, and which is not a danger to anyone. This would include political beliefs, non-contagious diseases, and yes, carrying a concealed handgun. The fact that one person has an irrational fear of liberals and believes that being near their beliefs will harm him should not change this principle in my mind.

Legislatively, this is an easy fix, I believe. Just eliminate all signage references in sections 30.06 and 30.07 entirely. Standard trespassing law will allow property owners to order anyone off their property and will allow for that persons arrest if they refuse to leave.

My point exactly.