TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:I'm not extremely well versed in property law and such, but I'm not entirely sure this is correct. No shirt, no shoes, no service comes to mind. As do restrictions at concert venues and stadiums and the like. Look at the FAQ for whatever they're calling Starplex in Fair Park now. There are tons of restricted items that will get you ejected if you're found with them inside. Now I realize that in those instances you will not be charged with criminal trespass. However, could you be if you refused to leave? Under what authority would you be removed from the property by law enforcement if not trespassing?

Please don't think I'm trying to argue. I'm certainly not. Just trying to add to the discussion, as I really don't know the answers to the questions I pose. I'm also still pretty unclear on just what types of qualifiers can be used to charge someone with trespassing.

The big difference here in my mind is whether you can be charged with criminal trespass BEFORE you are told to leave. In the examples you cite, the property owner / operator figures out that you have something you are not allowed to have and asks you to leave. If you refuse to leave you would be guilty of trespass. But only if you refuse to leave. I would be 100% fine with this being the standard for guns as well.

I agree with you 100% on that. I don't think guns should be treated differently than any other prohibited item.

As far as property owner rights, they should be allowed to ban weapons but not without a downside as is the case now.

If a property owner chooses to ban weapons, their legal liability for the security of the patrons should be increased and reflected in their insurance rates.

However, if they choose to defer to state law, liability and premiums would be lowest.

JagsfanNtexas wrote:

doncb wrote:I want to see all force of law removed from 30.06. Here's why. My job takes me to hospitals and clinics every day. I leave home and lock my gun in a lock box in my car and go in to the hospital. Leave and go to the next hospital, etc. Now all of them are posted so my gun has to stay in my car the entire day. I have to walk across parking lots multiple times unarmed. I've gotten into a bad habit of not even bothering to take my gun a lot of days because why bother. It's just going to be locked up all day. I don't like being treated like some kind of threat just because someone wets themselves at the thought of someone having a gun.

Would you be willing to make any concessions in other areas of the law to see that happen? It seems most people that have answered have the same stance as this, but not many people would care to give anything up for it.

I think what you are discovering, is that,we as LTC holders, believe that we have already jumped through enough hoops just to get where we are, and have proven our trustworthiness, more than we should have had to.
The original question you asked involved more mandatory training to obtain a few more concessions, from the left. I have not heard anyone from the left proposing any lifting of restrictions on LTC holders in exchange for more training.
What purpose would be served by LTC holders agreeing to something no one has asked for, in exchange for things that should never have been a restriction in the first place?

Basically, in my humble opinion, we should be demanding more freedoms, rather than relinquishing any we have gained. We don't "owe" anyone any more proof of our intentions, our reasons for obtaining our LTC, or show how law abiding, we are, the verdict is in on all of those things. More mandatory training, won't provide any more evidence. It is time to get our needs heard.

I would be willing to give up letting liberals and progressives live in Texas.

Jusme,

You Sir, are spot on.

bblhd672 wrote:I would be willing to give up letting liberals and progressives live in Texas.

This talk about giving something up puts me in mind of Benjamin Franklin's quip about giving up essential liberty for temporary benefit.

As MacBeth (Act V, Scene V) said about life, I find the suggestion that we "make any consessions" to be:
" ... a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

I would prefer that such suggestion " is heard no more".

Jusme wrote:

JagsfanNtexas wrote:

doncb wrote:I want to see all force of law removed from 30.06. Here's why. My job takes me to hospitals and clinics every day. I leave home and lock my gun in a lock box in my car and go in to the hospital. Leave and go to the next hospital, etc. Now all of them are posted so my gun has to stay in my car the entire day. I have to walk across parking lots multiple times unarmed. I've gotten into a bad habit of not even bothering to take my gun a lot of days because why bother. It's just going to be locked up all day. I don't like being treated like some kind of threat just because someone wets themselves at the thought of someone having a gun.

Would you be willing to make any concessions in other areas of the law to see that happen? It seems most people that have answered have the same stance as this, but not many people would care to give anything up for it.

I think what you are discovering, is that,we as LTC holders, believe that we have already jumped through enough hoops just to get where we are, and have proven our trustworthiness, more than we should have had to.
The original question you asked involved more mandatory training to obtain a few more concessions, from the left. I have not heard anyone from the left proposing any lifting of restrictions on LTC holders in exchange for more training.
What purpose would be served by LTC holders agreeing to something no one has asked for, in exchange for things that should never have been a restriction in the first place?

Basically, in my humble opinion, we should be demanding more freedoms, rather than relinquishing any we have gained. We don't "owe" anyone any more proof of our intentions, our reasons for obtaining our LTC, or show how law abiding, we are, the verdict is in on all of those things. More mandatory training, won't provide any more evidence. It is time to get our needs heard.

I would be willing to give up the absurd notion that retired NYPD have more gun rights in Texas than Native Texans.

Cornnuts.
The wife keeps telling me they are bad for my teeth, but I would be willing to give them up for unrestricted carry. But I shouldn't have to!

Tofu.

Gender neutral bathrooms.

The mainstream media.

Root Canals

The professionally offended

Skinny leg pants.