Businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL!

[bdickens]

As I have stated in a fairly recent thread hijack (sorry), I believe that businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL holders from carrying. http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=14523

As I said in that thread:

....There is no reason for preventing a law-abiding citizen from going to a place that it is legal for him to be and engaging in lawful activity. None whatsoever. If you ask me it's Unconstitutional discrimination, pure and simple. If I can't put up a sign that says "No Blacks Allowed," and you can't put up a sign that says "No Jews Allowed," then no one should be able to put up a sign that says, in effect, "No CHLs Allowed."

No place that is open to the public should be able to keep CHLs out of their establishment....

I am sure that everyone here would agree that CHL is protected under the Second Amendment as an individual right. As such, no business owner should be allowed to deny someone his Constitutional rights. Especially if that someone is an FBI-certified good guy.

I say Texas should eliminate any and all restrictions on where CHLs can carry.

I am now opening the floor for debate.
Flame Suit on.

[jimlongley]

No need for any flame suit for my comments - I have mixed feelings about this, I freely admit, on one hand I believe in property rights, and on the other I believe in a right to carry over and above what Texas ALLOWS us.

That said, the private property rights I believe in kind of have a stopping point at a public door. I feel that if a business opens itself to the general public, not to just certain select clientel, then the business should be a virtual extension of the public space. OTOH, being private property, I believe that the business owner has a right to exclude certain people from entry if the presence of that person would be inappropriate to the business - "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" but I also believe that the business owner has a responsibility to the customers, such as enforcing such rules with fairness, which would, IMO, include providing for the safety of the disarmed customers in a NO CHL ALLOWED environment, including providing safe storage for CHL holders forced to disarm to enter.

I believe that CHL holders are not disruptive to the normal flow of business and that denying them access not only does not enhance the safety of other customers, but detracts from it. I also believe that forcing CHL holders to disarm and store, ala Utah, exposes them to others becoming aware that they carry and targeting them, or even worse invites a raid by criminals bent on obtaining guns from a gun free zone.

All of the above, if not confusing enough, tempers my attitude somewhat, but then I look back at the relatively long experience of Texas and other concealed carry states. The predicte gunfights in the grocery stores have not erupted, as a matter of fact things have been someehat tame on that front. Movie theaters have not had rampant cowboys shooting up other patrons for leaving their cell phones on (even if some of those cretins deserve it.) Shopping malls have not had shootouts between well intentioned good guys who spotted one another's guns. Hospitals have not had grieving spouses gunning down incompetent oncologists in the halls (remind me to tell you about dragging one down the hall by his tie and hanging him out the window sometime, wen I can be calmer and more circumspect about it, it was only 14 years ago.)

I believe that past experience should be relied on to indicate that the many fears were unfounded and that concealed carry should no longer be limited in most venues. I hope to see such legislation introduced, but realize that it is relatively low priority, so it's not too likely too soon, we got churches back, and hospitals even if they don't know the rules, and that's better than what it was.

[Kerbouchard]

My opinions on the 2nd admendment are very strong, but my opinions on private property are stronger. My rights end where they begin to interfere with other's rights. I not for a government that fixes my problems or pretends to. I am most adamently against a government that tells what I can allow or not allow on my own property.

The government has no place telling a private company that they must allow or must prohibit certain things. I kind of think about it in the same lines as smoking bans.

I think the business owner should have an option, and I think we should have an option. I have a huge problem with government regulated gun free zones(especially since those encompass places we are required to go to from time to time), but private property is just that. Private property. If I don't like their rules, I go elsewhere.

[anygunanywhere]

IMHO, if a business invites the general public through open doors they give up the option of demanding that the public disarm unles they provide adequate security and should be held liable if they do not do so.

Any business open to the public is in no way a private entity any longer. Businesses open to the public do not meet the proper defintion of private and in no way can be compared to a residence.

If an individual is injured on a business premises the business is liable for that individual just surely as when someone becomes a crime victim on that same premises. Ban the ability of individuals to defend themselves, and run the risk of paying for the decision to do so.

Anygunanywhere

[LedJedi]

Private property rights.

If I own a business on private property I should have the right to my own rules. The 30.06 rules simply give me as a property owner a very clear method of notifying a CHL that they are not welcomed with their weapon.

I, as a CHL, am also perfectly offended at that (and would never post such a notice) and will not support such a business by giving them my $.

To deprive a private citizen of the right to do whatever is law abiding on their own property is a big step backwards in property rights imo.

One of my best friends (and boss at work) and his wife have verbally informed me that my weapon is not welcome on their property. I have verbally informed them that I, in turn, do not feel welcomed on their property. I have not attended any gatherings at their home since then. We do our socializing elsewhere. Both of us are making a choice in the situation. Who am I to say that they should not be allowed to set the rules on their own property? I see little difference between that and a business posting a 30.06.

[WarHawk-AVG]

IMHO, if a business invites the general public through open doors they give up the option of demanding that the public disarm unles they provide adequate security and should be held liable if they do not do so.

Any business open to the public is in no way a private entity any longer. Businesses open to the public do not meet the proper defintion of private and in no way can be compared to a residence.

If an individual is injured on a business premises the business is liable for that individual just surely as when someone becomes a crime victim on that same premises. Ban the ability of individuals to defend themselves, and run the risk of paying for the decision to do so.

Anygunanywhere

[shaggydog]

The government has no place telling a private company that they must allow or must prohibit certain things. I kind of think about it in the same lines as smoking bans.

Absolutely correct.

Any business open to the public is in no way a private entity any longer. Businesses open to the public do not meet the proper defintion of private and in no way can be compared to a residence.

Absolutely incorrect.

If an individual is injured on a business premises the business is liable for that individual just surely as when someone becomes a crime victim on that same premises. Ban the ability of individuals to defend themselves, and run the risk of paying for the decision to do so.

This is already the case. If you are injured (by an action, or inaction, of you, the owner or a third party) on the property of a private business you are well within your rights to seek legal compensation for any losses you may suffer. I am sure the legal minds on the forum can quote you the laws under which you may sue the owner of the business, the third party or both.

The conundrum here is that, just as you feel that no one has the “right� to tell you where, or where not, you can legally carry your firearm, the business owner also feels that no one has the “right� to tell him/her who his customers can, or cannot, be.

The fact that a particular business owner has allowed you, or anyone else, to enter his place of business does not negate the fact that that place of business is, in fact, a private entity and one is allowed into it at the pleasure of the owner.

If the owner makes the decision to not allow bald men into his establishment, and so posts notice to that effect, then he has made the decision that he does not want, or need, the revenue that would be generated from that customer base. If that decision ultimately results in the failure of the business then so be it, but the point is, no one has the “right� to tell the owner that he MUST open his doors to bald men.

[KBCraig]

Any business open to the public is in no way a private entity any longer. Businesses open to the public do not meet the proper defintion of private and in no way can be compared to a residence.

They absolutely meet the definition of "private", no matter who is or isn't invited. If someone else owns it, it's private.

If you can get the government to dictate what others do with their property, then you've invited the government to do the same to you.

[AEA]

[AEA]

My opinions on the 2nd admendment are very strong, but my opinions on private property are stronger. My rights end where they begin to interfere with other's rights. I not for a government that fixes my problems or pretends to. I am most adamently against a government that tells what I can allow or not allow on my own property.

The government has no place telling a private company that they must allow or must prohibit certain things. I kind of think about it in the same lines as smoking bans.

I think the business owner should have an option, and I think we should have an option. I have a huge problem with government regulated gun free zones(especially since those encompass places we are required to go to from time to time), but private property is just that. Private property. If I don't like their rules, I go elsewhere.

[AEA]

As I have stated in a fairly recent thread hijack (sorry), I believe that businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL holders from carrying. http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=14523

As I said in that thread:

....There is no reason for preventing a law-abiding citizen from going to a place that it is legal for him to be and engaging in lawful activity. None whatsoever. If you ask me it's Unconstitutional discrimination, pure and simple. If I can't put up a sign that says "No Blacks Allowed," and you can't put up a sign that says "No Jews Allowed," then no one should be able to put up a sign that says, in effect, "No CHLs Allowed."

No place that is open to the public should be able to keep CHLs out of their establishment....

I am sure that everyone here would agree that CHL is protected under the Second Amendment as an individual right. As such, no business owner should be allowed to deny someone his Constitutional rights. Especially if that someone is an FBI-certified good guy.

I say Texas should eliminate any and all restrictions on where CHLs can carry.

I am now opening the floor for debate.
Flame Suit on.

I think it is more important for us to try to get the State to eliminate the confusion for us with regards to the inappropriate/incorrect posting of certain locations such as City Properties, etc.......

If we can get this accomplished, then we can have a better (clearer) idea of the places that we can choose not to attend.

I am all for choice, but I do not want confusion. You say it and say it right, I go somewhere else. Simple........

[tboesche]

I knew this thread would generate different views.

Though I don't like being told I can not carry at a privately owned business, I respect the owners RIGHTS to make that decision, and therefore hope that he respects my RIGHTS to take my business elsewhere.

[WarHawk-AVG]

Any business open to the public is in no way a private entity any longer. Businesses open to the public do not meet the proper defintion of private and in no way can be compared to a residence.

They absolutely meet the definition of "private", no matter who is or isn't invited. If someone else owns it, it's private.

If you can get the government to dictate what others do with their property, then you've invited the government to do the same to you.

And what makes you think they dont!?!

Try flushing a toilet that uses more than a gallon of water per flush, try building something without 1st trying to get a permit that MUST meet or exceed some governmental regulation, try growing for your own personal use tobacco in your backyard, try leaving a broken down car in your driveway too long and see if the city doesn't deliver you a nice little letter.

America is one of the MOST regulated countries in the world!

Your private property isn't open to the public, and unless you sell memberships and make it a "club" oriented establishment you should NOT be able to tell someone that can walk up off the street that their license to carry a firearm legally is denied, you waived that right when you opened the doors to ANYONE

[shaggydog]

you waived that right when you opened the doors to ANYONE

But see, you're under the mistaken impression that simply because a business is “open� that it is open and available to “everyone�. Not so.

Every time an individual walks in the door of the business, the owner makes a decision whether to serve that individual or not. His decision is based on his personal whim. He does not have to let you, or anyone else, in the door if he so chooses and he may change the criteria upon which he bases his decisions at any time.

Your recourse, if you do not like his decision making process, is to take your money (business) elsewhere but do NOT believe that you have any right, other than that of refusing to patronize the business, to dictate to the owner how he should run his business

[pt145ss]

Any business open to the public is in no way a private entity any longer. Businesses open to the public do not meet the proper defintion of private and in no way can be compared to a residence.

They absolutely meet the definition of "private", no matter who is or isn't invited. If someone else owns it, it's private.

If you can get the government to dictate what others do with their property, then you've invited the government to do the same to you.

And what makes you think they dont!?!

Try flushing a toilet that uses more than a gallon of water per flush, try building something without 1st trying to get a permit that MUST meet or exceed some governmental regulation, try growing for your own personal use tobacco in your backyard, try leaving a broken down car in your driveway too long and see if the city doesn't deliver you a nice little letter.

America is one of the MOST regulated countries in the world!

Your private property isn't open to the public, and unless you sell memberships and make it a "club" oriented establishment you should NOT be able to tell someone that can walk up off the street that their license to carry a firearm legally is denied, you waived that right when you opened the doors to ANYONE

The second amendment is not much different then the first amendment in the fact that it is a right reserved to the people.

That being said, if I own a butcher shop and PETA decides they want to do a sit in at my place of business…do I have to allow them to be on my property just because they exercising their 1st amendment right? I do not think so! So why should a business owner be required to serve someone exercising their 2nd amendment right?