TexasCHLforum.com

paxton25 wrote:It's not an observation on his personal beliefs, but in several issues I have seen him be somewhat of a fence sitter or going along to get along and with his parsing of his statements about OC it is cause for concern in my view.

TXBO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:.... The range time is not to teach one how to handle a gun or how to shoot it. It is to see if you can competently handle one.

....

My opinion is that it's not a good reflection on competency.....Furthermore, I'd suggest that many, that pass the course, hold themselves as competent and they are not.

ralewis wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Would need to get gun carriers classified as a protected class. Until then, feel free to ban anyone that doesn't carry a gun. Business may differ but I think you have the right to do it.

When government can tell someone who they have to do business with and that you cannot decide who you want on your property you've bought and paid for our leased, you no longer have the right to run your own business for which you are risking your money and livelihood. Next the government will tell you who you have to make cakes for and who preachers have to marry. Oh wait, we are already there.

The public accommodation act addresses discrimination and accommodation for those that fall in a protected class. CHL and gun carriers do not fall in a such a class. No one is more pro 2nd than I. I am also pro property rights and believe I should be allowed to determine with whom I do business and sell insurance to within reason.

Matter of fact, I'd like to give a discount to those that have a CHL and carry. However, it is against the law as that would be considered illegal rebating. Then I could get a visit from one of those armed police insurance department investigators I don't believe is need but is being paid for with my tax dollars.

It's really crummy the way it works out. One crowd can tell the other they're not welcome in their stores because of the other groups belief and right to legally carry a gun. Very one sided... :/ Does this mean I can strictly forbid anybody from my premises if they're liberal, wearing genital jewelry, or are wearing a pink thong? They go against my beliefs, so Could. I post a sign banning them? I don't think it's fair to them, but if I couldn't tell, and them doing business does not cause an issue, why is it right that I can ban them? I will never know about your pink thong if you conceal it properly, but if you start showing it of, I believe i should be able to kick you yo the curb if it bothers me. If you don't cause a nuasance and show off your stuff, then why should I be predjudice? Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I'm there to shoot somebody, nor does a liberal always intend to preach to me about how we need smaller government. Long odds make for big countermeasures?

and that you cannot decide who you want on your property

You can already remove anybody from your property you dislike, as you are the RO. However, you shouldn't be able to BAN a group or type of people. It's just prejudice IMO, and then to make it legally criminally punished is absurd. The right to refuse service must be reserved, but not right to discriminate against a group of people who have done no wronging to be kicked out.

Your pink thong analogy I think actually makes the point. If you don't like pink thongs, you can ask them to leave, but you can't post a sign making it a crime if you discover they are wearing a pink thong. I for one would much rather have to be asked to leave if I'm carrying vs. it automatically being a crime. I understand a lot of why we have the 30.06 situation. Just wish it was like wearing a pink thong...

txglock21 wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.

This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.

As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.

And THAT is the ONLY argument that can be made, and I agree if there's limited access (controlled entry, non-commercial property). But when you allow anybody and everybody to enter and exit your "private property" with absolutely no access control (read as: any thug that wants to come in, can) then THOSE types of public "private property" should have there ability to forbid the law abiding access curtailed.

Yes, I know I am in the minority, but that's the way I see it.

You may be in the minority, but I'm right there with you. To me, there is a BIG difference between "private property" and private property open to the public, ie. movie theaters, stores, etc...

anygunanywhere wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Taypo wrote:When I lived there, you could open carry without a permit but concealed required one. So nobody I knew or was aware of bothered with carrying concealed. Clear?

Crystal!

Sorry. I was wrong.

Hey mang! No problem! I do that a lot. The wife tells me so.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Taypo wrote:When I lived there, you could open carry without a permit but concealed required one. So nobody I knew or was aware of bothered with carrying concealed. Clear?

Crystal!

anygunanywhere wrote:

Taypo wrote:

JSThane wrote:As someone that lives in an Open Carry state, I can tell y'all that most of the worries CHLers have about Open Carry are pretty much non-events. Nobody grabs an OC'er's gun. Nobody draws down on an OC'er. The cops might get called, but that's fairly rare, and even if you're somewhere that open carry is technically disallowed (places serving alcohol, etc), most cops will just give you a "you might wanna take that outside, because it's technically illegal in here" lecture.

I have my concealed-carry license for politeness' sake, and because sometimes I want to throw a jacket on. But it's real nice to not have to worry about "unconcealed firearms."

Thanks! I lived in AZ a while back and open carry was pretty prevalent, but nobody carried concealed. I understand that's changed now, but I've never lived in a state where both are allowed. Gonna get interesting when it happens.

Just curious. If you can't see concealed weapons, how do you know nobody carried concealed?

mr1337 wrote:I won't be looking forward to MDA members and the like SWATing here in Texas if/when OC passes.