TexasCHLforum.com

What if the original 30.06/30.07 law as written by the Legislature stated that there would be no open carry at the Costco store in Frisco, the McDonnalds on East Mockingbird in Dallas and all AutoZone Auto Parts. In that case our right to open carry was never given to us in the first place at those locations. Would we hold those owners in contempt for trampling on a right we were never given by the Legislature? No, we would be cursing the Legislature.

But in the present real life situation if those owners exercise a right that has been equally given to all of us, that is, the right to control his own property, by asking us to not carry on their property, why do we have such disdain for them? The state did not give us an ubiquitous right to carry but a limited right. We have no right of carry on the property of someone who doesn't want it. We all know this.

Why all of the contempt for property owners who don't want weapons? Yes, we can choose to take our business elsewhere, but why? Is it to punish the owners in an effort to make them "pay" for their daring to prevent you from exercising a right you don't even have on their property? Is that the motivation? "You can stop me but I'll show you and make you pay the economic price for exercising your legitimate right...my right to carry is greater than your right to stop me.", which is false on its face since our carry right doesn't even exist on privately owned property unless we are given the "privilege" of carrying on the owner's property by his bestowed consent.

It seems to me that the safety issue is more the point than the owner's philosophical difference on guns and our animosity toward him because of that difference of opinion.

tex

Yes, but only because the business, if posted, is a dangerous soft target with a sign advertising that everyone inside is unarmed (if it's 30.06).

Not because I think he doesn't deserve my business because he is exercising his right to restrict oc or cc.

tex