TexasCHLforum.com

Texaspublican wrote:

flintknapper wrote: Your thought are worth reading, but the argument givin doesnt provide text for the bill.
When people cant seem to argue this bill in reference to is text, it is simply hopeless.
Just read the debate thats in this thread. People can even stay on subject.
Debating issues such as Minorities, handicap services, and the constituionality of this bill will get you a lot of attention.
This bill has nothing to do with anything you people bring to debate!
Show me what " Constitutional" Right supports this bill that infringes on private property ownership?
Pro gun or Anti gun, it is necessary to respect the wishes of the property owners. If you dont agree, you have the right to leave.
Your little internet group has no measure against Texas Business.

#1 Commercial property has been, currently is, and will be regulated. Examples are minorities, Handicap services, ect. That is the basis that this bill aims to operate under. The constitutionality of the bill comes in to play should the bill (as a law) go to court.
#2 Why should your private property rights over-rule someone else's private property rights (The vehicle is their private property) and their right to self defense (District of Columbia v Heller, McDonald v Chicago).
#3 if you feel it is necessary to respect the wishes of property owners then respect the wishes of people who own the property (Their Vehicle) where the firearm is stored.
#4 I suggest that you check your facts when it comes to the "little internet group", the TSRA (The major player supporting this bill) is an affiliate of the NRA one of the largest (if not the largest) lobbying organizations in the United States. In fact you must feel that this "little internet group" does pose a risk to your efforts to kill this bill or you wouldn't be here trying to discourage us from taking action.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, and I hope that you know that your not going to change mine (and most likely everyone else who cares about this issue). So I am going to continue with my efforts and you go ahead and continue with yours.

Commercial property is subject to regulation that other private property is not. A business can not post a sign saying "Minorities need not enter" without risking legal action, although a home owner can. So lets look at this bill from a property rights perspective. As a property owner you can say what is in/on your property regardless of if it is a vehicle, residence, real estate, structure, or residence. But when it comes to this parking lot bill we are looking to protect property rights by resolving a conflict between the owner of one piece of property (The Vehicle) and the owner of another piece of property (The Real Estate). When government gets involved in legislating a solution to these issues it should always err on the side of the constitution, which in this case means that the firearm inside the vehicle should be protected. By addressing only this issue the legislature would avoid prohibiting a business from searching an employee's vehicle when they suspect that the employee may have stolen property, a controlled substance, ect. stored within the vehicle. This bill would benefit employees and businesses by limiting what is protected, yet resolving a private property conflict that is currently biased towards a single entity and against a constitutional right.