TexasCHLforum.com

dac1842 wrote: Some posters have stated that a CHL holder should have the same rights as an off duty LEO... really? If you want the same privileges as a LEO, go to an academy.
there is no comparison to what a LEO goes through to get the unrestricted privilege and class/range time a CHL goes through.

anygunanywhere wrote:LEO is a job and the perceived special privileges with respect to second amendment rights that they should enjoy simply because they go to school is counter to what this country was founded on. If your assertion were true, there are many individuals who are trained to a higher degree than most LEOs, so they should have privileges that far exceed LEO. I find your insistence insulting to the vast majority of firearms enthusiasts and those on this forum.

Anygunanywhere

IMO, this is utter nonsense.

chasfm11 wrote:

baron wrote:

jnichols2 wrote:The feeling that a private property owner that chooses to start a business that deals with the public loses what property rights he had seems particularly strong. And this is coming from a forum dedicated to folks that chose to arm themselves in order to protect said rights.

What I am seeing is support for the Second Amendment to have the same status as other constitutional rights. If a business owner can post a legally binding sign prohibiting guns, they should be able to post legally binding signs prohibiting certain religious attire, etc. And the police should enforce those signs with equal zeal.

On the other hand, if a "No Turbans" sign is not legally valid than a "No Guns" sign shouldn't be either. The same should hold true for a company's HR policies.

The difference is that the Texas Legislature did not pass a bill that creates a sign which bans turbans or anything else. While I understand that the 30.06 provision was necessary to get the CC bill passed, the problem lies with the Legislature regarding what can be banned and what doesn't have a legal means for a ban. The public retains the right to take their business elsewhere in response to the business use of the legal bans.

Sometimes the price of passing good legislation requires compromises. Company policies are not laws. They are a contract between the company and the employee.

Abraham wrote:Back to the wedding cake for a moment.

Would you knowingly eat something the baker was forced to bake and vehemently didn't want to?

I sure as heck wouldn't...

Yum!

if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

I have seen this statement posted numerous times on this forum. This is not practical or legally possible.
A law that prevents access to the court system is not constitutional.
Even if it were possible to pass such a law, many CHL holders would still object to 30.06 posting.
Their reasoning being that it's still an infringement and they are better able and qualified to defend themselves than any type of security that could be provided by a business.

“The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force.
In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights,
and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest
and most essential privileges of citizenship . . . .”
Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.,
207U.S. 142, 148(1907).

Dragonfighter wrote:

WildBill wrote:<SNIP>
You tell me. They're your rules.

Indeed, but the question is not what I should or necessarily do; rather is there a fundamental or substantive difference between the two sets of parameters.

I.E. I am posting my store, accessible to the public, in accordance with PC 30.06, regulating what you ARE wearing under your clothes that is otherwise legal and not detectable by ordinary observation. If I discover you then you are automatically guilty of a criminal offense.

OR

I post a sign on my store, accessible to the public , that demands you be a CHL holder in possession of your weapon to enter, regulating what you are NOT wearing under your clothes that is otherwise legal and not detectable by ordinary observation. If I discover you are not compliant, you are not automatically guilty of a criminal offense until I ask you to leave and you refuse.

The same? Different? Why?

The first follows the law, the second does not. However, if you wish to put a CHL Only sign in your store, I do not care.

Dragonfighter wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:Let's flip it around. Disregarding for a moment the obvious failure of such a business model, let's say I open a store with pharmacy and say you must be legally carrying a firearm to enter. Can I then kick anyone out who is not, can I charge them with trespass if they refuse to leave? Remember, it is my business, my rules. Can I disallow a person on the basis of there choice NOT to carry? If not, why not?

For a person to legally carry, they must have a CHL. Also your rules require them to concealed carry. In order for them to prove they are carrying they would have to break the law by exposing their handgun, so you couldn't do this.

So, concealed is concealed, or not? The logic fails, I don't have to have them "prove" anything nor did I suggest such any more than a business posting 30.06 can make you prove you are not carrying.

What if I "discovered" them not carrying, then what? Why be allowed to restrict certain types of underwear...or lack thereof? If I discover someone is not carrying and then ask them to leave, what's the difference? If they refuse and I level a charge of trespass, what's the difference?

You tell me. They're your rules.

jmra wrote:

RPBrown wrote:...Abraham snip...
if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

100%.

I'll disagree on this point. This is the same as trying to point the blame for someone else's actions on a third party. It is no different that trying to sue a gun manufacturer for a murder committed using one of the guns that they manufactured. If the business was negligent in allowing dangerous or illegal activities to occur without trying to stop them, I could see them being held accountable.

Dragonfighter wrote:Let's flip it around. Disregarding for a moment the obvious failure of such a business model, let's say I open a store with pharmacy and say you must be legally carrying a firearm to enter. Can I then kick anyone out who is not, can I charge them with trespass if they refuse to leave? Remember, it is my business, my rules. Can I disallow a person on the basis of there choice NOT to carry? If not, why not?

For a person to legally carry, they must have a CHL. Also your rules require them to concealed carry. In order for them to prove they are carrying they would have to break the law by exposing their handgun, so you couldn't do this.

Russell wrote:

jmra wrote:

SewTexas wrote:If I own the store I should be able to manage my store the way I want to


Let me put it this way......

why putting up a sign refusing entry to CHL holders any different than refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? A business owner should be able to decide who they want to do business with based on my beliefs.

If you refuse to bake that cake you better be prepared to spend a lot of money on lawyers - not saying I believe you should have to bake the cake, just stating reality.

There more than likely would not be any lawyers involved. Sexual orientation is not a protected class.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but:

DENVER—A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.
The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."

The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes


Read more: Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24672 ... z2rQoIWM00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24672 ... ay-couples" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

android wrote:As a society, we have decided that discrimination by business is not desired. As a white, middle aged guy who has never been turned away from a restaurant or hotel for being the "wrong color" or wrong religion, I agree with public accommodation as it exists in the US. Renting a room to a Jew, or selling gas to a black person is NOT enough of a violation of your right to free association to allow it to trump the rights of all in the US to be treated equally with respect to commerce.

I have a hard time being convinced that a CHL holder can be discriminated against.
The accepted definition of discrimination is the unequal treatment for who you are rather that what you do through your actions.
The fact that you have a CHL is separate from the fact that you carry a concealed handgun.
So it is the action of carrying that is prohibited, not the fact you have a license or are a part of a group that advocates the 2nd Amendment.

android wrote:I used to believe that "business" could do whatever it wants on private property, but after a lot of thought, I have decided that is an anarchistic position that has no place in civilized society.

android - Very good and thoughtful post.

Dragonfighter wrote:should not be able to criminalize the legal carry

Businesses are not and can not criminalize legal carry.
What they are doing by posting a 30.06 sign is preventing trespass of certain individuals to their place of business.
Your right to entry to a public place of business in not unfettered.
You may not like the reason that they would deny you entrance, but it still may be a valid reason in the eyes of the business owner.
It is up to him to decide if the reason is valid, not you.