TexasCHLforum.com

Ol Zeke wrote:OK. All legalese aside, lets get something, from a common sense point of view.

My house is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Your appartment or dorm room is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Albertson's, Wally World, Sears Roebuck, the Mall are all privately owned property that, during regular bussiness hours, allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to enter. They are Public in nature and, as such, entry is no different than walking down the street. This is NOT the same as the home.

Private property rights should be a two-way street. If the nature of your bussiness is such that every monkey with a crew cut can just walk through the door, then I (should) have the same rights as when I was walking across the parking lot to get to the door. I (should) have the right to protect myself from those around me, who would do me harm.

Yes? No?

Much more succinct than my arguement. Well put.

Steve,

You're right, that is an elegant solution...I can definitely get behind that.

My argument about private property has been this. If access to my property is by my forbearance only, that is to say by specific permission implied or explicit, then I can say get off for any reason that suits me. If OTOH my property is open to generally unfettered public access, like a retail setting, how can I be permitted to restrict someone for exercising their legal right to self defense. After all ADA will compel me to modify facilities for those who are physically impaired and I am restricted for forbidding someone based on race/sex, why can't the statutes deny restrictions based on legal behavior? Generally these properties don't restrict gang bangers or people who dress like them, they don't stop people at the door and test for drug use or drug carrying. People aren't restricted from these stores based on criminal records. Where I back off on this is when the property in question has controlled entry (card keys et al) and restrict access to an individual case by case basis. In that case we're back to a situation similar to my home, you are there under specific permission.

I do like your suggestion and think it would do a lot toward forcing the hand of business owners but there would be stalwarts who presume that their politics and surplus of cash trumps my life. I'd rather know that I can carry without fear of prosecution and live, than find solace that my family would be compensated in my death.

I have ideals but the pragmatist in me moderates them. My ideal CHL reform is to do away with the requirement all together (we are close with the MPA). The CHL is an infringement of our RKBA.

That said, we are in a "shall issue" state which, constitutional arguments aside, means the concealed carry of a firearm is permitted without the threat (Handdog excepted) of taking a ride simply because you are armed; not a "defense to prosecution" after an arrest. We don't have to satisfy the subjective standard of some bureaucrat in order to prove our "need" to defend ourselves. Some other states have "better" CCW laws than us, but we're in a better position than most. So this is where the pragmatist comes in.

As our liberties have been greatly infringed by slow erosion, a gradual accumulation of seemingly inconsequential laws, a reversal of our status requires the same. At each legislative session add one or two more expansions of the existing laws and eventually, any restrictions remaining will be truly meaningless. Federally we attach RKBA amendments to acts that fits the agenda of the current administration. All the while we educate whenever the opportunity presents itself.

I think the "Campus Carry" is a priority. Increasingly, horrific attacks are perpetrated against large numbers of our best and brightest who are unable to protect themselves. Campus attacks on individuals are, despite the lack of reporting in the media, nearly epidemic. Yet it is not only an expulsion, but a prosecution should you chose to defend yourself.

The parking lot bill is almost as critical as one has to make the choice of protecting themselves or losing their job. In the odd case where the parking lot is posted, they could be prosecuted as well. So they are given the unsavory choice of risking firing/jail or risking attack without recourse...not only there but to and from work or school.

Maybe not this time, but I see the liability when restricting CCW as a real eventuality. I have the right to deny access to my property for any reason, or no reason. But then again, my property is not otherwise open to public access. If I were to open it up to generally unrestricted access, then where do I have the right to restrict someone for exercising their legal right to defend themselves? In a republic, my rights end where yours begin. It will take an extraordinary resolve in the legislature or a precedent. The pragmatist in me looks around and sees the reality.

A battle is often a contest of inches. Expand your foothold first and then subdue the target from solid ground. I have to go with Charles on this, let's get these two critical and realistic goals met THEN focus on a few more important issues for next time. The "boiling frog" is a non sequiter...a logical fallacy; but it is a powerful image. Let's boil this frog!