TexasCHLforum.com

Weeeeellll, I've learned alot. I understood the inclusion of 30.06 requirements as a deterrent but was also of the opinion there was a distinctive difference between passing a 30.06 sign and any other sign barring (fill in the blank) while not complying. Thank you Charles for illuminating the concept of "effective consent" and "criminal trespass". I am experiencing a feeling to which I am not accustomed, that of a shift in opinion. Don't get used to it though

frazzled wrote:I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

My argument is, and always has been this. There is a difference with private property domicile, private property with restricted access (individual ID, key card or other security) and private property open to the public. Exclusive vs. inclusive as it were.

In the latter case, a store or restaurant for example, anyone can enter and shop. There are not security checks or handbag searches to gain entry so any person regardless of appearance, race, sex or even criminal history can come and go as they please...during business hours. In THIS case I think we can and should tell a business owner that if you allow unfettered access to the general public then you can not restrict persons who are exercising other legal rights, especially those that are non invasive like concealed carry.

In the meantime, education and boycott are our only viable alternatives.