And THAT is the ONLY argument that can be made, and I agree if there's limited access (controlled entry, non-commercial property). But when you allow anybody and everybody to enter and exit your "private property" with absolutely no access control (read as: any thug that wants to come in, can) then THOSE types of public "private property" should have there ability to forbid the law abiding access curtailed.srothstein wrote:This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.
As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.
Yes, I know I am in the minority, but that's the way I see it.