TexasCHLforum.com

You're missing my point. I know very well how corporate entities are organized and managed. I am pointing out that complying with management directives of corporate entities has nothing to do with respecting owners' wishes on property that they own.

When people suggest that Texas has great respect for owners' property rights, they ignore LEGAL evidence to the contrary in the MPA, Parking Lot Law, and LEO exemptions, not to mention wacky liability law.

Then people make the logical fallacy of applying the moral idea of "owners" rights to control activity on private property to legal entities where there is no single or identifiable "owner" point of view. That, and I dispute the moral argument that even a sole owner has the right to use the State to enforce arbitrary rules on private conduct on property voluntarily opened to the public. Even in Texas, trespass law has not (yet) been held to apply to criminally enforcing general rules and standards, except in the case of the (arguably incorrect) AG opinion of 21 years ago, which was mooted by 30.06 19 years ago.

The excuse is used by legislators that don't wish to cross the powerful retail, restaurant, and private security lobbies...even if they generally support our views on gun rights. I understand, but refuse to stand by while they claim the moral high ground of "property rights"...

mojo84 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Texas holds private property rights in high regard. Other states may not be as concerned about protecting private property rights and balancing them with people's right to bear arms.

Or so the legislature keeps telling us...as they pass MPA, parking lot law, LEO exemption from 30.05 for weapons, etc. all of which I support, but seem to belie their concern for BUSINESS property owner's rights. Then they suddenly rediscover their support for "big bidness" property owners when the crony capitalists come callin' with their checkbooks. How am I supposed to know the "wishes" of the owners of a publicly held corporation? Or a big private equity fund? Do they poll all the shareholders? Or does the management just decide for us, regardless of our wishes as "owners"?

You may want to look up the word balance. Very few things are without some restrictions. That goes for where we can carry and what a property owner can do with their property.

Your analogy using large publicly traded companies is ridiculous and immature. You can research what day to day control and decision making authority shareholders have,

No, Texas does not have a significantly greater respect for property owners than many states, especially business property owners. It earned is reputation as a debtor friendly state making it easy to stiff creditors, and for an out of control trial bar that screwed owners out of their property by ignoring 100s of years of common law (see Pennzoil Texaco). Only as Republicans began to gain control in the legislature in the 90's did it start changing. There's nothing "balanced" about allowing off duty LEO exemption from (weapon) trespass law on all private property including private homes not open to the public. And forcing employers to allow unlicensed firearms "carry" in their parking lots without criminal or civil recourse...how is that different than not allowing "signs" to carry criminal penalty in a publicly open building.

For diffuse ownership entities (corps, LLC, partnerships) with publicly open stores....How is it juvenile to ask what the owners actual wishes are, when speaking of criminal trespass? The shareholders are the owners, not the management and yet the management can invoke criminal trespass regardless of the "wishes" of the owners. Also, collectively, we can be sure that if you polled a majority of "owners" of companies that DO allow carry, they would probably be against it...so that's where you say it's a publicly open business...and deal with it...like 25 odd other states already do.

I am pointing out the way people invoke our great Texan respect for "private property" rights on commercial businesses, as if they were sole proprietorships where the "wishes" of the owner knowable and worthy of respect, which in the case of hidden conduct (carry) that affects no one, they are not.

Texas is probably around 10 out of 50 in respecting 2nd amendment rights, which is very good and getting better, but there are blue states like Vermont and "purple" like Pennsylvania that are ahead of us. That's always somewhat surprised me since I moved here 25 years ago.

mojo84 wrote:Texas holds private property rights in high regard. Other states may not be as concerned about protecting private property rights and balancing them with people's right to bear arms.

Or so the legislature keeps telling us...as they pass MPA, parking lot law, LEO exemption from 30.05 for weapons, etc. all of which I support, but seem to belie their concern for BUSINESS property owner's rights. Then they suddenly rediscover their support for "big bidness" property owners when the crony capitalists come callin' with their checkbooks. How am I supposed to know the "wishes" of the owners of a publicly held corporation? Or a big private equity fund? Do they poll all the shareholders? Or does the management just decide for us, regardless of our wishes as "owners"?

Open handgun carry in many states has been like open rifle carry in Texas. It was always legal, but was hardly ever seen. Just like when it finally got here to Texas this year...almost nobody does it or where they do, it doesn't really raise any concern.

The problem with our shall issue licensed carry that came finally in 1996 was that it was so new after 126 years of prohibition that everything had to be hammered out in the legislature and the courts.

As usual the status quo/establishment wings of both parties had to be humored, dragged, buttered up, donated to, and so on... step by step with the NRA and TSRA making incremental progress.

In addition to the anti-gun leftists we (us "2nd amendment people") have to deal with the crony capitalist Chamber of Commerce types, nervous nelly retail lobby, police/private security monopolists, and Stetson wearing big "binness" types that think only "they" should have a gun.

Then you have to get the powerful county and city politicians/"bosses" to realize that the People are sovereign and when they act through the State (legislature), that you don't just get to blow them off 'cuz you're Boss Hogg of Hazzard County. Eg. 30.06 on public property, metal detectors for non-prohibited venues, arresting people for CWA, carrying while annoying (the cops).

Personally, I think the end goal should be summed up by one of this forum member's handle.... Anygunanywhere.... (I think I saw that handle here). Constitutional carry...open or concealed, license free, with no "prior restraint" by signs with criminal penalties, and special privileged people that carry where others can't.

If a blue state like Pennsylvania can have a Uniform Firearms Act with virtually no restrictions on carrying, and no criminal "signs", and permitless open carry...and deep blue Vermont was original Constitutional carry state, we can get there...I guess it will just be step by step.

Pawpaw wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:I like "Designated Defender" better.

I'll take what ever PC term for it as long as it happens!

Not a PC term, but a slight twist to the "Designated Driver" concept that is so well received and understood.

I vote for a law changing (one of) the definition(s) of intoxicated for LTC to 0.10 BAC, like Nevada...

Pawpaw wrote:

Hoodasnacks wrote:Interesting, that would be a bad unintended consequence. Perhaps the answer is to create 2 classes of LTC, one for 18-21, the other for 21+. I wouldn't like any additional restrictions, but there are probably some that people could stomach to get it through (e.g. taking into account different juvenile behavior in the background check, additional forfeiture circumstances). The law should certainly be more narrowly tailored than just a 21 year old age cutoff. Imagine if a 20 year old didn't get 4th amendment protections....

CleverNickname wrote:The solution is to make two legally distinct types of LTCs. One would be for 18-20 year olds, and the other would be for >=21 year olds. Other states will be free to recognize none, one or both. Some states currently have tiered licenses (Idaho and Mississippi come to mind) and some other states only recognize the higher tiered license, so this just isn't theoretical.

Two different licenses would not work either. The other state will not rely on the police to determine which license is valid in that state. Instead, they will just deny all Texas licenses. The path of least resistance... for them.

Once Texas made licenses available to military personnel 18-20, we lost one or two states. Others seem fine just giving reciprocity for >21. Why is anyone going to change if we increase the eligible 18-20 yr olds? If we want to do it we should do it.

I'd like to see the drinking age lowered to 18 too, but that ain't gonna happen.

I've seen a lot of news about people in general going nuts in numerous public places that are not courthouses, but very few (if any) about cops or LTC's going nuts. I guess I could go with a rule that says that only on-duty Sheriff's Deputies acting as Bailiff could carry...but no witness cops, Feds (if you could stop 'em), or other specially privileged...

mojo84 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

The Wall wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Wall wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.

Chas.

How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?

No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.

Good question. I've just seen on the news several times where family members go berserk after hearing a verdict and sentence. A scenario would be a father that had his daughter raped and murdered by some scum bag and he gets off on some technicality. If I were an attorney I wouldn't want to be trying a case with my back to the gallery knowing they could all be armed. So to answer your question it's better to not allow any guns into the courtroom so you don't have to worry about determining who is disgruntled. Just my 2¢.

I wouldn't want to be trying a case where an (alleged) cop killer gets acquitted if deputies could be armed in there....

Are you aware of this being a problem to date?

No. Are you aware of disgruntled LTC's causing a problem in courthouses? If you're going to go berserk, LTC or cop or not, you'll be breaking the law.

The Wall wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Wall wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.

Chas.

How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?

No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.

Good question. I've just seen on the news several times where family members go berserk after hearing a verdict and sentence. A scenario would be a father that had his daughter raped and murdered by some scum bag and he gets off on some technicality. If I were an attorney I wouldn't want to be trying a case with my back to the gallery knowing they could all be armed. So to answer your question it's better to not allow any guns into the courtroom so you don't have to worry about determining who is disgruntled. Just my 2¢.

I wouldn't want to be trying a case where an (alleged) cop killer gets acquitted if deputies could be armed in there....