TexasCHLforum.com

skeathley wrote:When I was a kid, stores routinely posted a sign that said,

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

In the early 60s, for civil rights reasons, those signs came down, and the understanding was that, if you were open to the public, you had to serve everyone, or go out of business.

I feel the same way about guns. Serve everyone, or go out of business. Everyone may include people legally carrying a gun.

Agreed.... "Everyone" SHOULD include people legally carrying a gun, because it ALREADY includes people IILEGALLY carrying a gun!!

flechero wrote:
I'm with you... why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property... whether my attire, what's in my pocket or concealed on my belt?

Funny thing when I posted that comment I originally thought about a delineation between business and residential property...

My intent in that comment was about business and retail property where the "public" is welcome. I do believe that if you invite the public in for profit, you give up your right to dictate every aspect. Whether I am shopping and have a rock in my pocket or a snub nose revolver, it make no difference to the property owner, his bottom line or his other customers, assuming I'm not assaulted while inside.

I respect the rights of a homeowner to prohibit carry in his or her own house. I won't visit them, but won't argue as I don't have to be there.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:In Texas, private property owners are legally allowed to limit the civil rights of visitors, even if the exercise of those civil rights do not harm the property owners or anyone else in any way. Some of us cheer this as a win for private property rights. Some of us think this is unfortunate and do not believe that private property rights should extend to all aspects of a visitors life. I'm in the second category.

IMHO, a pro 2A organization should not endorse a private property owners' decision to ban firearms, even if such a decision is legal.

I'm with you... why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property... whether my attire, what's in my pocket or concealed on my belt?

cyphertext wrote: That was not "a very long time ago" and a leopard doesn't change its spots. I bet he still feels that way, just more politically savvy now.

I know that I said things 25 years ago that I wouldn't say now- not because I know better but because I don't believe them anymore.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now and let his actions/words speak for him going forward.

Rather than focus on the negative of the Church being posted... focus on the fact that he'll be speaking to a group and leadership with the opportunity to impact their thinking. Maybe his visit will change lots of minds and offer hope [and opportunity] to get those signs removed. I have to think he'll weave in some pro NRA, pro carry, self defense speak.

Hopefully.