TexasCHLforum.com

canvasbck wrote:In other words, say you are the owner of a large retail store in a tough part of town. If you are so inclined, you can post 30.06 signage at the entrance to the store and prohibit anyone from carrying inside the store. The force of law would apply to assist you in enforcing the no guns policy. The force of law would not be on your side in attempting to keep patrons from having firearms in their vehicles. You could post the parking lot, but state laws will not back you up on it.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but that red part is both a legal and logical fallacy. § 30.06 applies only to CHL. It has nothing whatsoever to do with armed people who are not carrying concealed under the authority of a CHL — whether they are LEOs or criminals. Thus: A) it does not prevent unwanted guns, it only prevents unwanted CHL guns; and B) it has no supplemental effect in enforcing an employment policy against someone who is not a CHLer.

LarryH wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bdickens wrote:It's that pedantry again.

Isn't there a lotion or shampoo to treat that with?

No, it's a series of injections, that you have to repeat every five years -- hurt like the dickens.

How appropriate for bdickens!

bdickens wrote:It's that pedantry again.

Isn't there a lotion or shampoo to treat that with?

bdickens wrote:I am not justifying anything. I was merely relating a fact without rendering a value judgement upon it.

I apologize. I guess I misunderstood you.

bdickens wrote:The CHL really just legalized something a lot of otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizens were doing anyway.

Exactly the same defense used by immigration activists to justify the status of illegal aliens in the U.S. They are alleged to all be good people whose only crime is that of being here illegally.

I don't want to hijack the thread into a discussion of immigration, but I'm just trying to point out that when you use a relativist argument to justify breaking one law, you open yourself up to another's use of the same relativist argument against you to justify breaking some other law. I'm not making a judgement here. I've carried illegally when I lived in California, particularly during the 1992 rioting in Los Angeles. I'm just saying that you have to be careful not to use that kind of justification on your own account if you don't want to hear it used by others for some other reason.

According the founders, we are a nation of laws which are hung on the framework of our Constitution. We are either law-breakers, or we are not. There really isn't any in-between. Therefore, we have to clarify why we break laws when we do... ...and we all do it at some point or other. Is there anyone here who has never driven faster than the posted speed limit? Of course not. However, one can legitimately make the claim that he was not paying attention and didn't realize he was speeding. That doesn't deliver him from the consequences if he gets pulled over, but it does say something about intent.

However, the decision to strap on a gun is extremely intentional. If one does it when it is illegal to do so, then one intentionally breaks the law. Moral clarity demands an explanation. You may no longer at that point call yourself law-abiding, because you are manifestly breaking the law, and you are doing it intentionally. Thus, in my book, if carrying a gun is illegal for you, then it is quite legitimate to say, "my ancient common law right to self defense and to keep and bear arms trumps any laws of man;" or to say, "I am carrying a gun as an act of civil disobedience to protest the unconstitutionality of the current laws;" or something to that effect.

By the way, I agree with all the above sentiments. I'm just not going to tell people that I break the law, and then call myself law-abiding in the same breath as if my being "otherwise law-abiding" were a justification for breaking the law, because it isn't. There ARE valid justifications, but that is not one of them, in my humble opinion.

Now I'm off to the gun show.