TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:I don't know about him, but I can. All I need to do is to point out that the Constitution only protects you from GOVERNMENTAL infringement on any of your rights. Other people can infringe on them all they want and it is not illegal nor a violation of the Constitution. So, if it is my property, my rights trump ALL of yours. If it is public property, our rights are equal. If it is your property, your rights trump all of mine.

That about sums up my feelings in the matter.

Frazzled, to austinrealtor's point, right now, the only way you have of knowing whether anybody around your kids is armed is to pat them all down. Obviously, you can't do that in public, and you'll alienate all your friends and family members if you do it to them in either your or their homes. And if you can't pat them down, then you have to rely only on the law to make sure that nobody is armed around your kids. Fine so far.... as far as that goes....

I understand your (admirable) desire to be your childrens' protector. But consider the following: off campus, anyone around your kids who is armed with a concealed weapon will be either A) a criminal; or B) a CHL holder; or C) an undercover/plainclothes LEO. On campus, it will likely be A) a criminal. That's it, because a law abiding CHL holder is going to disarm before entering the premises, and last I heard, undercover cops aren't working too many drug stings in grammar schools these days. So, barring CHL access to school campuses actually works against your childrens' safety, not in favor of it.

To the point that some CHL holders are yahoos, sure, it's true. But most aren't, and to a greater degree than the general public. CHL crime stats empirically back this up. We commit crimes at a lower rate than the non-CHL public. That is a provable fact. So, empirically, are your kids more safe around CHL holders, or are they safer around non-CHL holders? If you put aside the emotional freight for a minute and consider the facts, and only the facts, the answer is self-evident.

Just a few thoughts...

frazzled wrote:

Texgun wrote:There is a great amount of time spent discussing the problems associated with 30.06, trespass and CHL. I would like to hear some discussions about non-30.06 signs and how "trespass" laws would be applied to peace officers that go beyond a gunbuster sign at a business. I don't think peace officers think twice about ignoring the owner's wishes to maintain a gun free environment. The police know that NOTHING will be done to them or their ability to carry a weapon anywhere they want anytime they want.

LEOs are governed by criminal law and constitutional rights. It has jack to do with CHL. Where are you going with this?

[hijack alert]
They are also open carrying...
[/hijack alert]

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I have mixed feelings about the 30.06 signs. Make no mistake... I hate seeing them, and I will NOT patronize any business that posts one, whether or not I am carrying at the time I see the sign. That is my means of protesting a situation about which I can do nothing else.

I am pretty big on property rights, most particularly for home owners, but also for business owners. In fact, I am a business owner whose business is located in his home, so the idea of property rights in the home and in a business is a two-fer for me. That said, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of a CHL holder entering my home armed. I did not used to feel that way. In fact, I remember arguing forcefully, back in January of '08 when I first joined this board, that I felt I had a right to know if an armed person was entering my home.

Since then, I've "matured" in my CHL outlook, and I've realized a few things: 1) short of patting everyone down who enters, which would probably put a cramp in my social life, there isn't any way I can know if someone entering my home is armed; 2) the more law-abiding armed citizens in my home at any one time, the safer my home is; and 3) the only way to keep an armed criminal out of my home is to not allow entry to anyone I don't know — whatever form that takes.

The problem is that, because of the political makeup of the state, I don't foresee the Texas legislature ever passing any enhancements to the CHL laws, or an open carry law for that matter, which does not include some kind of signage requirement to alleviate the concerns of hoplophobes. I wish it weren't so, but I just don't see it happening any other way. So, if that is going to be the reality, then I am happier with the "Big Ugly Sign" — as Charles called it — which is at least easy to see and understand, than with having to figure out what every little decal or postcard sized sign in a window actually says. I made a bunch of trips to Oklahoma over the past year and half, and they don't have standardized signage for denying entry to CCW up there. It is a pain in the butt, because a lot of signs are nothing more than a 4"x4" "gunbusters" image, which is not necessarily placed where it is immediately noticeable. It would drive me nuts if that's how it were here in Texas.

So, until the whole idea of signage which bars entry to people who are carrying a firearm gets trashed in its entirety, I prefer having 30.06 signs with a set of fairly strict standards which hoplophobes have to comply with if they are going to step on my 2nd Amendment toes, rather than having to do it Oklahoma style and risk breaking the laws unknowingly.