TexasCHLforum.com

varko wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:59 pmIf you haven’t already read this book, I highly recommend it and encourage buying extra copies and passing them out.

The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates: A Proper Resistance to Tyranny and a Repudiation of Unlimited Obedience to Civil Government by Matthew J. Trewhella

Thanks for the referral. i just bought it.

flechero wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:49 pmBe honest, TAM... does Charles pay you by the word???

Hah hah! The funny thing is, I never start out to write such long posts. But once I get started though, I feel compelled to look down each rabbit hole to make sure I’m not leaving something out that needs to be said. Maybe I should start writing sermons, or political acceptance speeches, or something. Being thorough is both my curse and my virtue!

Or more likely, it’s a virtue for me, and a curse for everyone else!!

Humanclone wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:02 am In stores which post a legal 30.06 sign, do any of you open carry in that store instead. Or visa versa with a 30.07 sign? Cause legally you arnt in violation of the law but may be asked to leave.

Let me start by saying that I do open carry on occasion. When open carry first became law, I OC’d about half the time. But as time has passed, I have tended to CC more often than not. That’s just a personal sartorial preference, but I am no less supportive of the right of people to open carry if they want to today, than I was back when the law was being debated and passed. Let me also say that I would NEVER advise someone else to break the law - even if I might break it myself. So let that be the filter through which you read what follows.

Lots of places post 30.07, but don’t particularly mind if you carry concealed. My own church does this. They’re not bothered by you having one on you....they just don’t want to see it. And really, it’s probably not so much about whether or not they don’t want to see it, as much as it is that they don’t want to potentially offend customers/parishioners who [shock!]don’t like guns[/shock!]. Like it or not, we live in a world in which roughly half the population likes guns, and the other half does. And believe it or not - even among those that do favor private gun ownership, a faction exists that doubts that you should be able to carry one outside of the home. So if a business/church/whatever posts 30.07 only, I don’t hold it against them. I recognize what THEY recognize - that they want the largest number of people possible to feel comfortable on their premises, and that includes people of all kinds of political persuasions. WHY? Because they have a vested interest in getting as many people through those doors as possible, and a vested interest in making sure they’ll come back. Nobody besides that business or church has the right to judge what is that particular institution’s best interest, because NOBODY else besides them is going to experience the consequences of that decision making. YOU can always take your patronage elsewhere. From a practical standpoint, they have to remain where they are. You don’t.

People say that politics is the art of what’s possible, and diplomacy is the art of compromise. Diplomacy in politics is the recognition that both sides have some legitimate concerns that have to be addressed for both to accept a compromise as legitimate. Increasingly, there is no more diplomacy in politics, and all too often, those “compromises” work more in the favor of antigunners, than they work in favor of gun rights. The Overton window keeps shifting in that direction. I hate it, and you should too, but that’s the world we live in, and if you doubt it, then you’re in denial. 30.06 and 30.07 are the compromise that make it possible for us to carry firearms in public, while still respecting the private property rights of business-owners. The definitions in the code that describe a compliant sign, make it a big ugly sign for a purpose. 30.06 by itself, or when posted in tandem with 30.07, does TWO things, both of which are useful to possessors of an LTC:

1. PRACTICALITY: It requires a business or church to CLEARLY state it’s objection to the presence of lawfully carried firearms, in such a way that people who lawfully carry them can avoid accidentally carrying into a place they are barred from entering while armed.
2. SOCIALLY/POLITICALLY: It forces the institution in question to publicly state it’s position on the lawful carry of firearms, in such a way that people who lawfully carry firearms may decide whether or not to patronize that institution with their dollars or time.

It’s probably a given that businesses that post both signs, absolutely intend to keep all people who are licensed to carry out of their places of business. If you as an individual choose to conceal and carry past those signs, it is (questionably) your 2nd Amendment right to do so; but you ARE violating the letter of the law if you do. In that case, you can no longer call yourself “law-abiding”. At best you can then call yourself selectively law-abiding. That in and of itself does not make you a bad guy, but it does make you an outlaw.

There is a parallel thread going on over the possible passage of HR 1263 - the congressional democrats’ bill to force all semiauto rifles that are not tube-fed .22s to be NFA registered. I have, as have others, plainly stated that if the law passes, I will not comply with it. For me, it’s a step too far. It no longer falls in the definition of political compromise. So I will not comply. But, that decision is not arrived at without my recognition of the fact that, if this happens, I will become by definition an outlaw, and can no-longer truthfully call myself a “law-abiding” person. For me, that IS the moral decision, because it would be immoral to obey an unjust law.

I mention this example, not to start another discussion about HR 1263, but to bring up the notion that political disobedience is one of America’s oldest traditions. When/If the law either departs from the principles of justice, or departs from upholding our rights under the Constitution, we may have a moral duty to disobey that part of the law. But, each person has to define the extent of that duty for themselves.

For instance, if your place of employment posts both 30.06 and 30.07 signs, and the personnel policy explicitly states that employees found to be in possession of a firearm on the premises (parking lots excepted) will be summarily fired, only YOU can make the moral decision to comply with the signs or to defy them and carry anyway. Why are YOU the only one who can define what your duty is in that particular situation? It’s because YOU are the only one who will suffer a consequence if caught. NOBODY has a legitimate right to judge your decision if its possible consequences put the financial security of your family at risk. They’re not in your shoes.

But the parameters change when we’re talking about a business or church that posts both signs—as opposed to your place of employment. I can’t recall a single time I’ve deliberatly carried past a 30.06 sign; but I have carried into a posted business and didn’t discover it was posted until I was well inside the store—because the sign was posted high on a back wall or something, where it wasn’t visible from either outside or immediately inside the entrance. Upon discovering the sign, I left. And I haven’t gone back, and won’t going forward either.

That’s my personal set of parameters: no patronage of institutions that post 30.06, while letting 30.07 slide. My exception to that would be if ALL businesses around me were posted 30.06, and the choice was to either patronize a local business, or to drive 50 miles to find one that wasn’t posted. In that case, I would probably unlawfully carry past the 30.06 signs. But I can only say “probably”, because I’m not yet in that situation. I can only report my inclination; but inclinations often tend to have a habit of being modified under the exigencies of reality.

OTH, I would never choose to live/work in an area where there simply weren’t any alternatives. I love Texas. I am grateful to Texas for taking me in as a refugee from California. But if Texas ever became California - which could easily happen - then Oklahoma would start looking pretty good. And don’t laugh. California USED to be a lot more like Texas, than Texas is today. California elected Ronaldus Maximus governor—TWICE. Commie bastards ruined it for everyone. Texas is very close to flipping blue, and people who don’t see that, are fiddling while Rome burns. And what will happen when the dems get a majority? Keep an eye out for the dreaded Gerrymander, which will effectively nullify the GOP in Texas politics....which is EXACTLY what happened in California. In 1966, Californians went for Reagan 57.55% to Pat Brown’s 42.27%. More importantly, Reagan won in 55 of California’s 58 counties - the exceptions being Alameda, Plumas, and San Francisco counties. Today, a mere 24.5% of California’s voters identify as republicans.

I mention all of this, because you can look forward to some negatives here in Texas in the not too distant future - UNLESS the Texas GOP pulls its head out of its nether regions and starts to REALLY fight back. Among those negatives: more and more stores posted 3.0.06, and legislation diluting or eliminating the signage compliance requirements. When that happens, a whole lot of us are going to have to decide how to spend our money, and where to go to church.