TexasCHLforum.com

Saffron wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Do you know why that section was put into the constitution?

Not to reinforce slavery but rather to limit the influence if it. The slave owning states wanted all the slaves to be counted.....why....more people=more representation. The 3/5 compromise was to limit the influence of those states that had huge slave populations. It did not strengthen slavery or legitimize it, it weakened it.

That was the purpose of the 3/5 compromise.

Right. It still permitted slavery which directly violates the 5th Amendment.

mamabearCali wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Here is my thought on the calling ahead. If I owned a business and the OC called to ask I would say no. Businesses are open to make money, OC groups scare away customers and they leave out the door with my potential sale. Even though I support the 2a, I need money to keep my doors open.

Really? You are a restaurante, you have a semi-private patio/party room. You receive a request for a Tuesday evening (when OC dinners are in Richmond) reservation with 50-70 law abiding people coming and you are going to turn that $$ down based on the hope that other people will come in on a not so busy evening. That is your business decision, but not the one I would make.

jmra wrote: I would tell them no for the simple fact that I am pro 2A and their actions are detrimental to the cause - money wouldn't come into play in that decision at all.

This is why there will be more trouble in TX with the OCers. A reasonable compromise was made and rejected out of hand.

This is not a country where we get to tell people to shut it and sit down. This is a nation where dialog can will and must take place. If the 2nd amendment people do not come together in reasonable conversation then a house divided against itself will not stand. The anti's will win and we all lose.

Bladed wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Chili's, which is owned by Brinker International, said Friday, "We kindly ask that guests refrain from openly carrying firearms into our restaurants and we will continue to follow state and local laws on this issue."

Sonic said,"We're asking that customers refrain from bringing guns onto our patios or into our indoor dining areas."

I have no problem with either of these quotes:

1. These merchants also have rights,
2. I don't want to sit around with a bunch of goons playing with symbols; and,
3. I frequent neither business.

Right now, it seems they're only interested in prohibiting open carry. As long as the Texas Legislature doesn't tie legalized open carry of handguns to PC 30.06, concealed carry probably won't be widely affected.

In my assessment, most business owners are going to do whatever generates the fewest complaints from customers. Concealed carry is out of sight and out of mind, so business owners aren't likely to get many complaints about it. However, they ARE likely to get complaints from CHL holders if they post 30.06 signs; therefore, few business owners post 30.06 signs.

Because open carry is much less subtle, business owners are much more likely to get complaints about it. If the only way they can prohibit open carry is by posting the 30.06 signs that simultaneously prohibit concealed carry, they'll weigh the cost of irritating half of the population (people who don't own guns) against the cost of irritating 2% of the population (CHL holders) and, in all likelihood, choose to post the signs.

Chili's, which is owned by Brinker International, said Friday, "We kindly ask that guests refrain from openly carrying firearms into our restaurants and we will continue to follow state and local laws on this issue."

Sonic said,"We're asking that customers refrain from bringing guns onto our patios or into our indoor dining areas."