TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:People having a handgun in their car are not carrying under the authority of their LTC,
I know that some people don't like the current restrictions to open and concealed, but that is the current law.
I know that some people think that if a business is open to the public then they should have unfettered access.
Even with all of the but, but, buts, that is wishful thinking, but it is still not the reality.

It was my understanding that employees who keep their firearms in their otherwise posted/prohibited employer's parking lot are doing so under CHL/LTC authority, but regardless, the point remains that we have intruded upon that parking lot owner's private property rights.

And as far as wishful thinking vs. reality, that can be said about essentially everything including the carry laws we do have. They weren't reality, but then we passed a law that made them so.

Breny414 wrote:Well, if property owners could prevent us from carrying in our vehicles on to their property, which is accessible to the public, then they could effectively deny us the right to carry at all. So, that's a non-starter.

But the grocery store is also accessible to the public, that's exactly the point. And you could make a "non-starter" argument out of pretty much anything. If all grocery stores, or all banks, or all shopping malls posted 30.06 signs, you'd effectively be denied your right to carry on days when you had to go to those places to transaction business. But the point remains, at the end of the day, we decided (rightly, imho) that if you own a parking lot and you don't want guns on your property, that's too bad. Mr. Parking Lot Owner doesn't get his property rights because that creates too much of a burden on licensed carriers, but Mr. Grocery Store Owner gets his even though a concealed carry gun does absolutely no more harm inside his store as it does inside the car parked outside.

DonFromTexas wrote:I have trouble understanding all this as well. From reading this then if an armed police officer comes to your door, you can tell him o buzz off and only come back after he has disarmed himself. That don't seem right either.
I think I disagree with the idea presented that the constitution ONLY applies to the government.

I can't speak to what authority an LEO does or does not have to disarm in your home, but for purposes of the discussion in this thread, we're specifically talking about commercial property, not someone's home. Neither I nor I dare say anyone who advocates my side of this argument would support a law forcing licensed concealed carriers to carry into someone's home (or private non-commercial land) land against the homeowner's wishes. But the rules change when you open your doors to commerce.

Breny414 wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:Right, and the law already dictates hundreds if not thousands of things that an owner of commercial property cannot do. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me that "cannot exclude licensed concealed carriers" be added to that list. We've already done it to parking lot owners, which is why the argument that private property rights trump all doesn't really fly with me.

OP, as mentioned, there have been a number of threads about this and I don't want to reiterate the arguments here. Suffice it to say that I and others have been wondering aloud the same things you did in your post, and I'm glad to see this idea starting to gain traction.

I think a parking lot owner CAN prevent you from concealed carry, they just can't prevent you from having a firearm in your vehicle.

Well, technically they can't keep you from carrying concealed (or maybe even open) inside your car, even if your car is on the parking lot owner's private property, but that's not the point. The point is that even we gun owners are already dictating to certain private property owners what will be allowed on their private property. Why are we willing to impose on property owners when the property is a parking lot, but not when it's a grocery store? That makes no sense to me and completely invalidates the "property rights are sancrosanct" argument.

thetexan wrote:We dont have an inherent right to be on someone else's private property. Since most of the places we go everyday are privately owned the owners of those places have the final say. This is an ancient common law property right centuries old. When we pump gas at a gas station we do so with the consent or effective consent of the owner who can retract or modify that consent at his discretion. His only requirement is to do so according to the law.

tex

Right, and the law already dictates hundreds if not thousands of things that an owner of commercial property cannot do. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me that "cannot exclude licensed concealed carriers" be added to that list. We've already done it to parking lot owners, which is why the argument that private property rights trump all doesn't really fly with me.

OP, as mentioned, there have been a number of threads about this and I don't want to reiterate the arguments here. Suffice it to say that I and others have been wondering aloud the same things you did in your post, and I'm glad to see this idea starting to gain traction.