Im going to have to agree, although i will agree that any property owner has a right to limit who can or cannot enter onto their property, i do not feel that if the public is invited that they should give up the right of self defense with a firearm if that is how they choose to defend themselves.anygunanywhere wrote:Fine. Believe all you want. I am certain many others believe like you do. I do not.Russell wrote: Section 30.06 is not an unjust law. I very much believe in the right of a private property owner having total and full control over his own property, including rather or not somebody is allowed to carry a handgun onto the property. .
If so many folks believe in personal property rights, why are so many on this board always crying about 30.06 postings and "They do not want my business"? If personal property is so sacred, then we really shouldn't even be diascussing 30.06 ever on this board because it would not matter.
If an individual trusts LEO to carry on their property, they should allow us to carry on their property. There is no difference.
Anygun
In fact, i feel that it should be expected that all public citizens who enter your property or store have the right to defend themselves according to the constitution.
How are you as a property owner with constitutional rights yourself, going to deny certain rights to another?
Its hypocrisy as far as im concerned.
Sure go ahead and post a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, but i dont think thats in the constitution :)