Poll, PC 30.06 in "Private Businesses"

[RPBrown]

I voted yes you should be able to manage the store the way you want to. As a business owner, I have enough restrictions on what I can and can't do without someone telling me I have to be able to allow CHL's (although I do and have a sign posted that they are welcome) but it is my choice.

With that said, if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

Just my .02

[SewTexas]

If I own the store I should be able to manage my store the way I want to


Let me put it this way......

why putting up a sign refusing entry to CHL holders any different than refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? A business owner should be able to decide who they want to do business with based on my beliefs.

If you refuse to bake that cake you better be prepared to spend a lot of money on lawyers - not saying I believe you should have to bake the cake, just stating reality.

There more than likely would not be any lawyers involved. Sexual orientation is not a protected class.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but:

DENVER—A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.
The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."

The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes


Read more: Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24672 ... z2rQoIWM00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24672 ... ay-couples" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You bet me to it Bill.

I understand all that...doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean most of us agree with it. Would you, if you were a business owner want the government telling you who you had to do business with and how?

[Dragonfighter]

If I own the store I should be able to manage my store the way I want to


Let me put it this way......

why putting up a sign refusing entry to CHL holders any different than refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? A business owner should be able to decide who they want to do business with based on my beliefs.

If you refuse to bake that cake you better be prepared to spend a lot of money on lawyers - not saying I believe you should have to bake the cake, just stating reality.

There more than likely would not be any lawyers involved. Sexual orientation is not a protected class.

If you mean that the SCOTUS hasn't made it so, I believe you are correct; but it's getting close (striking down decency laws based on homosexual behavior, marriage protection laws, etc.). But in civil service and USDoL rules, you cannot discriminate against someone for sexual orientation. Again, if selective access is the norm then I have no problem banning concealed handgun carry. However, how many times have we argued with businesses that with a CHL you know X-Y-Z about a person yet you know nothing of your other customers? So when you are open to the general public you are potentially allowing access to all sorts of miscreant. Like in the Sprouts debacle, there are usually viable alternatives if not a tad more inconvenient. But what if you are out in Big Bend territory and the only place around that has the medicine you need is posted 30.06? Then what if the day you need to go, you disarm and it is also the day the local cartel member decides he is going to rob the pharmacy and shoot anybody there? Unlikely? Yes. Absurd? Maybe. Possible? Definitely.

[jmra]

If I own the store I should be able to manage my store the way I want to


Let me put it this way......

why putting up a sign refusing entry to CHL holders any different than refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? A business owner should be able to decide who they want to do business with based on my beliefs.

If you refuse to bake that cake you better be prepared to spend a lot of money on lawyers - not saying I believe you should have to bake the cake, just stating reality.

There more than likely would not be any lawyers involved. Sexual orientation is not a protected class.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but:

DENVER—A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.
The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."

The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes


Read more: Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24672 ... z2rQoIWM00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24672 ... ay-couples" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You bet me to it Bill.

I understand all that...doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean most of us agree with it. Would you, if you were a business owner want the government telling you who you had to do business with and how?

No, but the barn door on that one was left open a long time ago.

[03Lightningrocks]

I went with number one because I believe in private property rights. I feel We did it right in Texas with the laws on 30.06. In many states a simple gun buster sign is sufficient notice. The 30.06 signage is something deliberate enough that we know beyond any doubt the poster of said signage has a belief that we should not have a right to carry, allowing us to make our purchasing decisions accordingly.

[Dragonfighter]

Let's flip it around. Disregarding for a moment the obvious failure of such a business model, let's say I open a store with pharmacy and say you must be legally carrying a firearm to enter. Can I then kick anyone out who is not, can I charge them with trespass if they refuse to leave? Remember, it is my business, my rules. Can I disallow a person on the basis of there choice NOT to carry? If not, why not?

[WildBill]

Let's flip it around. Disregarding for a moment the obvious failure of such a business model, let's say I open a store with pharmacy and say you must be legally carrying a firearm to enter. Can I then kick anyone out who is not, can I charge them with trespass if they refuse to leave? Remember, it is my business, my rules. Can I disallow a person on the basis of there choice NOT to carry? If not, why not?

For a person to legally carry, they must have a CHL. Also your rules require them to concealed carry. In order for them to prove they are carrying they would have to break the law by exposing their handgun, so you couldn't do this.

[jmra]

...Abraham snip...
if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

100%.

[WildBill]

...Abraham snip...
if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.

100%.

I'll disagree on this point. This is the same as trying to point the blame for someone else's actions on a third party. It is no different that trying to sue a gun manufacturer for a murder committed using one of the guns that they manufactured. If the business was negligent in allowing dangerous or illegal activities to occur without trying to stop them, I could see them being held accountable.

[Dragonfighter]

Let's flip it around. Disregarding for a moment the obvious failure of such a business model, let's say I open a store with pharmacy and say you must be legally carrying a firearm to enter. Can I then kick anyone out who is not, can I charge them with trespass if they refuse to leave? Remember, it is my business, my rules. Can I disallow a person on the basis of there choice NOT to carry? If not, why not?

For a person to legally carry, they must have a CHL. Also your rules require them to concealed carry. In order for them to prove they are carrying they would have to break the law by exposing their handgun, so you couldn't do this.

So, concealed is concealed, or not? The logic fails, I don't have to have them "prove" anything nor did I suggest such any more than a business posting 30.06 can make you prove you are not carrying.

What if I "discovered" them not carrying, then what? Why be allowed to restrict certain types of underwear...or lack thereof? If I discover someone is not carrying and then ask them to leave, what's the difference? If they refuse and I level a charge of trespass, what's the difference?

[WildBill]

Let's flip it around. Disregarding for a moment the obvious failure of such a business model, let's say I open a store with pharmacy and say you must be legally carrying a firearm to enter. Can I then kick anyone out who is not, can I charge them with trespass if they refuse to leave? Remember, it is my business, my rules. Can I disallow a person on the basis of there choice NOT to carry? If not, why not?

For a person to legally carry, they must have a CHL. Also your rules require them to concealed carry. In order for them to prove they are carrying they would have to break the law by exposing their handgun, so you couldn't do this.

So, concealed is concealed, or not? The logic fails, I don't have to have them "prove" anything nor did I suggest such any more than a business posting 30.06 can make you prove you are not carrying.

What if I "discovered" them not carrying, then what? Why be allowed to restrict certain types of underwear...or lack thereof? If I discover someone is not carrying and then ask them to leave, what's the difference? If they refuse and I level a charge of trespass, what's the difference?

You tell me. They're your rules.

[Dragonfighter]

<SNIP>
You tell me. They're your rules.

Indeed, but the question is not what I should or necessarily do; rather is there a fundamental or substantive difference between the two sets of parameters.

I.E. I am posting my store, accessible to the public, in accordance with PC 30.06, regulating what you ARE wearing under your clothes that is otherwise legal and not detectable by ordinary observation. If I discover you then you are automatically guilty of a criminal offense.

OR

I post a sign on my store, accessible to the public , that demands you be a CHL holder in possession of your weapon to enter, regulating what you are NOT wearing under your clothes that is otherwise legal and not detectable by ordinary observation. If I discover you are not compliant, you are not automatically guilty of a criminal offense until I ask you to leave and you refuse.

The same? Different? Why?

[Oldgringo]

Anybody here old enough to remember these old signs:

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT
TO REFUSE SERVICE
TO ANYONE

What's the difference between these signs and a 30.06 sign? (I know the answer)

[TexasCajun]

As a society, we have decided that discrimination by business is not desired. As a white, middle aged guy who has never been turned away from a restaurant or hotel for being the "wrong color" or wrong religion, I agree with public accommodation as it exists in the US. Renting a room to a Jew, or selling gas to a black person is NOT enough of a violation of your right to free association to allow it to trump the rights of all in the US to be treated equally with respect to commerce.

I have a hard time being convinced that a CHL holder can be discriminated against.
The accepted definition of discrimination is the unequal treatment for who you are rather that what you do through your actions.
The fact that you have a CHL is separate from the fact that you carry a concealed handgun.
So it is the action of carrying that is prohibited, not the fact you have a license or are a part of a group that advocates the 2nd Amendment.

Beat me to it. Carrying a handgun fits within the scope of behavior or manner of dress that can be regulated for or against by the business owner. It's akin to the 'No shirt, No shoes, No service' or the 'You're not an underwear model & your name isn't Calvin Klein so pull up your pants' signs. A business owner cannot (rightly) refuse service based on who you are, but can decide (rightly) what type of behavior is acceptable. Carrying a concerned handgun falls within behavior.

[rbwhatever1]

If you did open such a business requiring armed CHL's I would patronize it!