jnichols2 wrote:The feeling that a private property owner that chooses to start a business that deals with the public loses what property rights he had seems particularly strong. And this is coming from a forum dedicated to folks that chose to arm themselves in order to protect said rights.
What I am seeing is support for the Second Amendment to have the same status as other constitutional rights. If a business owner can post a legally binding sign prohibiting guns, they should be able to post legally binding signs prohibiting certain religious attire, etc. And the police should enforce those signs with equal zeal.
On the other hand, if a "No Turbans" sign is not legally valid than a "No Guns" sign shouldn't be either. The same should hold true for a company's HR policies.
jnichols2 wrote:The feeling that a private property owner that chooses to start a business that deals with the public loses what property rights he had seems particularly strong. And this is coming from a forum dedicated to folks that chose to arm themselves in order to protect said rights.
What I am seeing is support for the Second Amendment to have the same status as other constitutional rights. If a business owner can post a legally binding sign prohibiting guns, they should be able to post legally binding signs prohibiting certain religious attire, etc. And the police should enforce those signs with equal zeal.
On the other hand, if a "No Turbans" sign is not legally valid than a "No Guns" sign shouldn't be either. The same should hold true for a company's HR policies.
The difference is that the Texas Legislature did not pass a bill that creates a sign which bans turbans or anything else. While I understand that the 30.06 provision was necessary to get the CC bill passed, the problem lies with the Legislature regarding what can be banned and what doesn't have a legal means for a ban. The public retains the right to take their business elsewhere in response to the business use of the legal bans.
jnichols2 wrote:The feeling that a private property owner that chooses to start a business that deals with the public loses what property rights he had seems particularly strong. And this is coming from a forum dedicated to folks that chose to arm themselves in order to protect said rights.
What I am seeing is support for the Second Amendment to have the same status as other constitutional rights. If a business owner can post a legally binding sign prohibiting guns, they should be able to post legally binding signs prohibiting certain religious attire, etc. And the police should enforce those signs with equal zeal.
On the other hand, if a "No Turbans" sign is not legally valid than a "No Guns" sign shouldn't be either. The same should hold true for a company's HR policies.
The difference is that the Texas Legislature did not pass a bill that creates a sign which bans turbans or anything else. While I understand that the 30.06 provision was necessary to get the CC bill passed, the problem lies with the Legislature regarding what can be banned and what doesn't have a legal means for a ban. The public retains the right to take their business elsewhere in response to the business use of the legal bans.
Wrong. 30.05 gives the legal right under Texas law to ban anything and anyone from your property. Federal law, however, supersedes and makes banning the protected classes illegal.
jnichols2 wrote:The feeling that a private property owner that chooses to start a business that deals with the public loses what property rights he had seems particularly strong. And this is coming from a forum dedicated to folks that chose to arm themselves in order to protect said rights.
What I am seeing is support for the Second Amendment to have the same status as other constitutional rights. If a business owner can post a legally binding sign prohibiting guns, they should be able to post legally binding signs prohibiting certain religious attire, etc. And the police should enforce those signs with equal zeal.
On the other hand, if a "No Turbans" sign is not legally valid than a "No Guns" sign shouldn't be either. The same should hold true for a company's HR policies.
The difference is that the Texas Legislature did not pass a bill that creates a sign which bans turbans or anything else. While I understand that the 30.06 provision was necessary to get the CC bill passed, the problem lies with the Legislature regarding what can be banned and what doesn't have a legal means for a ban. The public retains the right to take their business elsewhere in response to the business use of the legal bans.
Sometimes the price of passing good legislation requires compromises. Company policies are not laws. They are a contract between the company and the employee.
A-R wrote:
Wrong. 30.05 gives the legal right under Texas law to ban anything and anyone from your property. Federal law, however, supersedes and makes banning the protected classes illegal.
So you are saying that a ban against turbans would be legal and supported under Texas law? And that a store owner could put up a sign banning turbans and call LE to enforce it?
A-R wrote:
Wrong. 30.05 gives the legal right under Texas law to ban anything and anyone from your property. Federal law, however, supersedes and makes banning the protected classes illegal.
So you are saying that a ban against turbans would be legal and supported under Texas law? And that a store owner could put up a sign banning turbans and call LE to enforce it?
A-R wrote:
Wrong. 30.05 gives the legal right under Texas law to ban anything and anyone from your property. Federal law, however, supersedes and makes banning the protected classes illegal.
So you are saying that a ban against turbans would be legal and supported under Texas law? And that a store owner could put up a sign banning turbans and call LE to enforce it?
Yes, that is correct.
OK. I get it. Now the real question is: how likely is the enforcement to happen? There are a lot of States where open carry is legal but is almost never done because, as a practical matter, it would only take one MWAG call to shut it down. What I'm asking is the difference between the theory of the law and its practical application. Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it is actually allowed.
I thought I had posted this in response to this poll, but I don't see it, so if this is a duplicate post I apologize.
1- The private property owner has the right to control that property under his/her care, custody and control. Their rights do supersede the privilege enjoyed by a CHL holder. Personally If I owned a retail establishment, restaurant or other place like that, I would not prohibit concealed carry.
2- Some posters have stated that a CHL holder should have the same rights as an off duty LEO... really? If you want the same privileges as a LEO, go to an academy.
there is no comparison to what a LEO goes through to get the unrestricted privilege and class/range time a CHL goes through.
Now having said that, I don't think anyone, LEO or otherwise should carry in a bar, or while intoxicated.
dac1842 wrote:Some posters have stated that a CHL holder should have the same rights as an off duty LEO... really? If you want the same privileges as a LEO, go to an academy.
If people want to post on the internet, get a degree in computer science.
dac1842 wrote:Some posters have stated that a CHL holder should have the same rights as an off duty LEO... really? If you want the same privileges as a LEO, go to an academy.
If people want to post on the internet, get a degree in computer science.
dac1842 wrote:Some posters have stated that a CHL holder should have the same rights as an off duty LEO... really? If you want the same privileges as a LEO, go to an academy.
If people want to post on the internet, get a degree in computer science.
I forgot work for the government because just graduating at the top of your class at the academy is not enough for special treatment during your time off.
Plus no praying in public unless you're ordained. And work for the government in that capacity.
dac1842 wrote:I thought I had posted this in response to this poll, but I don't see it, so if this is a duplicate post I apologize.
1- The private property owner has the right to control that property under his/her care, custody and control. Their rights do supersede the privilege enjoyed by a CHL holder. Personally If I owned a retail establishment, restaurant or other place like that, I would not prohibit concealed carry.
2- Some posters have stated that a CHL holder should have the same rights as an off duty LEO... really? If you want the same privileges as a LEO, go to an academy.
there is no comparison to what a LEO goes through to get the unrestricted privilege and class/range time a CHL goes through.
Now having said that, I don't think anyone, LEO or otherwise should carry in a bar, or while intoxicated.
LEO is a job and the perceived special privileges with respect to second amendment rights that they should enjoy simply because they go to school is counter to what this country was founded on. If your assertion were true, there are many individuals who are trained to a higher degree than most LEOs, so they should have privileges that far exceed LEO. I find your insistence insulting to the vast majority of firearms enthusiasts and those on this forum.
Anygunanywhere
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh
"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
dac1842 wrote:
Some posters have stated that a CHL holder should have the same rights as an off duty LEO... really? If you want the same privileges as a LEO, go to an academy.
there is no comparison to what a LEO goes through to get the unrestricted privilege and class/range time a CHL goes through.
anygunanywhere wrote:LEO is a job and the perceived special privileges with respect to second amendment rights that they should enjoy simply because they go to school is counter to what this country was founded on. If your assertion were true, there are many individuals who are trained to a higher degree than most LEOs, so they should have privileges that far exceed LEO. I find your insistence insulting to the vast majority of firearms enthusiasts and those on this forum.
I can see only one reason to give off duty LEOs any legal permission to carry that any other citizen is denied. This applies to the State of Texas only because it is Texas law.
Currently, if you are not an LEO, you have no legal responsibility to do anything at all when you see most crimes (there are a few where you are required to call police but not any that require you to take immediate action to stop the crime. If you are an off-duty LEO in your own jurisdiction, by law you are required to take action for any crime you see. This is in Article 2.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedures. Since I could not expect the officer to take action against some crimes when he is unarmed, I can see allowing him to carry.
On the flip side, I do think that the law for citizens carrying needs to be improved. I support 30.06 laws and enforcing action against improper government postings. I support "constitutional" carry (no license required) but I am not sure if 30.06 could work then. I guess we could specify a sign for everyone who carries.
And I do not want anyone carrying while intoxicated as I see it as a recipe for trouble. It is not the location (like inside a bar) but the person's condition. I cannot reconcile that with the requirement for LEOs since the law does not exempt intoxicated officers.
Sometimes the price of passing good legislation requires compromises. Company policies are not laws. They are a contract between the company and the employee.