TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote: Your possession of the asthma inhaler, critical to your health, does not interfere with anyone else's rights, but you have to get permission from the government to possess it. Our society seems to be okay with these restrictions.

I don't see how that bolsters the point you seem to have been making, or how it has anything to do with this discussion.

One can legally possess four items (which I pointed out), possession of which do not interfere with any other person's rights: a Bible, eyeglasses, an inhaler, and a pistol. Only one of these items can an employer ban you from possessing on their property without retribution.

Let's level the playing field.

mr.72 wrote:

WildBill wrote: Your possession of the asthma inhaler, critical to your health, does not interfere with anyone else's rights, but you have to get permission from the government to possess it. Our society seems to be okay with these restrictions.

I don't see how that bolsters the point you seem to have been making, or how it has anything to do with this discussion.

One can legally possess four items (which I pointed out), possession of which do not interfere with any other person's rights: a Bible, eyeglasses, an inhaler, and a pistol. Only one of these items can an employer ban you from possessing on their property without retribution.

Let's level the playing field.

I was responding to one line that you posted. My point is that there law restricting our possession of certain items that do no harm to others and people accept these laws.

WildBill wrote:I was responding to one line that you posted. My point is that there law restricting our possession of certain items that do no harm to others and people accept these laws.

You mean, like guns.

IMO, this has nothing to do with property rights or privacy rights at all. Employer's/Private property owners just don't want the liability of one of their employees going on a shooting spree. If an employee does go on a shooting spree then the company can claim that person signed such and such and knew it was forbidden to bring a firearm yadda yadda yadda that way they can't be sued for failing to provide a "safe" work environment. Now an outsider doing the shooting is a different story, IMO, if an outsider does go on a shooting spree then the company CAN be sued for failing to provide a "safe" work environment. IMO, the only way to protect businesses is to shield them from civil liability from people/employee's who go on a shooting spree. I believe Ohio has such a law regarding that. Found it!

2923.126 Duties of Licensed individual
(2)(a) A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer’s decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, “private employer” includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

Why doesn't TX have something like this? Or do we? IMO, that would solve a problem of businesses posting those stupid 30.06 signs.

Furyataurus wrote:IMO, this has nothing to do with property rights or privacy rights at all. Employer's/Private property owners just don't want the liability of one of their employees going on a shooting spree.

Since when have gun ban policies that prevent individuals from defending themselves ever prevented any individual from going on a shooting spree?

Anygunanywhere

huh? I have no idea what your train of thought is. Did you read the rest of my post? I want CHL holders to be able to arm themselves regardless of what their employers say or have them sign or businesses that have a "no guns" sign that prevent CHL holders from conducting business just because they have a firearm.

mr.72 wrote:

WildBill wrote:I was responding to one line that you posted. My point is that there law restricting our possession of certain items that do no harm to others and people accept these laws.

You mean, like guns.

My point is that, in addition to guns, we restrict many other things that do no harm to others.

It's completely ridiculous to think that a CHL holder is likely to go on a shooting spree at his place of business.

It is way beyond ridiculous to think that a CHL holder who has decided to go on such a shooting spree, but will be convinced not to do so because of the employer's no-guns policy and their risk of being fired for possession of a firearm while at work.

This notion is patently absurd. Quite simply the law needs to be changed. We need legal protection so that no employer can prohibit any employee from the legal possession of any item or object which remains concealed and undetected, does not impede the employee's normal work, and does not impact any other person's free exercise of their own rights. I don't care if it is guns in cars, your inhaler or glasses, Bible, a lucky rabbit's foot you like to carry on your key chain, a picture of your grandpa, your lunch, a pocket copy of the Constitution, whatever inanimate thing that you can have on your person or in some other container that belongs to you, which remains concealed and does not do any harm to any other person.

No special law for guns, or pocket knives, pepper spray, or anything else. Across the board, if it's legal to own and carry on a public sidewalk, it is legal to own and carry at work.

Period!

Furyataurus wrote:Why doesn't TX have something like this? Or do we? IMO, that would solve a problem of businesses posting those stupid 30.06 signs.

I think that this law would certainly, but some companies would still post those stupid 30.06 signs. Many laws and company policies are not implemented with facts or logic in mind.

Furyataurus wrote: huh? I have no idea what your train of thought is. Did you read the rest of my post? I want CHL holders to be able to arm themselves regardless of what their employers say or have them sign or businesses that have a "no guns" sign that prevent CHL holders from conducting business just because they have a firearm.

I too want CHLers to be able to arm themselves.

Your post stated:

Employer's/Private property owners just don't want the liability of one of their employees going on a shooting spree.

I was not disagreeing with you. The fallacy of banning firearms from the workplace only creates victim zones.

Anygunanywhere

mr.72 wrote:It's completely ridiculous to think that a CHL holder is likely to go on a shooting spree at his place of business.

It is way beyond ridiculous to think that a CHL holder who has decided to go on such a shooting spree, but will be convinced not to do so because of the employer's no-guns policy and their risk of being fired for possession of a firearm while at work.

This notion is patently absurd. Quite simply the law needs to be changed. We need legal protection so that no employer can prohibit any employee from the legal possession of any item or object which remains concealed and undetected, does not impede the employee's normal work, and does not impact any other person's free exercise of their own rights. I don't care if it is guns in cars, your inhaler or glasses, Bible, a lucky rabbit's foot you like to carry on your key chain, a picture of your grandpa, your lunch, a pocket copy of the Constitution, whatever inanimate thing that you can have on your person or in some other container that belongs to you, which remains concealed and does not do any harm to any other person.

No special law for guns, or pocket knives, pepper spray, or anything else. Across the board, if it's legal to own and carry on a public sidewalk, it is legal to own and carry at work.

Period!

Excellent.

Anygunanywhere

Someone please let me know how to get a Texas lawmaker to propose such a law.

If memory serves me right there was an effort to get a bill through the legislature last session…and of course it didn’t happen.

I believe there’s something more at play here than just anti-gun versus pro-gun, although anti-gun is an issue.

Many employers who really don’t have a stance either way on firearms in the parking lot will lobby against this legislation simply for principle…basically they will fight against anything that smacks of the state deciding what goes on in their business and on their property.

Much the same as us pro-gunners will vote against anything that appears to be antigun even if it doesn’t directly impact us individually.

Now I’m all for citizens being able to store weapons in their vehicle while at work, whether they have a CHL or not…heck, I’m for carry anywhere and don’t think I should have to have a CHL or any other permission from my employer or government…but it is what it is.

I just bring the point up since I think it adds another angle to the whole issue…it’s not just guns vs no-guns…businesses see it as an infringement of their rights and will fight the bill no matter how its wrapped.

That doesn’t mean don’t go after it, just be prepared for the business lobbies to put on a full court press.

TX Rancher wrote:Many employers who really don’t have a stance either way on firearms in the parking lot will lobby against this legislation simply for principle…basically they will fight against anything that smacks of the state deciding what goes on in their business and on their property.

Now I’m all for citizens being able to store weapons in their vehicle while at work, whether they have a CHL or not…heck, I’m for carry anywhere and don’t think I should have to have a CHL or any other permission from my employer or government … but it is what it is.

I just bring the point up since I think it adds another angle to the whole issue…it’s not just guns vs no-guns…businesses see it as an infringement of their rights and will fight the bill no matter how its wrapped.

That doesn’t mean don’t go after it, just be prepared for the business lobbies to put on a full court press.

Well said, TX Rancher.

Confession: I didn't read through the whole thread swo maybe this was stated erlier.

I don't see a solid reason why this can't be as simple as what is set up for say, schools, courthouses and the like.
You can carry UP TO the front door. Parking lots and sidewalks are public. Where does the private begin? At the

door. Thats where the 30.06 begins.

Whats so hard about that?

I know...what seems simple usaully isn't. I guess there are some that are more equal than others. Well, and lawyers.