TexasCHLforum.com

fickman wrote:

Keith B wrote:However, anyone who willfully would break the law and carry past a legal sign just for the reason they don't feel like they have to obey it should be arrested and lose their CHL.

Absolutely.

In my perfect world, we'd eventually get rid of this whole 30.06 nonsense, but I know I'm in the minority on that idea. Still, I can dream. It looks like I'm unlikely to ever have enough money for my opinion on that to matter. hahahaha

I agree, but it would be easier to make the punishment for violating 30.06 a class C misdemeanor. That would be doable and wouldn't cause loss of license if you did get charged over a improper sign.

fickman wrote:

Keith B wrote:However, anyone who willfully would break the law and carry past a legal sign just for the reason they don't feel like they have to obey it should be arrested and lose their CHL.

Absolutely.

In my perfect world, we'd eventually get rid of this whole 30.06 nonsense, but I know I'm in the minority on that idea. Still, I can dream. It looks like I'm unlikely to ever have enough money for my opinion on that to matter. hahahaha

My view is a private property owner should have the right to ban weapons (even though they are wrong ). That's what private property rights are about. I do believe we need to reduce other restrictions on government or public properties, but if a privately held business or residence owner says they don't want you doing something on their property they should have a legal means to prevent it.

When they said a "mall" was going to built in Garland, I was happy about that. Then I learned it was going to be an "outdoor" mall, meaning you had to walk outside to go into each store separately. I hated the idea of that, especially in Texas. Now after hearing about this Grapevine Mills conversation, I'm glad they decided to make Firewheel Mall the way they did. By the way, I have yet to see any 30.06 signs anywhere at any stores and the "mall" itself is owned and operated by Simon Properties. Of course I personally haven't been to each and every store, resteraunt, theater, etc. out there either, so don't hold me to it.

Keith B wrote:My view is a private property owner should have the right to ban weapons (even though they are wrong ). That's what private property rights are about. I do believe we need to reduce other restrictions on government or public properties, but if a privately held business or residence owner says they don't want you doing something on their property they should have a legal means to prevent it.

When it comes to civil rights (and regardless of what the politicians & liberals think, RKBA is a civil right), no they don't. They can't ban blacks, Asians, Jews, or Muslims. Why should they be allowed to ban those who choose to keep and bear arms? IMHO, if a business is open to the public, then they need to deal with the fact that some of their patrons choose to go about their daily business armed.

Keith B wrote:My view is a private property owner should have the right to ban weapons (even though they are wrong ). That's what private property rights are about. I do believe we need to reduce other restrictions on government or public properties, but if a privately held business or residence owner says they don't want you doing something on their property they should have a legal means to prevent it.

Even what color of boxer-briefs I have on?

(It's my go-to analogy. They're concealed. The business can have a policy about it, but they have no way to detect it, so the government shouldn't help them enforce it. Now, if I'm sagging my pants so low (failure to conceal) that they determine I'm wearing an offensive color, they can ask me to leave. That's their right in my opinion, and I'm trespassing if I refuse, which is something the government would help them enforce.)



So, I think in an ideal world, something like 30.06 would regulate open carry and there would be no statutory way to prevent concealed carry.

I'm just naive enough to think I'll slowly start to convert people. I'll keep trying anyway. This is currently the most compelling reasoning I have. . . at least it's logically sound.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe there is another way to approach it. I thought of this right before I hit "Submit" on everything above. I'm not trying to be tedious, but all points to me are driven by a philosophical approach. It's how I think. If you're starting to get tired-head, please send a sympathy card to my wife.


-------------The Free Speech Analogy:--------------
We have free speech, but a private business definitely has the right to make us leave if they don't like what we say. At the same time, there is no enforceable law they can post that preemptively makes it illegal for me to enter and speak. They have to determine they don't like my message ask me to leave, a process which is already covered under the trespass laws. Even if they have a "no talking" sign out front, the police wouldn't arrest me for speaking unless I spoke, was asked to leave, and refused.

So, let's assume this business asks everybody who has a conservative opinion and expresses it to leave. If I have a copy of the Limbaugh Letter folded up in my pocket, they won't ask me to leave unless they determine it's in there. I have concealed free speech, which isn't in their purview unless they detect it. Once I reach for something on the top shelf and reveal the "offensive" literature, they can ask me to leave and I must oblige.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, even if you still disagree, thanks for being polite and patient. I completely understand where your perspective comes from. Property rights are akin to personal rights, and I don't take them lightly. I guess I'm trying to define a new category to accommodate both priorities.

RottenApple wrote:

Keith B wrote:My view is a private property owner should have the right to ban weapons (even though they are wrong ). That's what private property rights are about. I do believe we need to reduce other restrictions on government or public properties, but if a privately held business or residence owner says they don't want you doing something on their property they should have a legal means to prevent it.

When it comes to civil rights (and regardless of what the politicians & liberals think, RKBA is a civil right), no they don't. They can't ban blacks, Asians, Jews, or Muslims. Why should they be allowed to ban those who choose to keep and bear arms? IMHO, if a business is open to the public, then they need to deal with the fact that some of their patrons choose to go about their daily business armed.

You're talking a protected class of people. CHL's are not a protected class. I have mixed feelings on this when it comes to publicly accessable venues. I should have clarified my wording above on 'public property'. I would like to see these places that open their doors to the public prohibited from banning a CHL holder. But, private businesses that are not open to public or land/homes should be able to do such. However, as of today the law allows a open business to ban carry of firearms, that's the law and it should be followed until such time as it is legally changed, like it or not.

Keith B wrote:You're talking a protected class of people. CHL's are not a protected class. I have mixed feelings on this when it comes to publicly accessable venues. I should have clarified my wording above on 'public property'. I would like to see these places that open their doors to the public prohibited from banning a CHL holder. But, private businesses or land/homes should be able to do such. However, as of today the law allows a open business to ban carry of firearms, that's the law and it should be followed until such time as it is legally changed, like it or not.

I agree with this statement. I'm advocating a change in the law. For now, your analysis is spot on.

Keith B wrote:

fickman wrote:

Keith B wrote:However, anyone who willfully would break the law and carry past a legal sign just for the reason they don't feel like they have to obey it should be arrested and lose their CHL.

Absolutely.

In my perfect world, we'd eventually get rid of this whole 30.06 nonsense, but I know I'm in the minority on that idea. Still, I can dream. It looks like I'm unlikely to ever have enough money for my opinion on that to matter. hahahaha

My view is a private property owner should have the right to ban weapons (even though they are wrong ). That's what private property rights are about. I do believe we need to reduce other restrictions on government or public properties, but if a privately held business or residence owner says they don't want you doing something on their property they should have a legal means to prevent it.

These are some excellent points. When I hear the term "Mall", I always wonder how much public (taxpayer) money is actually involved. I agree that a real private propery owner should control what happens on their property. However, I believe that once you accept tax incentives, government backed loans, grants from the state, county, or city, etc. and open a business to the public it is no longer private property.

Keith B wrote: I don't disagree if a locaiton is not validly posted. I have passed non-valid 30.06 signs while armed. However, anyone who willfully would break the law and carry past a legal sign just for the reason they don't feel like they have to obey it should be arrested and lose their CHL.

Im not going to walk passed a valid sign, Ill enter through a store as I always do where there is no sign.

nightmare69 wrote: Im not going to walk passed a valid sign, Ill enter through a store as I always do where there is no sign.

If you know the mall is posted, then going through a store that is not posted is still not legal once you go into the mall. They do NOT have to post every entrance.

Keith B wrote:I should have clarified my wording above on 'public property'. I would like to see these places that open their doors to the public prohibited from banning a CHL holder. But, private businesses that are not open to public or land/homes should be able to do such. However, as of today the law allows a open business to ban carry of firearms, that's the law and it should be followed until such time as it is legally changed, like it or not.

Just to make sure I understand, Walmart, Target, North Park Mall, etc ae all "places that open their doors to the public", so in your view, they should be prohibited from banning a CHL holder. But a private home or business (say my own woodworking shop) that doesn't allow "the public" to come in except those customers who have been informed that their orders a ready for pickup, can.

Do I understand you correctly?

Oh, and I agree that we should obey the law as it exists today. But that doesn't mean we can't work to change it!

Another interesting thread... More splitting hairs and getting shorts in a wad over a non-issue. That said...

I only carry where it is accepted, sign or no sign, any type of sign or wording. Any place I'm "non-wanted" I stay away from; this includes "no-smoking" places (yes, I have smoked for 60 plus years).

I don't HAVE to go to or patronize ANY business or place that doesn't accept my pro-gun position or 2nd Amendment rigthts.

I am too old to get detained, arrested, take the ride, or fight for "rights" (aka to enter a anti-gun place and take a chance on being "found out").

If my smoking, or gun bothers or offends you...then just stay away from me and I'll stay away from you and yours!



Just my pro-gun, conservative, patriotic opinion.

Keith B wrote:
If you know the mall is posted, then going through a store that is not posted is still not legal once you go into the mall. They do NOT have to post every entrance.

I know, we discussed this for 30mins in my CHL class, my instructor said he carries everytime he goes there. It comes down to personal choice, if you choose to carry you risk being arrested and charged. Is the juice worth the squeeze basically.

nightmare69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:
If you know the mall is posted, then going through a store that is not posted is still not legal once you go into the mall. They do NOT have to post every entrance.

I know, we discussed this for 30mins in my CHL class, my instructor said he carries everytime he goes there. It comes down to personal choice, if you choose to carry you risk being arrested and charged. Is the juice worth the squeeze basically.

Then your instructor should be arrested and lose his CHL. And he should not be advising students to break the law either.

if you disagree with the malls policy don't shop there but the very fact that some want to test it by going in a door that doesn't have a sign tells me you already have effective notice that you should not carry. Not being a lawyer I can't tell you what would happen if you get arrested but as a former LEO I can tell you there's a very good chance you will take a ride. Keep in mind when you talk about being a test case & go in some door that's not posted is silly we're better than that believe it are not most police I know think y'all are better than that. Just my 2 cents