TexasCHLforum.com

I think a 30.06 sign is as unwelcoming as a 30.07 sign. They both express an anti-LTC bias. Whether that's the business owner's bias, or their attempt to appease the anti-2A mob, I don't know. I don't care to know either, because I'll spend my money somewhere more tolerant.

ninjabread wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

apostate wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I really hope we all agree just because something is legal it doesn't make it right or moral.

I really hope we all agree just because something is illegal it doesn't make it wrong or immoral.

I do not agree. If it's illegal and shouldn't be, there are proper ways to address it and wrong ways to do so.

Sure, but your second sentence has nothing to do with his statement. If you disagree that "just because something is illegal it doesn't make it wrong or immoral" then argue that point.

Instead you throw out red herrings about "proper ways to address it " and mock outrage that he answered Abraham with an obvious example. Why do I get the impression if he answered with a less black and white example you would have happily argued the morality of that law breaking, further dragging the discussion off topic? I think your outrage is not that a holocaust example is inappropriate, but that you can't argue against the holocaust example.

You're like the SJW who screams"RACISM!" when they realize they're losing an argument,

So much incorrect in this post I do not know where to start. All I was saying was just because some is legal it doesn't make it right. Carrying a long gun into a place with 30.06 or 37.07 signs may be legal but it isn't right.

You would have to understand his reference to Miep Gies to understand my second sentence. He is the one that three out the red herring, not me. Go look Miep Gies and then come back and tell me this issue is equivalent.

If offended, go find yourself a safe place and color a pretty picture.

It sounds like somebody would benefit from following their own advice.

Alright folks, keep this civil and no personal attacks, or the topic will be locked.

apostate wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I really hope we all agree just because something is legal it doesn't make it right or moral.

I really hope we all agree just because something is illegal it doesn't make it wrong or immoral.

I agree with both of these statements, as should anyone who thinks about it for a minute.

There are many things which are perfectly legal currently which are condemned by Christianity, for instance. There have been many things which were legal in the past which were morally reprehensible regardless of your religious beliefs. Slavery comes to mind, although there are certainly less extreme examples.

There are also many things which are and have been illegal which are not wrong or immoral. Many would argue that the recreational use of certain controlled substances falls under this heading. I would argue the ownership of modern assault rifles falls under this heading. Of course there's also the extremely restrictive firearm laws of other, less wonderful states than Texas. Is there really anything immoral about a Californian owning a rifle with a bullet button? Is it immoral for me to have blue underglow lights on my motorcycle? As Scott would probably point out, I don't think it's wrong or immoral to water your lawn on the wrong day.

Our system of laws was originally based on moral principles and values, but over the years many immoral things have been made legal, and many moral things have been made illegal. Some of these cases are necessary; some are not. Certainly we should work through the means at our disposal to change those laws we feel need changing, but that doesn't change the fact that legal does not always equal moral, nor does illegal always equal immoral. And there are always going to be situations where we just can't make legality and morality line up. Freedom of speech comes to mind. There will always be things which are immoral to say which are protected speech.

::Gets off soapbox::

LucasMcCain,

Well said.

LucasMcCain wrote:

apostate wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I really hope we all agree just because something is legal it doesn't make it right or moral.

I really hope we all agree just because something is illegal it doesn't make it wrong or immoral.

I agree with both of these statements, as should anyone who thinks about it for a minute.

There are many things which are perfectly legal currently which are condemned by Christianity, for instance. There have been many things which were legal in the past which were morally reprehensible regardless of your religious beliefs. Slavery comes to mind, although there are certainly less extreme examples.

There are also many things which are and have been illegal which are not wrong or immoral. Many would argue that the recreational use of certain controlled substances falls under this heading. I would argue the ownership of modern assault rifles falls under this heading. Of course there's also the extremely restrictive firearm laws of other, less wonderful states than Texas. Is there really anything immoral about a Californian owning a rifle with a bullet button? Is it immoral for me to have blue underglow lights on my motorcycle? As Scott would probably point out, I don't think it's wrong or immoral to water your lawn on the wrong day.

Our system of laws was originally based on moral principles and values, but over the years many immoral things have been made legal, and many moral things have been made illegal. Some of these cases are necessary; some are not. Certainly we should work through the means at our disposal to change those laws we feel need changing, but that doesn't change the fact that legal does not always equal moral, nor does illegal always equal immoral. And there are always going to be situations where we just can't make legality and morality line up. Freedom of speech comes to mind. There will always be things which are immoral to say which are protected speech.

::Gets off soapbox::

I agree. The knife cuts both ways. That was my point.

Abraham wrote:LucasMcCain,

Well said.

A lot of people say, in this forum and others, if a business posts a 30.07 sign only, they will cover up and proceed as normal. There is no reason to hurl insults if somebody chooses to do the reverse. That is, if a business posts a 30.06 sign only, uncover and proceed as normal.

It's lightyears more courteous than people who ignore a 30.06 sign because of a typo or outdated language.

I will never hurl insults, but as I posted earlier, if they have posted a 30.06 sign, there are two thoughts that come to mind. Either they want no guns at all, even carried by LTC holders, or they don't fully understand the requirements for prohibiting both CC and OC.
My stance is I will assume that they want make their business a gun free zone, and I will honor their wishes and not bring my gun, or my family into their criminal friendly business.
Trying to push the issue by OC, will not help change their mind, in my opinion, and would probably have the opposite effect. They may not say a word to me, but instead call the police, which will put me in a bad light, where I have to explain, that I was only following the letter of the law. Which would then give a bad impression to any other members of the general public, who would then view me as a rabble rouser at best, and a total feminine hygiene product container who is trying to terrorize the general populace based on on a technicality. JMHO

LucasMcCain wrote:

apostate wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I really hope we all agree just because something is legal it doesn't make it right or moral.

I really hope we all agree just because something is illegal it doesn't make it wrong or immoral.

I agree with both of these statements, as should anyone who thinks about it for a minute.

There are many things which are perfectly legal currently which are condemned by Christianity, for instance. There have been many things which were legal in the past which were morally reprehensible regardless of your religious beliefs. Slavery comes to mind, although there are certainly less extreme examples.

There are also many things which are and have been illegal which are not wrong or immoral. Many would argue that the recreational use of certain controlled substances falls under this heading. I would argue the ownership of modern assault rifles falls under this heading. Of course there's also the extremely restrictive firearm laws of other, less wonderful states than Texas. Is there really anything immoral about a Californian owning a rifle with a bullet button? Is it immoral for me to have blue underglow lights on my motorcycle? As Scott would probably point out, I don't think it's wrong or immoral to water your lawn on the wrong day.

Our system of laws was originally based on moral principles and values, but over the years many immoral things have been made legal, and many moral things have been made illegal. Some of these cases are necessary; some are not. Certainly we should work through the means at our disposal to change those laws we feel need changing, but that doesn't change the fact that legal does not always equal moral, nor does illegal always equal immoral. And there are always going to be situations where we just can't make legality and morality line up. Freedom of speech comes to mind. There will always be things which are immoral to say which are protected speech.

::Gets off soapbox::

Whose morality?

tbrown wrote:A lot of people say, in this forum and others, if a business posts a 30.07 sign only, they will cover up and proceed as normal. There is no reason to hurl insults if somebody chooses to do the reverse. That is, if a business posts a 30.06 sign only, uncover and proceed as normal.

It's lightyears more courteous than people who ignore a 30.06 sign because of a typo or outdated language.

My last word, and then I think I'm done with this thread, because the argument has become futile. I'm not trying to hurl insults, but I am stating what seems very obvious to me, and frankly, I think the opposing arguments are pretty self-serving.

It's not at all the same thing as covering up and entering a 30.07 posted business. It just isn't. The reason it isn't extends back to before the passage of open carry, and the creation of the 30.07 exception. If someone can't understand that, then I can't help them. If they DO understand that, and still insist their argument is correct, then they are being deliberately obtuse.

Prior to passage of open carry, only ONE sign was necessary to prevent licensed carry inside a business establishment. Consider that when 30.06 was added to the law, not all businesses immediately posted 30.06 signs. Some took their time about it, but eventually did post the signs. That does NOT mean that they welcomed guns before posting the signs. It just doesn't. What it DOES mean is that they were either ignorant that they could post a sign to prevent CC in their business, OR, they weren't ignorant, but they were lazy about putting the signs up. Eventually, they did, and LAWFUL carry was banned from those businesses.

Now that open carry has passed, we are faced with some of the same dynamics. There are businesses that were never previously posted that panicked and have put up both signs. There are other businesses that had the 30.06 signs up prior to passage of open carry, but still haven't gotten around to putting up 30.07 signs....for whatever reason. In THOSE cases, where they already HAD 30.06 signs posted when that was all that was required to keep out licensed carriers, but haven't yet posted 30.07 signs, it defies all logic to believe that they are welcoming of open carry. It defies all logic to expect that if you open carry into their establishment, they won't tell you to get the heck out........or worse yet, call 911.

They posted 30.06 because they have an antipathy to the licensed carry of firearms in their business. Period. It defies logic to assume that they'll welcome open carry. Period. If you open carry into a 30.06 posted establishment, you're not breaking the law, but you are poking the bear. AND, you are almost guaranteeing that they'll post a 30.07 sign by the next day.

I am NOT saying that I agree with those businesses. I don't. I open carry fairly regularly, including into businesses that are not posted.

I am not trying to deliberately insult anyone, but my analysis has no holes in it. It simply doesn't. If someone can't see that and continues to argue that open carry will be accepted in a 30.06 posted business, and that they won't be told to leave, then they are embarrassing themselves.

OK. I'm done. You all have a good day. Please do open carry into a 30.06 posted business, and post your experiences here. I would dearly love to read about them. I promise I won't say "I told you so."

OlBill wrote:Whose morality?

Well, you'd have to be a little more specific in order for me to give a proper answer specific to the point that you take exception to. I think I stated my opinion pretty clearly, though. I understand that there are different views of morality. My personal views come from an evangelical Christian view of morality. However, most major crimes are condemned by all major belief systems, as well as those without one. Many lesser crimes, though, are not specifically condemned by any one belief system, but are still illegal. I don't know of any belief system that believes that jaywalking is a sin, but it is still illegal in many places. By the same token, many acts are legal, despite being condemned by many belief systems. I'm really not trying to start a debate on the morality of any specific practices, as I believe that is outside the focus of these forums, and this subforum specifically. Still, if you are more specific in your question, I'll try to give you a more specific answer.

OlBill wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:There will always be things which are immoral to say which are protected speech.

::Gets off soapbox::

Whose morality?

That's a great point. People used to be punished for heresy or blasphemy. In some places, they still are.

tbrown wrote:

OlBill wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:There will always be things which are immoral to say which are protected speech.

::Gets off soapbox::

Whose morality?

That's a great point. People used to be punished for heresy or blasphemy. In some places, they still are.

But that's my exact point. It was legal for people to be punished for these things, despite the fact that doing so was immoral by certain standards, though moral by others. Let's look at it a little differently: legality changes over time, while morality does (should) not. For example, slavery was always immoral, but it was not always illegal. I'm not saying legality and morality never line up, or that they always line up, just that they don't always line up, regardless of your belief system.