TexasCHLforum.com

android wrote:I have in the past used my "purple underwear law" as an example. If you're wearing purple underwear and nobody can see it except you, it would be ridiculous to pass a law saying that you are committing criminal trespass on a merchant's property because you walked in wearing purple underwear under you pants and tucked in shirt and not visible to any customer or employee.

But the "but mah property rights" crowd think that's a perfectly acceptable position when purple underwear becomes a concealed handgun.

Sorry, what's under my clothes is not you business even if I walk into your store to buy a new hat.

Property owners should have the same right to prohibit firearms, animals, yoga pants, and mobile phones.

Property owners should have the same right to prohibit LTC with handguns, service animals, piercings, tattoos, and bibles.

Property owners should have the same right to prohibit legal concealed handguns, concealed body art, concealed birth control, and concealed purple underwear.

No more. No less.

android wrote:I have in the past used my "purple underwear law" as an example. If you're wearing purple underwear and nobody can see it except you, it would be ridiculous to pass a law saying that you are committing criminal trespass on a merchant's property because you walked in wearing purple underwear under you pants and tucked in shirt and not visible to any customer or employee.

But the "but mah property rights" crowd think that's a perfectly acceptable position when purple underwear becomes a concealed handgun.

Your welcome to your personal opinion and to do as you please on your owned property
Thankfully, the majority disagrees with you and we have the laws and rights we do as property owners

You and your purple underwear pose no threat or liability to me or my customers, my dogs or children, so yes, I agree it shouldn't matter.
Your concealed handgun is much different, and I, not you get to say when and how you may bring it on my personal property. I choose to not be concerned about you bringing a concealed handgun on my personal property in of itself... Coupled with other actions, attitude, events I may change that positon on a case by case basis. I find it difficult to believe most property owners would not want the same legal options.

E.Marquez wrote:

android wrote:I have in the past used my "purple underwear law" as an example. If you're wearing purple underwear and nobody can see it except you, it would be ridiculous to pass a law saying that you are committing criminal trespass on a merchant's property because you walked in wearing purple underwear under you pants and tucked in shirt and not visible to any customer or employee.

But the "but mah property rights" crowd think that's a perfectly acceptable position when purple underwear becomes a concealed handgun.

Your welcome to your personal opinion and to do as you please on your owned property
Thankfully, the majority disagrees with you and we have the laws and rights we do as property owners

You and your purple underwear pose no threat or liability to me or my customers, my dogs or children, so yes, I agree it shouldn't matter.
Your concealed handgun is much different, and I, not you get to say when and how you may bring it on my personal property. I choose to not be concerned about you bringing a concealed handgun on my personal property in of itself... Coupled with other actions, attitude, events I may change that positon on a case by case basis. I find it difficult to believe most property owners would not want the same legal options.

And you should have the same civil remedies for handguns that you have for purple boxers and Republicans. In other words...detect them, determine that you do not wish their presence, and tell them to leave, after which criminal trespass can be invoked.

If concealed handguns represent a liability to your business operations, then what do you do to ensure that people don't carry them into your business. Putting up a sign for law abiding LTC's to obey doesn't seem like it would relieve you of liability if someone violated it. And cops and volunteer firemen could ignore it at will. So much for your property owners' rights.

ScottDLS wrote: If concealed handguns represent a liability to your business operations, then what do you do to ensure that people don't carry them into your business. Putting up a sign for law abiding LTC's to obey doesn't seem like it would relieve you of liability if someone violated it. And cops and volunteer firemen could ignore it at will. So much for your property owners' rights.

Perhaps you missed the part where I stated " I choose to not be concerned about you bringing a concealed handgun on my personal property in of itself... Coupled with other actions, attitude, events I may change that positon on a case by case basis."

E.Marquez wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: If concealed handguns represent a liability to your business operations, then what do you do to ensure that people don't carry them into your business. Putting up a sign for law abiding LTC's to obey doesn't seem like it would relieve you of liability if someone violated it. And cops and volunteer firemen could ignore it at will. So much for your property owners' rights.

Perhaps you missed the part where I stated " I choose to not be concerned about you bringing a concealed handgun on my personal property in of itself... Coupled with other actions, attitude, events I may change that positon on a case by case basis."

Yes I did see that, I was more proposing the hypothetical to make the point about how the law seems to be inconsistent.

Someone bring me up to speed: Why would I attend a 30.06 posted church even though I'd love to hear Col. North speak?

I'm one who avoids 30.06 posted places unless forced as in having to be treated in a posted hospital, otherwise, I'll take my business elsewhere.

Soft target areas aren't where I'm going if I don't have to.

Yes, I appreciate (I think) he may be doing his best to change their minds about their signage, but if I'm in the audience I have to be disarmed while I listen (though he preaching to the choir with me) and that's not going to happen.

Or, am I way off base?

Thanks!

Abraham wrote:Someone bring me up to speed: Why would I attend a 30.06 posted church even though I'd love to hear Col. North speak?

You wouldn't.

HTH

bigtek,

I'm not at all certain I understand your response?

Would you?

Or, are you agreeing with me.

Thanks!

bigtek wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Visitors have the right to not visit where or when a property owner's restrictions offend them.

I understand that there are places in this world with that sentiment - with or without any signs or effective date?

Oldgringo wrote:

bigtek wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Visitors have the right to not visit where or when a property owner's restrictions offend them.

I understand that there are places in this world with that sentiment - with or without any signs or effective date?

I understand that you have the option to convert if you want to visit those places in this world same as people have the option to disarm if they want to visit places posted 30.06?

Abraham wrote:Someone bring me up to speed: Why would I attend a 30.06 posted church even though I'd love to hear Col. North speak?

I'm one who avoids 30.06 posted places unless forced as in having to be treated in a posted hospital, otherwise, I'll take my business elsewhere.

Soft target areas aren't where I'm going if I don't have to.

Yes, I appreciate (I think) he may be doing his best to change their minds about their signage, but if I'm in the audience I have to be disarmed while I listen (though he preaching to the choir with me) and that's not going to happen.

Or, am I way off base?

Thanks!

It's your choice. People had the same choice to make about seeing VP Pence speak in Dallas recently.

When I was a kid, stores routinely posted a sign that said,

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

In the early 60s, for civil rights reasons, those signs came down, and the understanding was that, if you were open to the public, you had to serve everyone, or go out of business.

I feel the same way about guns. Serve everyone, or go out of business. Everyone may include people legally carrying a gun.

skeathley wrote:When I was a kid, stores routinely posted a sign that said,

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

In the early 60s, for civil rights reasons, those signs came down, and the understanding was that, if you were open to the public, you had to serve everyone, or go out of business.

I feel the same way about guns. Serve everyone, or go out of business. Everyone may include people legally carrying a gun.

Agreed.... "Everyone" SHOULD include people legally carrying a gun, because it ALREADY includes people IILEGALLY carrying a gun!!

Oliver North spoke on Fox News today with Chris Wallace. Not a very good spokesman for the NRA in my opinion. Just my opinion though.

Right now property owners can restrict access to anyone and everyone. That is the ultimate "property right" when it comes to trespass. No one on this board is proposing to change that.

Property owners can also grant "conditional permission" to enter their property, as long as they word the sign correctly (or in the case of some people with handguns, conform to the wording per the 30.06 statute). Such "conditional entry" can exclude anyone for a variety of reasons, whether they actually represent a threat to the property owner / other people, like someone who is a violent anti-Trump Antifa terrorist, or stupid things like whether that person has any pennies in their pocket, is carrying a concealed gun, or is wearing magenta colored boxer briefs.

The only debate I ever see on this forum is whether we all should pay to enforce the wishes of the uber-control freaks who not only want to ban harmless, things like a gun they can't even see, but also want me to pay for the police enforcement of their wishes because they are too scared to just ask someone to leave. This debate goes beyond "property rights" because we are talking about the use of a shared resource that we collectively pay for.

Fortunately, most of these irrational property owners only fear handguns, that are not carried by criminals, cops, or people who volunteer their time for the public good in emergency situations. All other guns don't scare them. Well either that, or they are just ignorant in addition to being irrational.