TexasCHLforum.com

steveincowtown wrote:I have a novel idea. How about property owner's retain 100% of their rights to ask you to leave, but that the TX government quits providing a sign that makes it an automatic crime.

I disagree. My property is posted No Trespassing. I shouldn't have to chase down trespassers to give them oral notice. They have no moral or legal right to hunt or ride ATVs on my land.

Lambda Force wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:I have a novel idea. How about property owner's retain 100% of their rights to ask you to leave, but that the TX government quits providing a sign that makes it an automatic crime.

I disagree. My property is posted No Trespassing. I shouldn't have to chase down trespassers to give them oral notice. They have no moral or legal right to hunt or ride ATVs on my land.

You didn't invite them on your land to buy something by posting a sign that said OPEN and allow them to walk in unmolested. So why should you be able to put up a sign that says they can't carry a lighter in their pocket?

Lambda Force wrote:

We're not talking about driving ATV's or hunting on private property, because 30.06/7 signs are irrelevant to that. Why do you think that concealed carriers should not be able to carry CONCEALED, past a "sign", on property otherwise open to the public? Most retail businesses aren't sole proprietorships like Paw Walton's saw mill. So why assume that anyone "with apparent authority" to act for the owners' is representing the owners' interests when they post a "sign". YES, 30.06/7 IS the law today, but it shouldn't need to be... That's the point I think OP and others were making.

Ruark,

You posted:

"Sigh... some people take it upon themselves to be confused. A good place to start would be reading my post. I said it's not always feasible to just "go somewhere else," like you just drove 20 miles with your wife to eat, and there's an 06 sign and the only other choice is on the other side of town, or it's 110 degrees outside and traffic's jammed and you're exhausted and hungry."

That's your argument?

Update: It "is" always feasible to just "go somewhere else".

What it "isn't" is convenient.

It's hot out, traffics bad, your exhausted and hungry, but it's just not "convenient" to just go elsewhere.

Awwwwww.....

Honestly, that perspective rings rather "snowflake-ish"...

Sometimes life is not convenient, but you do what you have to do.

I have a 50' X 30/35" diameter log I've got to chain saw into submission and haul to the burn pile. It's a very inconvenient chore, but there's only me to get the job done.

Poor me, awwwwww!

Abraham wrote:Ruark,

Poor me, awwwwww!

Whatsa matter, Abe? Ants get in your supper bowl again?

To me the argument, that we try to force business owners, to agree with, or comply with our assertion, that we should be allowed us to carry on their property, is fascism.


Everyone has the right to self defense, carrying a gun is optional. Since it is optional, we can't force anyone else to allow us to do so in their business.

Our rights extend only as far as the door of someone else's business/property.

My wife doesn't like snakes, if she owned a business, she could exclude anyone carrying a snake, and would not be in violation of anyone's civil rights, because carrying a snake is optional. There is no prohibition against carrying snakes, so it is a right until it is prohibited. If a business owner doesn't want to hire people with tattoos and piercings, the same thing applies, those things are optional, while still constitutionally protected.

The only things that can't be excluded, are those things which are not optional, a person's ethnicity, disabilities, gender, etc..

A business owner can exclude,or have removed, people based on their clothing, their behavior, or a myriad of other things that they feel is inappropriate for their business, as long as the exclusion, is based on choices. The business owners can post signage detailing the things allowed, and not allowed in their business. The people, who violate any of those policies, and refuse to leave, can be charged with criminal trespass.

We have already seen too many examples of government overreach when it comes to forcing business owners to do things that go against their principles, or religious beliefs, even though the issues involved are optional.

I have three choices when I encounter a business that is posted 30.06, I can disarm, and go in, I can refuse to go in, and take my business elsewhere, or I can violate the law, and their wishes and carry anyway. Option two is my go to response.

For those who want to try to force businesses to do their bidding, they have the option of starting their own business, and the have full access to the goods and services, they feel they have been denied. Asking government to remove someone's property rights, is not the route we want to take. JMHO

Our rights extend only as far as the door of someone else's business/property.

This is pretty much the bottom line, all the speeches notwithstanding. That business is their private property, just like their living room, and they can make any rules they want to. If they so desired, they could put up a sign saying "black socks not allowed" and it would be perfectly legit.

Jusme wrote:To me the argument, that we try to force business owners, to agree with, or comply with our assertion, that we should be allowed us to carry on their property, is fascism.


Everyone has the right to self defense, carrying a gun is optional. Since it is optional, we can't force anyone else to allow us to do so in their business.

Our rights extend only as far as the door of someone else's business/property.

My wife doesn't like snakes, if she owned a business, she could exclude anyone carrying a snake, and would not be in violation of anyone's civil rights, because carrying a snake is optional. There is no prohibition against carrying snakes, so it is a right until it is prohibited. If a business owner doesn't want to hire people with tattoos and piercings, the same thing applies, those things are optional, while still constitutionally protected.

The only things that can't be excluded, are those things which are not optional, a person's ethnicity, disabilities, gender, etc..

A business owner can exclude,or have removed, people based on their clothing, their behavior, or a myriad of other things that they feel is inappropriate for their business, as long as the exclusion, is based on choices. The business owners can post signage detailing the things allowed, and not allowed in their business. The people, who violate any of those policies, and refuse to leave, can be charged with criminal trespass.

We have already seen too many examples of government overreach when it comes to forcing business owners to do things that go against their principles, or religious beliefs, even though the issues involved are optional.

I have three choices when I encounter a business that is posted 30.06, I can disarm, and go in, I can refuse to go in, and take my business elsewhere, or I can violate the law, and their wishes and carry anyway. Option two is my go to response.

For those who want to try to force businesses to do their bidding, they have the option of starting their own business, and the have full access to the goods and services, they feel they have been denied. Asking government to remove someone's property rights, is not the route we want to take. JMHO

I agree that this is a question of rights. But disagree about the logical conclusion that flows from there. There are a number of questions here, and I suspect that we agree on a lot of them.

Should a private property owner be able to restrict entry onto their property? Absolutely.

Should a private property owner be able to invite someone onto their property and then change their mind and order them to leave? Absolutely, and for any reason.

Should a private property owner be able to restrict the fundamental human rights of people they invite onto their property by making that invitation conditional on that person not exercising their right to vote, to believe in a religion, to keep and bear arms, or otherwise? My answer is "only if the exercise of such a right causes a disturbance or otherwise interferes with the ability of the property owner to enjoy the use of their property". If the exercise or a right is not even apparent to the property owner, then this condition would not be met. So, if I invite you on my property and you are a democrat, that is fine, but if you start spouting hate speech against President Trump, or I see a sticker professing your support for a hate filled organization (like "I'm with her"), then you gotta go. Same thing for religious beliefs. Your beliefs are fine up to the point at which they impact my right to enjoy my property by causing a disturbance (which would happen after they became apparent, not before). And the same thing applies to you carrying a gun. How can I, as a property owner argue that you have harmed my right to enjoy my property by carrying a gun, by being a Christian, by believe in Hitlery, or anything else, when these things are not even apparent?

Should a private property owner be able to have government agents enforce their personal prejudices against certain religions, political beliefs, guns, or anything else? Yes, but only if they have first asked the offending person to leave and that person has refused to do so.

I am not trying to force any business owner to "do my bidding". If I was, I would require that they offer me all goods at a penny over their cost, and provide free massages while installing gun ranges in the back of every store. Other groups use the law to force business owners to "do their bidding" by installing wheelchair ramps, widening doors, preserving wet lands, etc. I am not trying to force a business owner to do anything. I am just saying that I don't want the LEO's that I pay for to enforce conditions of entry unless the business owner has at least asked someone to leave first. The business owner can have a prejudice against anything they want. But if they want to restrict the rights of people they have invited into their store, then they need to at least ask that person to leave before using the time of my LEO employees.

Ruark wrote:

Our rights extend only as far as the door of someone else's business/property.

This is pretty much the bottom line, all the speeches notwithstanding. That business is their private property, just like their living room, and they can make any rules they want to. They can put up a sign saying "black socks not allowed" if they want to.

And they can ask anyone wearing black socks to leave. I agree 100%.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:How can I, as a property owner argue that you have harmed my right to enjoy my property by carrying a gun, by being a Christian, by believe in Hitlery, or anything else, when these things are not even apparent?

Because "harming your right to enjoy your property" isn't a prerequisite for barring somebody from entering it. You don't need a reason. I can bar you or ask you to leave because I'm in the mood for it.

Granted, I wish we COULD get rid of the 06 signs - they're utterly silly, because only law-abiding people will comply with them, while criminal shooters will ignore them - but it's not going to happen.

Ruark wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:How can I, as a property owner argue that you have harmed my right to enjoy my property by carrying a gun, by being a Christian, by believe in Hitlery, or anything else, when these things are not even apparent?

Because "harming your right to enjoy your property" isn't a prerequisite for barring somebody from entering it. You don't need a reason. I can bar you or ask you to leave because I'm in the mood for it.

Granted, I wish we COULD get rid of the 06 signs - they're utterly silly, because only law-abiding people will comply with them, while criminal shooters will ignore them - but it's not going to happen.

But do you have the right to have the state pre-emptively enforce your private prejudice against shirt colors? Even when you didn't even notice that the person was wearing the wrong color shirt (under their clothes)? Can you put a no Democrats or no Gun Owners sign on your business and someone is committing a crime by entering?

My thought is that without 30.06, we would not have CC in TX at all. Businesses would have squashe'd it without a means to not have to deal with it directly.

hovercat wrote:My thought is that without 30.06, we would not have CC in TX at all. Businesses would have squashe'd it without a means to not have to deal with it directly.

We had CC without 30.06 for one year and 9 months...

Ruark wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:How can I, as a property owner argue that you have harmed my right to enjoy my property by carrying a gun, by being a Christian, by believe in Hitlery, or anything else, when these things are not even apparent?

Because "harming your right to enjoy your property" isn't a prerequisite for barring somebody from entering it. You don't need a reason. I can bar you or ask you to leave because I'm in the mood for it.

Granted, I wish we COULD get rid of the 06 signs - they're utterly silly, because only law-abiding people will comply with them, while criminal shooters will ignore them - but it's not going to happen.

I completely agree with everything you are saying here.

You don't want to have anyone on your property? Fine.

You want me to leave? Fine.

But I do think there should be a minimal standard of harm to your rights before you infringe on the rights of others. Like actually knowing that it is even happening. This is a question of balancing competing rights. People don't lose all of their rights just because they walk onto someone else's property. A property owner should have to show some harm before they harm others by depriving them of their rights, any more than I should have the right to come onto your property uninvited. I don't think this places a very tough burden on a property owner, and I think it is a reasonable compromise.