TexasCHLforum.com

Soap wrote:

mayor wrote:

Soap wrote:IT's my business and in a true free market and free America, I should have the right to kick whoever I want out. If I don't like green people then so be it.

That may be how it should be, but let me know how that works out for you.

IT works out well in most places. Truth is most people care more about money than say green people. So they will always side with money. IT works all the time. Remember the gun store that refuses to sell to Muslims?

Yeah, the only reason the case got tossed was because he had never actually refused to sell to a Muslim. He only STATED he wouldn't sell to them. So, let us know how it works out when you refuse service to a protected class of people?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Soap wrote:Do you go in people house wearing shoes if they tell you to take them off?

Personally, no I don't. And I think that a home owner should be able to call the police for assistance if someone refuses to either remove their shoes or leave after being so told by the home owner. Again - I think that a property owner should be able to tell anyone to leave, for any reason, and if that person refuses, the police should assist. This would give property owners much greater rights than they have today.

Where we disagree is that you believe property owners should be allowed to use the arrest powers of the state to enforce their own personal prejudices against the unseen behavior of others with which they disagree. I believe that is wrong because it means we are allowing the property owner to infringe on the basic fundamental rights of other people.

I don't believe anyone should be arrested or charged unless they refuse to leave. I am not infringing on your rights because you have a choice to be there or not. No one said you HAD to shop at my pizza place. Granted, I would never have such rules but you aren't being forced to shop there. This is why owners can tell you to leave an object outside of their business. It's the same as no shoes no service. You don't have freedom of speech on this forum, I can't curse up a storm. Does that mean the admins are taking my rights away??? NO, because I don't have to use this forum if I want to curse up a storm.

Soap wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Soap wrote:Do you go in people house wearing shoes if they tell you to take them off?

Personally, no I don't. And I think that a home owner should be able to call the police for assistance if someone refuses to either remove their shoes or leave after being so told by the home owner. Again - I think that a property owner should be able to tell anyone to leave, for any reason, and if that person refuses, the police should assist. This would give property owners much greater rights than they have today.

Where we disagree is that you believe property owners should be allowed to use the arrest powers of the state to enforce their own personal prejudices against the unseen behavior of others with which they disagree. I believe that is wrong because it means we are allowing the property owner to infringe on the basic fundamental rights of other people.

I don't believe anyone should be arrested or charged unless they refuse to leave. I am not infringing on your rights because you have a choice to be there or not. No one said you HAD to shop at my pizza place. Granted, I would never have such rules but you aren't being forced to shop there. This is why owners can tell you to leave an object outside of their business. It's the same as no shoes no service. You don't have freedom of speech on this forum, I can't curse up a storm. Does that mean the admins are taking my rights away??? NO, because I don't have to use this forum if I want to curse up a storm.

You are basically talking apples and oranges. There are health codes that allow you to prohibit someone from coming in with no shirt or shoes. However, you earlier claimed that you have the right to refuse service to ANYONE at your publicly open business. That is just not true. If you try to prohibit a person from eating at your establishment because they are green (as you said in an earlier post), that is a protected class (color of skin) and you are illegally blocking them. I guarantee you will be in for a loss if they file a lawsuit.

So, while there are some rights provided to business owners, like prohibiting concealed or open carry, you can't make the blanket statement that you have the right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY REASON. When you open a business to the public you must follow the laws on who you can or cannot refuse access and service to, unlike your private property or residence.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:. . . At minimum, 30.06 signage should go away, since no one should know that a person is carrying concealed IF it is done properly, and therefore cannot cause an issue unless the firearm is removed from concealment, which would be a different ballgame.

If you were in Texas in the period from 1995 until 9/1/1997, you wouldn't say that, unless you want Licensees to be unable to carry in some/many locations. You seem to believe that the generic "no guns" sign or decal was unenforceable prior to 9/1/97, but you would be mistaken.

I understand your position on 30.06 signs v. verbal order to leave. I simply disagree with you, as does the Legislature and most private property owners.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I am quite confused on something. In some states, Oklahoma being one of them, no sign has the force of law; gunbusters are meaningless. Open carriers, once notified, must leave or they can be arrested for trespassing, which seems to be the de facto situation here in Texas, despite 30.07 signs. I understand keeping LTCers out of what I will call property without general public access, but I cannot understand keeping LTCers out of private property that is open to the public, such as retail establishments or restaurants. My analogy about the sagging pants/underwear thing was meant to highlight what I see as a disconnect in the law. Someone showing their underwear is certainly more intrusive than a licensed person carrying concealed, why can that not be stopped via a sign that has the force of law, if the issue is really about private property rights? I fully comply with all proper signage, so I don't want anyone reading this to think I disregard the law. I'm simply confused about the real issues behind things sometimes.

AJSully421 wrote:The answer that you are looking for is: Democrats.

We had to compromise to get CHL passed in the 90's... we had to compromise with Democrats, and not one single thing that Democrats have a hand in makes any sense.

That is why this does not make any sense.

I would think that giving and honoring verbal warning is an "age-old" right.

Regardless, verbal warning will be a lot more of an issue with open carry.

AJSully421 wrote:The answer that you are looking for is: Democrats.

We had to compromise to get CHL passed in the 90's... we had to compromise with Democrats, and not one single thing that Democrats have a hand in makes any sense.

That is why this does not make any sense.

Democrats create exempt protected classes as they see fit, and gun owners are the last class they'd ever help out.

This goes back to a person's sovereignty over his own property. Simply stating your wish that no guns allowed should be enough. A better question is why a specified script for a sign. Why shouldn't a sign that says 'no guns allowed' carry the same weight as my telling you no guns allowed? That's the real question. The fact that I must use specific wording in a sign of enumerated specification infringes more on my sovereignty over my own property and my associated property rights than it infringes on your right to carry a gun on my property. The constitutional right to carry a gun never trumped my control of my own property or my ability to demand conditions upon which entry thereto is based.

tex

thetexan wrote:This goes back to a person's sovereignty over his own property. Simply stating your wish that no guns allowed should be enough. A better question is why a specified script for a sign. Why shouldn't a sign that says 'no guns allowed' carry the same weight as my telling you no guns allowed? That's the real question. The fact that I must use specific wording in a sign of enumerated specification infringes more on my sovereignty over my own property and my associated property rights than it infringes on your right to carry a gun on my property. The constitutional right to carry a gun never trumped my control of my own property or my ability to demand conditions upon which entry thereto is based.

tex

Have you been reading this thread?

thetexan wrote:This goes back to a person's sovereignty over his own property. Simply stating your wish that no guns allowed should be enough. A better question is why a specified script for a sign. Why shouldn't a sign that says 'no guns allowed' carry the same weight as my telling you no guns allowed? That's the real question. The fact that I must use specific wording in a sign of enumerated specification infringes more on my sovereignty over my own property and my associated property rights than it infringes on your right to carry a gun on my property. The constitutional right to carry a gun never trumped my control of my own property or my ability to demand conditions upon which entry thereto is based.

tex

The Importance of Keeping Tex. Penal Code Sections 30.06 and 30.07 Separate

]TPC Episode #2 - In the Crosshairs segment