TexasCHLforum.com

I've said many times that although I support OC, I agree is shouldn't be our top legislative priority (or even second) this session. As such, I voted for the parking lot bill.

SA-TX

I don't want goverment telling property owners what they have to do or can't do. Telling owners they have to allow guns is wrong. So is telling owners they can't allow guns (schools, 51% joints, sports events, private property where school events take place).

Goverment can't step in and make everbody happy. No laws passed this year will make everbody happy. The best way is to get goverment out of making private property decisions and let people decide what makes them happy, then do it.

Bullwhip wrote:I don't want goverment telling property owners what they have to do or can't do. Telling owners they have to allow guns is wrong. So is telling owners they can't allow guns (schools, 51% joints, sports events, private property where school events take place).

So Government telling a business that they have to meet electrical code, install a wheelchair ramp and comply to other ADA standards, meet fire code, etc is wrong as well?

Goverment can't step in and make everbody happy. No laws passed this year will make everbody happy. The best way is to get goverment out of making private property decisions and let people decide what makes them happy, then do it.

If government just let businesses do 'what made them happy' then we'd have businesses that don't have a fire system, pack way too many people in a space, don't hire people because of the color of their skin, and have death traps for elevators and such, because they'd never be maintained. Not to mention on-the-job injuries and deaths as soon as so many businesses would throw OSHA out the door. (Businesses HATE OSHA Requirements, they cost tons of money to implement and maintain.)

So many businesses are driven by one thing, and one thing only: The almighty dollar. If you removed the requirement to make things safe, and in doing so, they would save/make more money, you bet that lots of them would drop the safety in pursuit of more money in a second.

Bullwhip wrote:I don't want goverment telling property owners what they have to do or can't do. Telling owners they have to allow guns is wrong. So is telling owners they can't allow guns (schools, 51% joints, sports events, private property where school events take place).

I want to better understand your position on property rights, so I have a few questions I would like to ask.

• 1. Do you make any distinction between commercial and non-commercial property?
  2. Is there any level of government regulation of private property you feel is acceptable? If so, please give examples.
  3. Are you saying you are philosophically against government regulation of property, or are you saying governmental regulations are unconstitutional?

Thanks,
Chas.

I voted for the EPL...with the hope/assumption that it will include state/city govt employees on govt property.

After talking with a few folks, we may not get much of anything this year. The overwhelming issue facing the legislature is the state budget. Until that is settled and passed, everything else will be on the back burner.

EconDoc wrote:After talking with a few folks, we may not get much of anything this year. The overwhelming issue facing the legislature is the state budget. Until that is settled and passed, everything else will be on the back burner.

If you make less money, you should spend less money. That's something everyone should have learned before they were old enough to vote, much less run for office.

Had to go with Campus Carry hands down. Currently a grad student with the goal of teaching at a university. My wife's a grad student as well, with the same goals. She has to park in a dark garage and often doesn't get to leave until way after dark. One day, I'm going to send my son and daughter to college, with the knowledge to defend themselves. Hopefully the legislature will give them the legal ability.

I voted other. My main issue that I would like to see changed is the cost of getting a license. I was floored when I saw the cost after I moved down here, it was the main reason I waited so long to get mine. Having moved from Pennsylvania where a 5 year license cost me $22 with no training requirment to see that Texas was $140 and that was only after you pay between $75- $150 for a CHL class it was nuts.

I think that DPS should charge no more then the actual cost of the program. As a matter of fact, I feel they should apply that logic to every service that the state provides. Driver's license, vehicle registration, etc...

I voted other. My highest priority is eliminating 46.035 restrictions. It's idiotic there are places I can't carry a handgun, but I can legally carry a 12ga HD shotgun in those same places.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:I don't want goverment telling property owners what they have to do or can't do. Telling owners they have to allow guns is wrong. So is telling owners they can't allow guns (schools, 51% joints, sports events, private property where school events take place).

I want to better understand your position on property rights, so I have a few questions I would like to ask.

• 1. Do you make any distinction between commercial and non-commercial property?
  2. Is there any level of government regulation of private property you feel is acceptable? If so, please give examples.
  3. Are you saying you are philosophically against government regulation of property, or are you saying governmental regulations are unconstitutional?

Thanks,
Chas.

Sorry I took so long to answer, I only get to read the forum here 1 or 2 times a week. I hit the truck stop or coffee shop wifi on late night call outs and catch up while I wait for the next call.

1. Private is private. Mine is mine. I own it, I own it.
-- Goverment saying I have to let everyone in my business is no different from saying I have to let someone sacrifice chickens at my church. I don't think goverment should prohibit marriage no matter who is gettting married (gay/straight/poly), but any church should be free to not marry those people. Any person should be free to say "no thanks" to anyone trying to enter or control that properrty.
2. Your right to swing your property ends where my nose begins.
3. Both. Theres no (fed) constitutional basis for restricting private properrty. The constitution says it's up to the states.Feds ignore all restrictions.
--

Bullwhip wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:I don't want goverment telling property owners what they have to do or can't do. Telling owners they have to allow guns is wrong. So is telling owners they can't allow guns (schools, 51% joints, sports events, private property where school events take place).

I want to better understand your position on property rights, so I have a few questions I would like to ask.

• 1. Do you make any distinction between commercial and non-commercial property?
  2. Is there any level of government regulation of private property you feel is acceptable? If so, please give examples.
  3. Are you saying you are philosophically against government regulation of property, or are you saying governmental regulations are unconstitutional?

Thanks,
Chas.

Sorry I took so long to answer, I only get to read the forum here 1 or 2 times a week. I hit the truck stop or coffee shop wifi on late night call outs and catch up while I wait for the next call.

1. Private is private. Mine is mine. I own it, I own it.
-- Goverment saying I have to let everyone in my business is no different from saying I have to let someone sacrifice chickens at my church. I don't think goverment should prohibit marriage no matter who is gettting married (gay/straight/poly), but any church should be free to not marry those people. Any person should be free to say "no thanks" to anyone trying to enter or control that properrty.
2. Your right to swing your property ends where my nose begins.
3. Both. Theres no (fed) constitutional basis for restricting private properrty. The constitution says it's up to the states.Feds ignore all restrictions.
--

I understand your answers to numbers 1 and 3, but number 2 is not clear; cute, but not clear. We're not talking about your nose or taking a swing at it. We're talking about safety regulations like building codes, fire codes, elevator codes, etc. How about a specific answer to that question?

However, I think I get the message; you do not accept any government regulation of any private property, including commercial property. The reason I want to understand your private property rights argument is because it appears to me that 1) there are very few people who oppose the employer parking lot bill on alleged private property rights grounds; and 2) I wanted to know if these opinions are based upon extreme libertarian philosophy. We can deal with legitimate concerns about some details of the bill, but there's nothing we can do to satisfy people who will not accept any regulation of commercial property whatsoever.

Chas.

Speaking of private property - my car is mine (no loans) and so I don't think anyone should be able to tell me what I can have in my car. This is what some employers are doing.

CompVest wrote:Speaking of private property - my car is mine (no loans) and so I don't think anyone should be able to tell me what I can have in my car. This is what some employers are doing.

Like someone said earlier, by the same logic, my purse is mine, so I don't think anyone should be able to tell me what I can have in my purse. That same logic applies to malls, schools, and sporting events, not just employers.

"acceptable level of government regulation"
That's the second time this week HLA Hart and Dworkin come to mind.
A governor on an engine limits it's freedom., at some level that's good, too much is bad
Striking balance is the dilemma.

I understand the Oliver Wendall Holmes "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" thing ... but:

I don't want my neighbor dumping toxic chemicals on his yard next to my fence, as his chemicals might migrate into my yard.
So some control over HIS property use might be necessary to ensure safety of MY property use. (Wouldn't you feel the same way if I'm dumping toxins in MY yard next to YOUR fence? ... You'd want your property protected by regulations on MY private property.)

Extending this to regulating privately owned BUSINESS property; there are some homeowners near a toxic waste dump (BRIO SUPERFUND SITE) near San Jacinto College South in Houston where there was a high rate of cancers one could talk to and get their input on the matter if businesses should be regulated as to what they can do on their privately owned property.

Ladies, we'll X-ray your purses after the FBI van X-rays your homes, please remove all articles inside your house from any lead safes, and take all chemicals out from under the sinks and place them on the countertops, so we may examine what you have and if we consider it safe or not. Also, please flush all toilets ... we don't like getting "grossed out."

Striking balance is the dilemma.

Back to original topic.

1) more places we can carry (campus imho will illustrate that parking lots are ok, if the "immature school aged 20-somethings" [their words, not mine] can control themselves and grow into business people)
2) Open carry; to de-sensitize people so it's as normal as carrying a knife on your belt, which imho is much deadlier as it's silent, allowing more time to "bleed out" without attracting attention of EMS/Police first responders

... but I'm going to catch heat for saying I think the SA/NSA should be replaced by CC and OC differentiations with additional class hours on "gun retention" required for OC (4 hours of Youtube "gun retention" videos should do it)

Ok, now I'm in trouble .... running away and hiding.