TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.

This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.

As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.

And THAT is the ONLY argument that can be made, and I agree if there's limited access (controlled entry, non-commercial property). But when you allow anybody and everybody to enter and exit your "private property" with absolutely no access control (read as: any thug that wants to come in, can) then THOSE types of public "private property" should have there ability to forbid the law abiding access curtailed.

Yes, I know I am in the minority, but that's the way I see it.

Dragonfighter wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.

This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.

As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.

And THAT is the ONLY argument that can be made, and I agree if there's limited access (controlled entry, non-commercial property). But when you allow anybody and everybody to enter and exit your "private property" with absolutely no access control (read as: any thug that wants to come in, can) then THOSE types of public "private property" should have there ability to forbid the law abiding access curtailed.

Yes, I know I am in the minority, but that's the way I see it.

You may be in the minority, but I'm right there with you. To me, there is a BIG difference between "private property" and private property open to the public, ie. movie theaters, stores, etc...

txglock21 wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.

This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.

As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.

And THAT is the ONLY argument that can be made, and I agree if there's limited access (controlled entry, non-commercial property). But when you allow anybody and everybody to enter and exit your "private property" with absolutely no access control (read as: any thug that wants to come in, can) then THOSE types of public "private property" should have there ability to forbid the law abiding access curtailed.

Yes, I know I am in the minority, but that's the way I see it.

You may be in the minority, but I'm right there with you. To me, there is a BIG difference between "private property" and private property open to the public, ie. movie theaters, stores, etc...

Just don't enter private property if you don't like their rules. Your rights and theirs are then respected.

I don't like it when someone tells me I can't carry on their property either. Therefore, I don't go.

mojo84 wrote:

txglock21 wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.

This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.

As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.

And THAT is the ONLY argument that can be made, and I agree if there's limited access (controlled entry, non-commercial property). But when you allow anybody and everybody to enter and exit your "private property" with absolutely no access control (read as: any thug that wants to come in, can) then THOSE types of public "private property" should have there ability to forbid the law abiding access curtailed.

Yes, I know I am in the minority, but that's the way I see it.

You may be in the minority, but I'm right there with you. To me, there is a BIG difference between "private property" and private property open to the public, ie. movie theaters, stores, etc...

Just don't enter private property if you don't like their rules. Your rights and theirs are then respected.
I don't like it when someone tells me I can't carry on their property either. Therefore, I don't go.

I hear what you are saying and I do respect their rules even if I don't agree with them. In my two years of CHL carrying I have only had to do the "walk of shame" once.

txglock21 wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.

This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.

As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.

And THAT is the ONLY argument that can be made, and I agree if there's limited access (controlled entry, non-commercial property). But when you allow anybody and everybody to enter and exit your "private property" with absolutely no access control (read as: any thug that wants to come in, can) then THOSE types of public "private property" should have there ability to forbid the law abiding access curtailed.

Yes, I know I am in the minority, but that's the way I see it.

You may be in the minority, but I'm right there with you. To me, there is a BIG difference between "private property" and private property open to the public, ie. movie theaters, stores, etc...

Seems to me this is where the debate ought to be. 2 Kinds of Private property. The concept of a "Public Accommodation" is different than your house. My opinion (as a small business owner subject to various laws/regulations) is it's a very different thing excluding certain kinds of people from a "Public Accommodation" vs. personal private property. I can exclude people from my house with green ears, but perhaps not my business...

ralewis wrote:

txglock21 wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.

This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.

As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.

And THAT is the ONLY argument that can be made, and I agree if there's limited access (controlled entry, non-commercial property). But when you allow anybody and everybody to enter and exit your "private property" with absolutely no access control (read as: any thug that wants to come in, can) then THOSE types of public "private property" should have there ability to forbid the law abiding access curtailed.

Yes, I know I am in the minority, but that's the way I see it.

You may be in the minority, but I'm right there with you. To me, there is a BIG difference between "private property" and private property open to the public, ie. movie theaters, stores, etc...

Seems to me this is where the debate ought to be. 2 Kinds of Private property. The concept of a "Public Accommodation" is different than your house. My opinion (as a small business owner subject to various laws/regulations) is it's a very different thing excluding certain kinds of people from a "Public Accommodation" vs. personal private property. I can exclude people from my house with green ears, but perhaps not my business...

I agree and have been saying for a long time that there are 2 types of private property rights. There are the private property rights like for your home and then the private property rights for like a hardware or grocery store. Home private property you can regulate to your hearts content. Then there is the private property that is with solicited public access, grocery store, hardware store, McDonalds, a house that you rent out. This private property with the public being invited in falls under different regulation than a persons home private property. Private property open to the public is already regulated by federal law, state law, county law, whatever community you may be in law, AND the rights of the person you are soliciting to do business with you.

ralewis wrote:

txglock21 wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.

This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.

As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.

And THAT is the ONLY argument that can be made, and I agree if there's limited access (controlled entry, non-commercial property). But when you allow anybody and everybody to enter and exit your "private property" with absolutely no access control (read as: any thug that wants to come in, can) then THOSE types of public "private property" should have there ability to forbid the law abiding access curtailed.

Yes, I know I am in the minority, but that's the way I see it.

You may be in the minority, but I'm right there with you. To me, there is a BIG difference between "private property" and private property open to the public, ie. movie theaters, stores, etc...

Seems to me this is where the debate ought to be. 2 Kinds of Private property. The concept of a "Public Accommodation" is different than your house. My opinion (as a small business owner subject to various laws/regulations) is it's a very different thing excluding certain kinds of people from a "Public Accommodation" vs. personal private property. I can exclude people from my house with green ears, but perhaps not my business...

That's exactly how I see it. Why am I gettin barred from a place because they don't like something about me, when I have done no wrong. Should we bar people from places because of the type of shoes they wear, or they carry a legally possesed item that the owner dislikes, no. The only exeption to me is private property such as a habitation, or other non "publicly accessable" property, which can bar you anyway, unless you are a peace officer.

The defense to the argument seems pourous to me, therefor I do not see it as a good reason either. I hope businesses don't start banning legally owned tobacco products in their stores because they're against smoking. I'd hate to go to jail because I have a can of copenhagen in my back pocket. Though I've done nothing wrong, it's violating the business owners rights. (Note: SARCASM)

mojo84 wrote:Just don't enter private property if you don't like their rules. Your rights and theirs are then respected.

That is the only solution that respects everybody's rights. I only wish the legislature respected private property rights enough to get rid of the 46.035 rules thst override the choice of property owners.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

ralewis wrote:

txglock21 wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.

This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.

As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.

And THAT is the ONLY argument that can be made, and I agree if there's limited access (controlled entry, non-commercial property). But when you allow anybody and everybody to enter and exit your "private property" with absolutely no access control (read as: any thug that wants to come in, can) then THOSE types of public "private property" should have there ability to forbid the law abiding access curtailed.

Yes, I know I am in the minority, but that's the way I see it.

You may be in the minority, but I'm right there with you. To me, there is a BIG difference between "private property" and private property open to the public, ie. movie theaters, stores, etc...

Seems to me this is where the debate ought to be. 2 Kinds of Private property. The concept of a "Public Accommodation" is different than your house. My opinion (as a small business owner subject to various laws/regulations) is it's a very different thing excluding certain kinds of people from a "Public Accommodation" vs. personal private property. I can exclude people from my house with green ears, but perhaps not my business...

That's exactly how I see it. Why am I gettin barred from a place because they don't like something about me, when I have done no wrong. Should we bar people from places because of the type of shoes they wear, or they carry a legally possesed item that the owner dislikes, no. The only exeption to me is private property such as a habitation, or other non "publicly accessable" property, which can bar you anyway, unless you are a peace officer.

The defense to the argument seems pourous to me, therefor I do not see it as a good reason either. I hope businesses don't start banning legally owned tobacco products in their stores because they're against smoking. I'd hate to go to jail because I have a can of copenhagen in my back pocket. Though I've done nothing wrong, it's violating the business owners rights. (Note: SARCASM)

I also subscribe to this line of reasoning. It may not be legislatively possible to enact it, but if Whole Foods can ban me for Concealed Carry, I want to put up a sign on my business banning all Whole Foods employees. And Progressives. Unless they have a CHL.

Joking aside.... If we can require business to provide accommodations under ADA and prevent them from discriminating against persons based on race, gender or sexual preferences, why is it impossible to conceive of banning discrimination against those exercising their Personal Liberties?

Would need to get gun carriers classified as a protected class. Until then, feel free to ban anyone that doesn't carry a gun. Business may differ but I think you have the right to do it.

When government can tell someone who they have to do business with and that you cannot decide who you want on your property you've bought and paid for our leased, you no longer have the right to run your own business for which you are risking your money and livelihood. Next the government will tell you who you have to make cakes for and who preachers have to marry. Oh wait, we are already there.

The public accommodation act addresses discrimination and accommodation for those that fall in a protected class. CHL and gun carriers do not fall in a such a class. No one is more pro 2nd than I. I am also pro property rights and believe I should be allowed to determine with whom I do business and sell insurance to within reason.

Matter of fact, I'd like to give a discount to those that have a CHL and carry. However, it is against the law as that would be considered illegal rebating. Then I could get a visit from one of those armed police insurance department investigators I don't believe is need but is being paid for with my tax dollars.

mojo84 wrote:Would need to get gun carriers classified as a protected class. Until then, feel free to ban anyone that doesn't carry a gun. Business may differ but I think you have the right to do it.

When government can tell someone who they have to do business with and that you cannot decide who you want on your property you've bought and paid for our leased, you no longer have the right to run your own business for which you are risking your money and livelihood. Next the government will tell you who you have to make cakes for and who preachers have to marry. Oh wait, we are already there.

The public accommodation act addresses discrimination and accommodation for those that fall in a protected class. CHL and gun carriers do not fall in a such a class. No one is more pro 2nd than I. I am also pro property rights and believe I should be allowed to determine with whom I do business and sell insurance to within reason.

Matter of fact, I'd like to give a discount to those that have a CHL and carry. However, it is against the law as that would be considered illegal rebating. Then I could get a visit from one of those armed police insurance department investigators I don't believe is need but is being paid for with my tax dollars.

It's really crummy the way it works out. One crowd can tell the other they're not welcome in their stores because of the other groups belief and right to legally carry a gun. Very one sided... :/ Does this mean I can strictly forbid anybody from my premises if they're liberal, wearing genital jewelry, or are wearing a pink thong? They go against my beliefs, so Could. I post a sign banning them? I don't think it's fair to them, but if I couldn't tell, and them doing business does not cause an issue, why is it right that I can ban them? I will never know about your pink thong if you conceal it properly, but if you start showing it of, I believe i should be able to kick you yo the curb if it bothers me. If you don't cause a nuasance and show off your stuff, then why should I be predjudice? Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I'm there to shoot somebody, nor does a liberal always intend to preach to me about how we need smaller government. Long odds make for big countermeasures?

and that you cannot decide who you want on your property

You can already remove anybody from your property you dislike, as you are the RO. However, you shouldn't be able to BAN a group or type of people. It's just prejudice IMO, and then to make it legally criminally punished is absurd. The right to refuse service must be reserved, but not right to discriminate against a group of people who have done no wronging to be kicked out.

mojo84 wrote:Just don't enter private property if you don't like their rules. Your rights and theirs are then respected.

I hear a similar phrase every time I have to tell an employer about my non-restricting "disability", and I never get talked to again. They're not violating my rights, because their rights to hire at will trump my rights to have fair employment opportunities. Seems I only get protection if what they're discriminating against is specifically protected by law, which means I have to be legally disabled. I guess this is why I'm a little more emotionally tied to this topic.

I find it funny that my non disability, it too disabled for federal jobs and state jobs, but not disabled enough to receive protection from discrimination and assistance. There ain't no such thing as fair for everybody.

Sorry for going of topic and going on with TMI.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Would need to get gun carriers classified as a protected class. Until then, feel free to ban anyone that doesn't carry a gun. Business may differ but I think you have the right to do it.

When government can tell someone who they have to do business with and that you cannot decide who you want on your property you've bought and paid for our leased, you no longer have the right to run your own business for which you are risking your money and livelihood. Next the government will tell you who you have to make cakes for and who preachers have to marry. Oh wait, we are already there.

The public accommodation act addresses discrimination and accommodation for those that fall in a protected class. CHL and gun carriers do not fall in a such a class. No one is more pro 2nd than I. I am also pro property rights and believe I should be allowed to determine with whom I do business and sell insurance to within reason.

Matter of fact, I'd like to give a discount to those that have a CHL and carry. However, it is against the law as that would be considered illegal rebating. Then I could get a visit from one of those armed police insurance department investigators I don't believe is need but is being paid for with my tax dollars.

It's really crummy the way it works out. One crowd can tell the other they're not welcome in their stores because of the other groups belief and right to legally carry a gun. Very one sided... :/ Does this mean I can strictly forbid anybody from my premises if they're liberal, wearing genital jewelry, or are wearing a pink thong? They go against my beliefs, so Could. I post a sign banning them? I don't think it's fair to them, but if I couldn't tell, and them doing business does not cause an issue, why is it right that I can ban them? I will never know about your pink thong if you conceal it properly, but if you start showing it of, I believe i should be able to kick you yo the curb if it bothers me. If you don't cause a nuasance and show off your stuff, then why should I be predjudice? Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I'm there to shoot somebody, nor does a liberal always intend to preach to me about how we need smaller government. Long odds make for big countermeasures?

and that you cannot decide who you want on your property

You can already remove anybody from your property you dislike, as you are the RO. However, you shouldn't be able to BAN a group or type of people. It's just prejudice IMO, and then to make it legally criminally punished is absurd. The right to refuse service must be reserved, but not right to discriminate against a group of people who have done no wronging to be kicked out.

Your pink thong analogy I think actually makes the point. If you don't like pink thongs, you can ask them to leave, but you can't post a sign making it a crime if you discover they are wearing a pink thong. I for one would much rather have to be asked to leave if I'm carrying vs. it automatically being a crime. I understand a lot of why we have the 30.06 situation. Just wish it was like wearing a pink thong...

mojo84 wrote:Would need to get gun carriers classified as a protected class. Until then, feel free to ban anyone that doesn't carry a gun. Business may differ but I think you have the right to do it.

When government can tell someone who they have to do business with and that you cannot decide who you want on your property you've bought and paid for our leased, you no longer have the right to run your own business for which you are risking your money and livelihood. Next the government will tell you who you have to make cakes for and who preachers have to marry. Oh wait, we are already there.

The answer to government meddling by the Democrats is not more government meddling by the Republicans. The answer is less government meddling by both Siamese Twins.

ralewis wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Would need to get gun carriers classified as a protected class. Until then, feel free to ban anyone that doesn't carry a gun. Business may differ but I think you have the right to do it.

When government can tell someone who they have to do business with and that you cannot decide who you want on your property you've bought and paid for our leased, you no longer have the right to run your own business for which you are risking your money and livelihood. Next the government will tell you who you have to make cakes for and who preachers have to marry. Oh wait, we are already there.

The public accommodation act addresses discrimination and accommodation for those that fall in a protected class. CHL and gun carriers do not fall in a such a class. No one is more pro 2nd than I. I am also pro property rights and believe I should be allowed to determine with whom I do business and sell insurance to within reason.

Matter of fact, I'd like to give a discount to those that have a CHL and carry. However, it is against the law as that would be considered illegal rebating. Then I could get a visit from one of those armed police insurance department investigators I don't believe is need but is being paid for with my tax dollars.

It's really crummy the way it works out. One crowd can tell the other they're not welcome in their stores because of the other groups belief and right to legally carry a gun. Very one sided... :/ Does this mean I can strictly forbid anybody from my premises if they're liberal, wearing genital jewelry, or are wearing a pink thong? They go against my beliefs, so Could. I post a sign banning them? I don't think it's fair to them, but if I couldn't tell, and them doing business does not cause an issue, why is it right that I can ban them? I will never know about your pink thong if you conceal it properly, but if you start showing it of, I believe i should be able to kick you yo the curb if it bothers me. If you don't cause a nuasance and show off your stuff, then why should I be predjudice? Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I'm there to shoot somebody, nor does a liberal always intend to preach to me about how we need smaller government. Long odds make for big countermeasures?

and that you cannot decide who you want on your property

You can already remove anybody from your property you dislike, as you are the RO. However, you shouldn't be able to BAN a group or type of people. It's just prejudice IMO, and then to make it legally criminally punished is absurd. The right to refuse service must be reserved, but not right to discriminate against a group of people who have done no wronging to be kicked out.

Your pink thong analogy I think actually makes the point. If you don't like pink thongs, you can ask them to leave, but you can't post a sign making it a crime if you discover they are wearing a pink thong. I for one would much rather have to be asked to leave if I'm carrying vs. it automatically being a crime. I understand a lot of why we have the 30.06 situation. Just wish it was like wearing a pink thong...

I suggest you keep your pink thong concealed and there won't be a problem while you are in my place of business on my property.