TexasCHLforum.com

I realize this is a purely academic discussion, but rather than continue to hijack the enhanced CHL thread, I wanted to stick a finger in the breeze and see how alone (or not) I am in the way I think. That is any business without restricted access, open to the public at large should not be able to criminalize the legal carry of a concealed weapon for personal protection. Note, I believe that businesses not open to the general public or have controlled access fall into a more private class, similar to one allowing/denying access to their ranch, deer lease, home, etc.

Please explain your reasoning and of course, suggest other alternative answers as may become apparent.

If off duty police officers can not be prohibited from entering then neither should CHL.

If I own the store I should be able to manage my store the way I want to


Let me put it this way......

why putting up a sign refusing entry to CHL holders any different than refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? A business owner should be able to decide who they want to do business with based on my beliefs.

Dragonfighter wrote:should not be able to criminalize the legal carry

Businesses are not and can not criminalize legal carry.
What they are doing by posting a 30.06 sign is preventing trespass of certain individuals to their place of business.
Your right to entry to a public place of business in not unfettered.
You may not like the reason that they would deny you entrance, but it still may be a valid reason in the eyes of the business owner.
It is up to him to decide if the reason is valid, not you.

SewTexas wrote:If I own the store I should be able to manage my store the way I want to


Let me put it this way......

why putting up a sign refusing entry to CHL holders any different than refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? A business owner should be able to decide who they want to do business with based on my beliefs.

If you refuse to bake that cake you better be prepared to spend a lot of money on lawyers - not saying I believe you should have to bake the cake, just stating reality.

WildBill wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:should not be able to criminalize the legal carry

Businesses are not and can not criminalize legal carry.
What they are doing by posting a 30.06 sign is preventing trespass of certain individuals to their place of business.
Your right to entry to a public place of business in not unfettered.
You may not like the reason that they would deny you entrance, but it still may be a valid reason in the eyes of the business owner.
It is up to him to decide if the reason is valid, not you.

under current law. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the OP was suggesting a change in the law. Ultimately I believe the law should be changed to allow CHL to carry anywhere an off duty LEO can carry.

I used to believe that "business" could do whatever it wants on private property, but after a lot of thought, I have decided that is an anarchistic position that has no place in civilized society.

First, it is legal for the state, via power given to it by the people, to regulate business and commerce. The US Constitution does not forbid this power to the states and every state constitution in some way creates laws and statutes regulating business.

When you open a business "TO THE PUBLIC" with no controlled access and with the intention of providing goods to the public, it is not a unilateral ultimatum, but rather an agreement between the business owner AND the public as to the terms of how that commerce will occur.

For example, the public gets to decide how many rats you have in your freezer if you run a restaurant (it better be zero) and the public gets to decide that you call a "gallon" of gas the same thing the rest of the public calls a gallon of gas. The public also tells business owners to collect sales tax, safety and occupancy laws and a myriad of other requirements that exist in order to do business with the public. Oh and they get to decide that your employees MUST WASH HAND BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK.
In general, I am for these regulations as they allow the public to buy and sell safely and efficiently.

As a society, we have decided that discrimination by business is not desired. As a white, middle aged guy who has never been turned away from a restaurant or hotel for being the "wrong color" or wrong religion, I agree with public accommodation as it exists in the US. Renting a room to a Jew, or selling gas to a black person is NOT enough of a violation of your right to free association to allow it to trump the rights of all in the US to be treated equally with respect to commerce.

Therefore, I think business should have no more right to refuse those of the PUBLIC that carry concealed than they do blacks or Baptists or Bill who is wearing his wife's underwear because he "likes how it feels." What you believe, your sexuality or what is under your clothing is, quite frankly, none of the shop keepers business. If a person has no interest in agreeing to the terms the public has created, then that person has no business opening their doors.

android wrote:I used to believe that "business" could do whatever it wants on private property, but after a lot of thought, I have decided that is an anarchistic position that has no place in civilized society.

android - Very good and thoughtful post.

My property, my rules...

Frederic Bastiat should answer this question:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness —is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."

WildBill wrote:

android wrote:I used to believe that "business" could do whatever it wants on private property, but after a lot of thought, I have decided that is an anarchistic position that has no place in civilized society.

android - Very good and thoughtful post.

I'm very much on the fence.... but if you can split the hair between "retail" and "non-retail" (and I don't think these are adequate descriptions, just a place holder), I'd lean towards taking away the ability of retail businesses to disarm me at the door. (I'd like to do the same for schools too. )

Just as retail businesses are required to meet a variety of codes for employees, sanitation, TABC, ADA, etc., I don't think it's at all unreasonable to require a business that's open to any and all foot traffic to also honor my right to carry.

As I type this, and after re-reading the line above, I find great discomfort in using existing regulations to justify new ones. So.... I'm considering changing my answer..

Like I said... On the fence.

android wrote:As a society, we have decided that discrimination by business is not desired. As a white, middle aged guy who has never been turned away from a restaurant or hotel for being the "wrong color" or wrong religion, I agree with public accommodation as it exists in the US. Renting a room to a Jew, or selling gas to a black person is NOT enough of a violation of your right to free association to allow it to trump the rights of all in the US to be treated equally with respect to commerce.

I have a hard time being convinced that a CHL holder can be discriminated against.
The accepted definition of discrimination is the unequal treatment for who you are rather that what you do through your actions.
The fact that you have a CHL is separate from the fact that you carry a concealed handgun.
So it is the action of carrying that is prohibited, not the fact you have a license or are a part of a group that advocates the 2nd Amendment.

Russell wrote:

jmra wrote:

SewTexas wrote:If I own the store I should be able to manage my store the way I want to


Let me put it this way......

why putting up a sign refusing entry to CHL holders any different than refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? A business owner should be able to decide who they want to do business with based on my beliefs.

If you refuse to bake that cake you better be prepared to spend a lot of money on lawyers - not saying I believe you should have to bake the cake, just stating reality.

There more than likely would not be any lawyers involved. Sexual orientation is not a protected class.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but:

DENVER—A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.
The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."

The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes


Read more: Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24672 ... z2rQoIWM00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24672 ... ay-couples" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WildBill wrote:

Russell wrote:

jmra wrote:

SewTexas wrote:If I own the store I should be able to manage my store the way I want to


Let me put it this way......

why putting up a sign refusing entry to CHL holders any different than refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? A business owner should be able to decide who they want to do business with based on my beliefs.

If you refuse to bake that cake you better be prepared to spend a lot of money on lawyers - not saying I believe you should have to bake the cake, just stating reality.

There more than likely would not be any lawyers involved. Sexual orientation is not a protected class.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but:

DENVER—A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.
The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."

The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes


Read more: Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24672 ... z2rQoIWM00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24672 ... ay-couples" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You bet me to it Bill.