Some thoughts on fixing the proliferation of 30.06 and 30.07 signs next session

[Saltyag2010]

So, a license to exercise property rights?








Sent from my HAL 9000

I have a license to practice my 2nd amendment right. Why can't a business have to get a license to keep law abiding, sober and licensed citizens from being armed on their property? It's just and fair

1. I don't remember the constitution stating businesses rights to exclude me from my 2nd amendment right.

2. I still paid and took a class to carry a firearm, wherever permitted, and now some places of business want to take away my constitutional and God-given right and I'm not allowed to question their authority? Boo.

 

[SC-Texas]

Bones . . . Actually you are incorrect. Businesses are essentially immune from suit. That have little to no duty to protect patrons under the current law


www.TexasGunTrust.com

 

[SC-Texas]

It's interesting this discussion of rights.

There are many rights. Are they all equal in y'all eyes?

What are the rights?

Life
Liberty
Pursuit of happiness

The Right of self defense is generally higher that the right of property

No rights are absolute.




www.TexasGunTrust.com

 

[WarHawk_AVG]

How is that any different than current law? Or do you want some law that says they would always be liable? Because if you can make a case and convince a jury you could sue and win today.

Oh I get it you don't think you could win that case so you want the government to weight the scales in your favor or just use the fact that the govt has weighted the scales to try and force people to do what you want. H'mmm not something I'm personalty in favor of.

If some kid injures himself on your property is your property insurance not going to cover him, or should we just put up a sign?

The thing is I took steps to legalize my personal protection, they by the use of a sign stripped me of that, heck it stripped all law abiding of their defense, funny thing is, the non-law abiding are unaffected.

Why should I be held accountable for a round I missed if I had to defend myself with, was I releasing that round due to someone elses action? (Yeah...silly I know)

Maybe it should be easier for lawful conceal carriers to get restitution from property insurance if a sign is put up limiting their defence and no steps we're taken by property owners to ensure safety is actually implemented (aka a fence around a pool in the back yard/apartment)

Anyone see where I am going with this?

The signs only affect those who obey the law...last time I checked robbing someone at gunpoint was against the law...murder-check, aggravated *insert whatever here* yup-check as well....funny how the lawless just don't get the memo

Not sure on current law...can someone sue and win in a case like that? Here in Texas, Commiefornia...sure, but here?

By putting up that sign are the property owners not saying "you are safe from violence here (specifically gun violence)" and if they do not provide for said protection would they not be liable if their patrons and/or employees we're victims of said violence?




Sent from my 9006W using Tapatalk

 

[winchster]

No sign on non government property disarms you. Nobody that puts up a legal 30.06 sign strips you of any right.

You voluntarily do this to yourself if you choose to enter. Why is this so difficult to understand.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[CrazedJava]

It's interesting this discussion of rights.

There are many rights. Are they all equal in y'all eyes?

What are the rights?

Life
Liberty
Pursuit of happiness

The Right of self defense is generally higher that the right of property

No rights are absolute.



www.TexasGunTrust.com

I view owning property as part of "Liberty"

How do you figure that your rights trump any of mine when on my property?

If I don't like what you say, I can eject you. If I don't want alcohol on my property, I can kick you off (A friend of mine has this very stance. Fuddy duddy)

How is running a business any different than owning a home? If I own property it is mine to do with as I see fit. They may have legislation that restricts that, but they also have restrictions on gun ownership and we argue that is wrong as well.

I don't know how this is hard to understand -

My rights begin at the end of my nose and your rights end at the end of your fist.

In other words, if you use your rights to oppress my rights, you are in the wrong.

We can go round and round about which rights are greater but let me ask this one question -

If so much of our complaints about gun control advocates is them deciding what rights we are allowed to have what makes it any better for us to decide how to infringe on the rights of others?

Which rights supersede each other is not something that has a universal legal precedent.

If I want my rights respected, it starts by showing respect for the rights of others even if I don't agree with them.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I use this as my signature on another Forum, it was actually written by another TGT member....



"The hardest part of Freedom....is accepting the other guy's right to exercise his......"

 

[Saltyag2010]

It's interesting this discussion of rights.

There are many rights. Are they all equal in y'all eyes?

What are the rights?

Life
Liberty
Pursuit of happiness

The Right of self defense is generally higher that the right of property

No rights are absolute.




www.TexasGunTrust.com

I think there is a reason the bill of rights has numbers. The most important stuff is in the beginning.

 

[CrazedJava]

I think there is a reason the bill of rights has numbers. The most important stuff is in the beginning.

That is not how it works.

 

[SC-Texas]

No sign on non government property disarms you. Nobody that puts up a legal 30.06 sign strips you of any right.

You voluntarily do this to yourself if you choose to enter. Why is this so difficult to understand.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Counterpoint

1. A sign on government property does disarms you the same way a sign on private property does.

2. If the item you need is essential i.e. emergency medical care, then you do not have a choice. You cannot simply go.somewhere else can you? You are not choosing to go. You have to go to the ER. Or die.

www.AtomicLabRat.com

 

[locke_n_load]

I just wanted to say, please don't make a poll asking how many license holders walk past signs. Let's not give any antis any ammunition in this forum.
We are one of the most law abiding groups in Texas. Let's keep up that ideology, at least on the public forum.

 

[CrazedJava]

Counterpoint

1. A sign on government property does disarms you the same way a sign on private property does.

2. If the item you need is essential i.e. emergency medical care, then you do not have a choice. You cannot simply go.somewhere else can you? You are not choosing to go. You have to go to the ER. Or die.

www.AtomicLabRat.com

Public property is an entirely different ball of wax. A long time ago I was summoned for jury duty and I had a little Swiss Army knife in my pocket. Parking was bad and it was a 10 minute hike to the courthouse only to see a sign that said "No knives of any kind" on the door. Right past the door are 4 guards with guns. That doesn't count numerous police officers, deputies, constables, and bailiffs. There was absolutely no point in making me walk back to my car to stow that in the glove box.

There is probably some good reasons to not allow guns in the courtroom, it shouldn't take much to figure out why. I do think that it gets taken to the extreme.

In cases like going to the ER, which maybe crosses a line between public and private (you often don't choose to go to a hospital) there needs to be some kind of good faith exception. Common sense would say if you're in an accident, take an ambulance ride to the hospital, and you have your EDC on you that it should be no big deal. Unfortunately, we've seen overzealous prosecutors put people away for minor offenses in order to bolster their stats. Maybe not quite as common in Texas, but it would be a real concern.

Furthermore, if we want to fight the proliferation of signs, use capitalism. Take your business elsewhere and let that business know why. Also, if a business is gun friendly, you absolutely should be letting the owners or managers know that is why you are there.

 

[bones_708]

Bones . . . Actually you are incorrect. Businesses are essentially immune from suit. That have little to no duty to protect patrons under the current law


www.TexasGunTrust.com

Well no they do have some duty. A duty of reasonable care. The problem is that no court or jury has ever ruled in a way to make anyone believe that duty must include permitting customers to be armed. So you can make the argument and try to sue but you will almost certainly lose. So the argument is to get the government to change the standard so because you can't otherwise convince people. Yep I don't agree with that.

 

[SC-Texas]

That is why we changed it to the Wisconsin style immunity from suit

www.AtomicLabRat.com

 

[Younggun]

I have a license to practice my 2nd amendment right. Why can't a business have to get a license to keep law abiding, sober and licensed citizens from being armed on their property? It's just and fair

Not on your own private property. If you can do as you wish on your property why should they not have the ability to do the same on theirs. I do see an issue with the requirement for you to be licensed if I invite you over for BBQ. I should be able to give you permission to carry on my property without you needing to have a License. Could be a good fall back should unlicensed carry hit a wall again in the next session.

1. I don't remember the constitution stating businesses rights to exclude me from my 2nd amendment right.

I don't remember the constitution mentioning anything about restricting the authority of citizens. Only the government.

2. I still paid and took a class to carry a firearm, wherever permitted, and now some places of business want to take away my constitutional and God-given right and I'm not allowed to question their authority? Boo.

They don't want to take away anything other than your ability to enter their property under certain conditions. That has nothing to do with your constitutional rights. This is a matter of restricting access, not self defense. (See, I flipped that around a bit). Now if you entered the property, and they had the ability to legally, forcefully disarm you, that would be a different issue. But that is something they can't do. They can restrict your access though and I'm ok with that because they have property rights and those rights should be respected.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Younggun]

That is why we changed it to the Wisconsin style immunity from suit

www.AtomicLabRat.com

I replied to another post but you may not have seen it, and since you seem to be forming a wish list:

The ability to carry on someone else's private property unlicensed should be at the discretion of the property owner.

We need to work on removing the text requiring the property be under your control (can't remember the exact wording) and replace it a clause for permission from the property owner.

Not perfect, but a definite step up from the current wording. This should also include private property used for business.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[outdare]

I didn't read the whole thread. So may I ask the difference between private and public property based on business applications not privately owned residences or land? If a place is open to the public doesn't that make it a public place and open to the right of someone to carry?

 

[Younggun]

I would say no. I believe even a business has the right to restrict access as they see fit. A right that has been infringed upon in far too many way.

I don't believe any of us have any right to enter privately owned property, regardless of its use.




Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[crackpot]

I live in Texas and in Massachusetts. In Mass there is NO legally binding signage. You can be trespassed should the property owner become aware of your firearm and you must leave. But signage means nothing legally speaking.

That is one of the rare ways in which Assachusetts is better for gun owners than Texas. The list of why it is worse is very long, but at least no binding signage.

THAT is what you should go after in the next session, removal of 30.06 and 30.07 laws entirely. Trespassing laws suffice with verbal notice to leave, etc.

 

[CrazedJava]

I didn't read the whole thread. So may I ask the difference between private and public property based on business applications not privately owned residences or land? If a place is open to the public doesn't that make it a public place and open to the right of someone to carry?

Nope. Just because a place says they are open to the public doesn't mean they can't refuse service or ask someone to leave. Yes, there have been some extreme examples of forcing business owners to service customers but I would argue it was done in violation of their rights.

One thing that gets overlooked is a lot of business owners are actually renters while the property their business sits on or in usually belongs to someone else. It's entirely possible that a 30.06 or 30.07 sign is by decree of the property owner and not the business owner. As private individuals though, that is not our problem as the business owner does willingly enter into a contract with the property owner and disputes over how the property is treated and managed is between them, not us.

That said, a business is still private property in some sense or fashion regardless of whether or not the person running the business owns the lot it sits on.

Think of it this way, if you ran a business and someone came in doing something you didn't like, would you be ok being told you had to let them in anyway?

In many ways I don't see the difference between a person's home and their business. They are the ones who made the investment and it belongs to them. Along comes someone saying their rights are greater than the business owner and that they should be able to do as they please even though they entered into the business willingly. Is that right?

That's what I hate about this whole discussion. People who run a business put their entire livelihood on the line, this is how they make their money, and for better or worse they need to be free to make decisions about how to run their business. I completely disagree that having a 30.06 and/or 30.07 sign is good for a business in most parts of Texas, but I'm not the one who spends their money and gets my paycheck from that business.

We cannot trample on someone else rights and we are not the ones who get to decide which rights are "greater" than others. In fact, deciding some rights are greater than others is how we got ourselves in a lot of messes today.