If Constitutional Carry Passes

[Wiliamr]

Show me where in the 2A there is an exemption for businesses open to the public to forbid my 2A rights.

The 2nd amendment and all amendments refer only to the reach of government. Nowhere in the Constitution does private property come to bear.

 

[Rhino]

Forcing? How is anyone forcing you to leave your weapon? Or denying you the right to self defense?

But you think it's alright to "force" a privately owned business to take steps to insure your safety if they post a sign prohibiting the carrying of firearms on their property or premises?

And please show exactly where in the Texas Constitution it says a privately owned business has the responsibility to insure your safety if they post a No Guns sign.

You always have choices, no different than right now. If I see a business with a No Guns sign, I do business elsewhere. That simple. If they don't feel comfortable with a law abiding citizen carrying a legal firearm on their premises, then I'm not comfortable doing business with them and spending my money.

I’m going to disagree, politely. I don’t think a business has the reasonable right to tell me I can’t use a list of 200 different words (free speech) in a store they hold open to the public and welcome me in to, nor can they search the clothes on my body, or my cavities just because I walked into their store to trade with them unless they have reason to believe I’m doing something evil and have warned me prior to entry.

Again let’s run a scenario where there’s no government to enforce such a law and we each have plots of land and our individual stores. The only way to keep other people with weapons from entering your property with concealed weapons is to become a tyrant on your fiefdom and you’d probably get a serious reputation and be ostracized.

 

[Rhino]

The 2nd amendment and all amendments refer only to the reach of government. Nowhere in the Constitution does private property come to bear.

Yes, but government protection and enforcement via sign and legal threats and jeopardy is where it becomes a 2A issue.

 

[Army 1911]

It's a club. Those who aren't carrying a gun are automatically members of the club. Those who carry are excluded.

 

[danielrcd]

Yes, but government protection and enforcement via sign and legal threats and jeopardy is where it becomes a 2A issue.

I don't disagree with you, but I think the signs, in this case, need to be viewed as the government backing the private property owners rights. The sign is simply stating that the private property/business owner can choose who comes onto their property. It's the same as a no hunting without owners permission sign.

Now, if I choose to disarm and enter that business, I have made that decision and I won't blame the sign or the business for anything that happens. They didn't force me to enter or do business with them, they just set conditions for it. Am I going to enter or do business with them? Probably not, I'll go somewhere else.

Personally, I believe any restriction is an infringement, but I'm not going to be some libturd who tries to force my belief on someone else or demands that they conform to make me more comfortable. I'll simply ignore them and take my business down the street.

 

[oldag]

I'll simply ignore them and take my business down the street.

That is easy to do if you live in San Antone. But if you live in Alpine, Paducah or McCamey it is not so easy.

 

[ScottDLS]

Here's an article relating to Texas specifically.

How Does Open Carry Affect Insurance for Texas Businesses?

Open carry legislation went into effect in Texas on January 1, 2016. This means that ordinary citizens with an existing concealed handgun license, can openly carry their firearms in public. There are several exceptions, including college campuses, federal and state owned land and in businesses...

hettlerinsurance.com

Here's one written for businesses in Illinois (yes, I know, but it gives the commie state perspective, and we all know scummy lawyers don't mind commie tactics when it suits them)

How to Respond to Employees Who Want to Bring Guns to Work

In the wake of recent mass shootings in workplaces and at entertainment venues, employees may want to bring guns to work to protect themselves and their customers. So what can employers do if they don’t want armed employees in the workplace?

www.shrm.org

My own experience with insurance under writers was in Oregon, and not relevant specifically to Texas except anecdotally. Our general liability insurance excluded coverage in the event an employee used a firearm. It did not differentiate that use in terms of lawful or unlawful. They did not blatantly say "ban guns or else" but if you look at the policy, it said "ban guns or else" in lawyer speak. As the partner in charge of crafting our policies, I drafted up our policy explicitly with the language "no unlawful carry, possesion, or use of a firearm, dangerous or deadly weapon" - the insurance people were happy, but the policy explicitly allowed for the legal possession and carrying of such devices. We did not verbally encourage, or discourage our employees from carrying. Upon hire, or upon counseling them I read the policy manual as written, asked if they had any questions, and had them sign that they received written copy and understood the policies within, fully expecting to be sued should an incident occur.

A difference between Oregon and Texas - Oregon mandates all businesses with employees have workers compensation insurance to cover employees, while Texas does not. The workers comp policy would come into play in covering the employee if they were injured by the use of firearms - and IIRC our policy made no mention about lawful or unlawful use of that firearm - but that's workers comp, not general lines - and it was compulsory workers comp at that.

Our general liability insurance excluded coverage in the event an employee used a firearm. They did not blatantly say "ban guns or else" but if you look at the policy, it said "ban guns or else" in lawyer speak.

Or else what? They raise your rates, they cancel your policy? They already said they won't cover you for employee use of a firearm. They aren't going to add coverage if you put up a 30.06/7 sign, or add a policy to the HR manual. From discussing this with business owners/operators and insurance brokers that I know, I have yet to see the actual policy language that provides any particular benefit for or requires putting up a valid 30.05/6/7 sign. Might just as well put up a "no violence" sign and be done with it, for all the good it will do.

I also agree that a suit against a business for putting up a sign has not much chance of succeeding either.

 

[Axxe55]

I’m going to disagree, politely. I don’t think a business has the reasonable right to tell me I can’t use a list of 200 different words (free speech) in a store they hold open to the public and welcome me in to, nor can they search the clothes on my body, or my cavities just because I walked into their store to trade with them unless they have reason to believe I’m doing something evil and have warned me prior to entry.

Again let’s run a scenario where there’s no government to enforce such a law and we each have plots of land and our individual stores. The only way to keep other people with weapons from entering your property with concealed weapons is to become a tyrant on your fiefdom and you’d probably get a serious reputation and be ostracized.

When you enter someone else's property, you are a guest of their's. Which means you have said in, unsaid agreement, that you will abide with their rules upon entering. And just because the premises are open to the public, doesn't negate the fact that they are still privately owned property.

So if we have the "government" pass a law, telling essentially a business that they either will allow anyone to carry firearms onto their premise's, even if it goes against their beliefs about firearms, or that they have to spend funds to insure the safety of everyone that enters, that is okay with you?

Not for me it isn't. It's more government over-reach into my personal business, and another method of them how I will do business, and that I as business owner have no rights within my own business.

My opinion may not be the popular one here, and I'm comfortable with that, but in such instances, even though I'm a law abiding gun owner, I'll have to side with the rights of the property owner being superior in such cases, regardless of what they think or believe about guns.

 

[msharley]

Yep.

They can choose not to permit firearms on their property.

I can choose to spend my money elsewhere.

Pretty simple..

 

[danielrcd]

That is easy to do if you live in San Antone. But if you live in Alpine, Paducah or McCamey it is not so easy.

Definitely can understand that and it's unfortunate

 

[Axxe55]

How many times are we complaining about how much the government is intruding into our lives, and how much over-reach they have in how we can, or cannot conduct our daily lives, but, here we are, wanting them to further intrude in making laws telling a business owner how they can conduct their business in regards to whether that can or can't allow a person to enter their premise's armed, or if they choose to prohibit such persons from entering, they can either spend the funds to insure the safety of those that enter, or that can be held legally obligated in the event of something happening.

IMO, that seems rather conflicting, and contradictive.

 

[ScottDLS]

When you enter someone else's property, you are a guest of their's. Which means you have said in, unsaid agreement, that you will abide with their rules upon entering. And just because the premises are open to the public, doesn't negate the fact that they are still privately owned property.

So if we have the "government" pass a law, telling essentially a business that they either will allow anyone to carry firearms onto their premise's, even if it goes against their beliefs about firearms, or that they have to spend funds to insure the safety of everyone that enters, that is okay with you?

Not for me it isn't. It's more government over-reach into my personal business, and another method of them how I will do business, and that I as business owner have no rights within my own business.

My opinion may not be the popular one here, and I'm comfortable with that, but in such instances, even though I'm a law abiding gun owner, I'll have to side with the rights of the property owner being superior in such cases, regardless of what they think or believe about guns.

I agree with what you said above with one caveat. You as a business owner, don't automatically get to have the government enforce your personal preferences with the force of criminal law. When you hang the "open" sign on your shop, you are inviting the public in. You can put up a circle slash no fat chicks sign (30.05 notice ???) and when Tubby Tanya walks in, you now want the PoPo to come down and arrest her for a Class B Misdemeanor trespass. The problem with 30.05 in Texas started with AG Dan Morales in 1995 opining on what "signs" might be used to enforce trespass on a CHL. His legally illiterate opinion that "any sign" would do, ignored the clear meaning of the statute. It was intended to allow private property owners to post their land/buildings against trespass by people that weren't supposed to be there, not provide for State enforcement of arbitrary conditions on entry. Heck, back then my local convenience store in Dallas couldn't even get all the bums out hanging out in front and panhandling. Couldn't they just have put up a Circle Slash Hobos sign, and gigged 'em on a class B? No, that had to call the Dallas PD and have them given written and verbal trespass notice and run them off. If you don't want people open carrying in your store, easy...just tell them to get out when you see them. Don't want CCW, put up a metal detector, or pat people down before they come in. On and off duty LEO can still come in your publicly owned business carrying whether you like it or not. In fact, if you try to exclude them for carrying, you face a $1000 civil fine.

 

[Mike_from_Texas]

When you enter someone else's property, you are a guest of their's. Which means you have said in, unsaid agreement, that you will abide with their rules upon entering. And just because the premises are open to the public, doesn't negate the fact that they are still privately owned property.

So if we have the "government" pass a law, telling essentially a business that they either will allow anyone to carry firearms onto their premise's, even if it goes against their beliefs about firearms, or that they have to spend funds to insure the safety of everyone that enters, that is okay with you?

Not for me it isn't. It's more government over-reach into my personal business, and another method of them how I will do business, and that I as business owner have no rights within my own business.

My opinion may not be the popular one here, and I'm comfortable with that, but in such instances, even though I'm a law abiding gun owner, I'll have to side with the rights of the property owner being superior in such cases, regardless of what they think or believe about guns.

There is actually a level of difference in private property laws regarding your home, vehicle, etc vs a private business open to public access.

There are still protections but they are but different than your home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Axxe55]

I agree with what you said above with one caveat. You as a business owner, don't automatically get to have the government enforce your personal preferences with the force of criminal law. When you hang the "open" sign on your shop, you are inviting the public in. You can put up a circle slash no fat chicks sign (30.05 notice ???) and when Tubby Tanya walks in, you now want the PoPo to come down and arrest her for a Class B Misdemeanor trespass. The problem with 30.05 in Texas started with AG Dan Morales in 1995 opining on what "signs" might be used to enforce trespass on a CHL. His legally illiterate opinion that "any sign" would do, ignored the clear meaning of the statute. It was intended to allow private property owners to post their land/buildings against trespass by people that weren't supposed to be there, not provide for State enforcement of arbitrary conditions on entry. Heck, back then my local convenience store in Dallas couldn't even get all the bums out hanging out in front and panhandling. Couldn't they just have put up a Circle Slash Hobos sign, and gigged 'em on a class B? No, that had to call the Dallas PD and have them given written and verbal trespass notice and run them off. If you don't want people open carrying in your store, easy...just tell them to get out when you see them. Don't want CCW, put up a metal detector, or pat people down before they come in. On and off duty LEO can still come in your publicly owned business carrying whether you like it or not. In fact, if you try to exclude them for carrying, you face a $1000 civil fine.

But if someone is trespassing, then we do allow LE to enforce those laws. Even on property that isn't granted access to the public.

Personally, I don't see a huge problem as it stand now. Someone enters carrying, as long as they leave when asked, no harm, no foul and no trespassing. The trespassing enters if they refuse to leave when asked IMO.

 

[Rhino]

Y’all are overthinking this. I’m not telling the government to not allow private citizens they can’t have their own rules for their own business. I’m just saying that the enforcement side, and extra legal protection is problematic. The law should end at trespassing, not with trespassing with this tool, or that tool, a knife, a hammer, or a pencil or pen, or green shirts or red shirts. If you don’t want me on your property tell me to leave and that’s it.


I say let’s step back. If society took a tumble and we have people dwelling in tents and wagons, large fiefdoms of wealthy landowners and you are a gypsy... where are you gonna “keep” your arms if you cannot “bear” them? Remember, MOST places you will “bear” arms - to wear, or to carry, are NOT government property, and those rights are natural rights, not government-enabled. Only the fearful, controlling types would ban a traveller from carrying their arms simply because, so I don’t have a lot of sympathy for this argument.

If you are an “essential” supplier, telling a homeless individual or a traveller to check their guns under a rock, with no provided security or lockbox is ridiculous. People have to eat.

 

[Axxe55]

There is actually a level of difference in private property laws regarding your home, vehicle, etc vs a private business open to public access.

There are still protections but they are but different than your home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Care to provide any sources or links to sources in the Texas Law Statutes that state that? I'll even allow you one better. Show me ANY state's statutes that says that.

 

[Axxe55]

Y’all are overthinking this. I’m not telling the government to not allow private citizens they can’t have their own rules for their own business. I’m just saying that the enforcement side, and extra legal protection is problematic. The law should end at trespassing, not with trespassing with this tool, or that tool, a knife, a hammer, or a pencil or pen, or green shirts or red shirts. If you don’t want me on your property tell me to leave and that’s it.


I say let’s step back. If society took a tumble and we have people dwelling in tents and wagons, large fiefdoms of wealthy landowners and you are a gypsy... where are you gonna “keep” your arms if you cannot “bear” them? Remember, MOST places you will “bear” arms - to wear, or to carry, are NOT government property, and those rights are natural rights, not government-enabled. Only the fearful, controlling types would ban a traveller from carrying their arms simply because, so I don’t have a lot of sympathy for this argument.

If you are an “essential” supplier, telling a homeless individual or a traveller to check their guns under a rock, with no provided security or lockbox is ridiculous. People have to eat.

Rhino, in that instance, if our society took a huge tumble as you said, such things as we are discussing right now, would be mere trivial things. More than likely LE and the government might not even exist, and the more powerful by whatever means, will be the ones setting the rules. So unless you have an army, then the more powerful will be telling you how you will be allowed to conduct your business.

 

[ScottDLS]

But if someone is trespassing, then we do allow LE to enforce those laws. Even on property that isn't granted access to the public.

Personally, I don't see a huge problem as it stand now. Someone enters carrying, as long as they leave when asked, no harm, no foul and no trespassing. The trespassing enters if they refuse to leave when asked IMO.

No, technically for handgun carry, if the proper sign is posted, a person can be charged even if they aren't asked to leave. Certain locations like hospitals and amusement parks, if properly posted are a Class A.

 

[Axxe55]

Well, for me, we have it seems reached a point where we are just going around in circles. I seriously doubt anything I have written is going to change any opinions or viewpoints, and I have had my say on the matter. I'm going to allow others to continue this discussion without me from here on.

One thing that escapes my logic, is that we talk of less infringement, lesser restrictions, and less intrusion into our lives, but want to add further restrictions and infringements upon the rights of a property owner. I'm sorry, I just can't in all fairness wrap my head around that concept.

Ciao.

 

[TexasRedneck]

When you enter someone else's property, you are a guest of their's. Which means you have said in, unsaid agreement, that you will abide with their rules upon entering. And just because the premises are open to the public, doesn't negate the fact that they are still privately owned property.

So if we have the "government" pass a law, telling essentially a business that they either will allow anyone to carry firearms onto their premise's, even if it goes against their beliefs about firearms, or that they have to spend funds to insure the safety of everyone that enters, that is okay with you?

Yes....and no. Can they post a sign saying "No gay/black/handicapped people"? No - in fact, they're required to make special accommodations for handicapped customers. If I wish to practice my constitutional right to be armed, and they wish to deny me that RIGHT - then IMO, they should assume liability for any injury that might arise by another visitor in their store.