Disagree. A private business owner can and should be able to regulate and control access to his property.
Those days are long gone.
The debate is now how much or little he should be regulated.
Disagree. A private business owner can and should be able to regulate and control access to his property.
Disagree. A private business owner can and should be able to regulate and control access to his property.
I've meant to ask about this a few times. After reading the law over several times I am pretty confident that if I accidently show my unmentionable in public I won't have broken the law. However, peoples constant concern about things like printing or accidental display makes it confusing. Yeah, I'd prefer that nobody be aware that I'm armed, but given the choice between being armed with some printing or being unarmed - I'll take armed.
I think 30.06 signs need to go away for publicly accessible businesses - malls, stores, resturants, etc. An office building isnt publicly accessible but I don't think they should have them either but it's a harder argument to make.
No worries. I don't go to Grapevine Mills b/c of the stupid, and incorrectly placed, 30.06 signs. You open your doors to the public then your doors are open. What I carry or do not carry on my person is none of your business. Think the gangbanger with his glock shoved in the back of his pants cares that you posted a sign? Just means: fresh, unarmed meat.
An office building is not the same b/c it is not open to the public. The only people present are employees or invited guests.
Disagree, but to be fair, how so?Those days are long gone.
Fair enough. Thing is: a 7Eleven isn't really a private place. A person's residence is private - my door is not open to anybody during normal business hours. Where as a retail location (what I'm specifically talking about) is open to anybody that cares to go to the location. But in general I'd prefer to allow the market place to take its course, but it is still annoying.
Disagree, but to be fair, how so?
Dude! If it aint owned by the state or belongs to the public, then it is private. Like I said, there are better ways to protect your rights without infringing on the rights of others. Forcing what you want on private industry and private property will get you nothin. Those are two most cherished things in Texas. It's been a fight to keep it that way and it will stay that way.Fair enough. Thing is: a 7Eleven isn't really a private place. A person's residence is private - my door is not open to anybody during normal business hours. Where as a retail location (what I'm specifically talking about) is open to anybody that cares to go to the location. But in general I'd prefer to allow the market place to take its course, but it is still annoying.
Really, since when?Civil rights laws, Legal Right of Ways, etc.
A private business owner no longer has 100% control over who comes and goes on his property. Surely you agree he cannot legally deny entry based on skin, race, Appraisal Officer, etc?
Really, since when?
No he would not. Like I said before, carrying a handgun is illegal in Texas. Driving a car is not illegal. Driving a car without a license is illegal. In the latter case the Officer needs to be able to articulate that you had no license and that you were driving a car in public. In the former, he need only articulate that you were carrying a handgun. During the course of the invetgiation he may find out that you have an exemption and end the stop.I don't see where the difference would matter from a 4A standpoint. In either case, the police officer would have to be able to articulate a reason why they believed you did not have a license in order to detain you and force you to present it.
Okay....driving a car is illegal if not licensed. The license gives us an exemption.
Because when you get right down to it, a car is actually pretty heavily regulated. It must be registered and inspected annually. It must be insured at all times. Only licensed drivers are allowed to operate it.
I ain't tryin' to beat a dead horse, but I personally think that it won't take long before cops either tire of asking folks for their licenses, or some PD's get hit with harrassment suits....
Thanks I was unaware of that. I see that it is recent and is from a lower court, and thus not binding all over the state (only binding in the Amarillo area). Do you have anything from The Texas Court of Appeals? I do not think that ruling is binding in the other 13 jurisdictions. I will ask around myself.
1964, for civil rights, not sure about when for the Appraisal Officer, but I know many have tried to stop him and lost in the courts.
No, the DL does no gives us an exemption. Driving without the DL is illegal. If the handgun law and the driving law worked the same way the driving law would work like this:
(a)it shall be unlawful for any person on public property to operate a motor vehicle.
(b)this section shall not apply to a person possessing a valid Driver's License issued by the department of public safety.
.
I am pretty sure you are wrong. Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as they are not basing it on Race, or any of the other protected categories. I personally think this is a good thing. If someone comes in, and you don't want to serve them so be it...
Pretty darn close though:
Sec.A521.021.LICENSE REQUIRED.A A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a
motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver ’s license issued under this chapter.
SUBCHAPTER B. GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED. A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
The SCOTUS tell us in DE vs Prouse that suspicionless stops of vehicles are only acceptable as part of a checkpoint operation DELAWARE V. PROUSE, 440 U. S. 648 :: Volume 440 :: 1979 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. In Texas, in absence of State wide guidelines, checkpoints have been ruled unreasonable intrusion by the Court of Criminal appeals: Holt v. State, 887 S.W.2d Texas - Google ScholarThanks I was unaware of that. I see that it is recent and is from a lower court, and thus not binding all over the state (only binding in the Amarillo area). Do you have anything from The Texas Court of Appeals? I do not think that ruling is binding in the other 13 jurisdictions. I will ask around myself.