Legislative Director

[Sasquatch]

As it stands - the incident in Luby's was directly because of the laws of the day - there was no legal mechanism for anyone to be armed in that Luby's aside from a cop eating his lunch there (which, IIRC, there was not)

As it stands - there is no legal mechanism for a person to be armed in a place today, if that place posts up 30.05/06/07 signs unless they're a cop.

The results are the same - the law prohibits one from legally being armed in such an instance - doesn't matter if its store policy or state law - the store policy is utilizing state law in the second example, while in the first, state law didn't allow for *any* plain citizen to be armed. The result is the same - if you're armed, you're committing a crime by your mere presence with a firearm.

 

[Renegade]

As it stands - the incident in Luby's was directly because of the laws of the day - there was no legal mechanism for anyone to be armed in that Luby's aside from a cop eating his lunch there (which, IIRC, there was not)

you could carry any firearm except a handgun.

As a result I started carrying a tennis racquet bag.

 

[rotor]

you could carry any firearm except a handgun.

As a result I started carrying a tennis racquet bag.

Now a 30.05 or no firearm sign would eliminate long gun too.

 

[Renegade]

Now a 30.05 or no firearm sign would eliminate long gun too.

Yep another loss brought to us by pro gun groups

 

[toddnjoyce]

But that's not what you said in your post


You are advocating legislative action to prevent a business from conducting business as they see fit.

Question: do understand what a defense to prosecution is?

 

[Dave Z]

Question: do understand what a defense to prosecution is?

That doesn't relieve you from civil lawsuits, just legal prosecution.
You can be sued for cause, but be fully protected from legal actions because you didn't break any laws.
Ask OJ how that worked out for him.

 

[Axxe55]

That doesn't relieve you from civil lawsuits, just legal prosecution.
You can be sued for cause, but be fully protected from legal actions because you didn't break any laws.
Ask OJ how that worked out for him.

So you would sue someone over essentially what is trespassing when there are no damages?

Hmmm....Let's file a lawsuit over being butt-hurt!

 

[kbaxter60]

the shop keeper or business owner being forced into allowing firearms carry

It's interesting how you state that part. You could have said: "...the shop keeper or business owner being forced into denying an individual's God-given right to defend themself in a deadly scenario". But you did not.

How's this for "middle ground"? You can have your "right" to remove one of mine temporarily. You then, however, become entirely responsible for my safety. You accept full liability and if I am wounded or killed in your precious business, you get your royal ass sued into the ozone layer.
I am sure you can buy some liability insurance to cover you in that unlikely event, so all is good.

 

[Dave Z]

Axxe55, are you really that firicken stupid, or do you try? Too much East Texas inbreading?

Just suppose that your distant cousin draws his pistol out and discharges it and hits a passer by. Since he doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, who do you think that the passer by's heirs are going to go after monitarily? Civil lawsuits are not about who's right and who's wrong, its about who has the deepest pockets.

You have to mitigate your risks somehow.

 

[Dave Z]

It's interesting how you state that part. You could have said: "...the shop keeper or business owner being forced into denying an individual's God-given right to defend themself in a deadly scenario". But you did not.

There's no God given right to keep and bear arms. If there was, Australia, Great Britain and other countries would be different places today.

Keep your facts straight, I never said anything about not being able to defend yourself.

 

[Axxe55]

Axxe55, are you really that firicken stupid, or do you try? Too much East Texas inbreading?

Just suppose that your distant cousin draws his pistol out and discharges it and hits a passer by. Since he doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, who do you think that the passer by's heirs are going to go after monitarily? Civil lawsuits are not about who's right and who's wrong, its about who has the deepest pockets.

You have to mitigate your risks somehow.

"inbreading" And you accuse me of being inbred? I do love the "stupid" comment BTW!

And your scenario? A huge "what-if" at most.

 

[Renegade]

Axxe55, are you really that firicken stupid, or do you try? Too much East Texas inbreading?

Just suppose that your distant cousin draws his pistol out and discharges it and hits a passer by. Since he doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, who do you think that the passer by's heirs are going to go after monitarily? Civil lawsuits are not about who's right and who's wrong, its about who has the deepest pockets.

You have to mitigate your risks somehow.

And you think posting a no guns sign gives the shop keeper civil immunity? Or that cousin cleetus can read it and will not enter?

eta

I would personally love to know of any cases where a shop was sued as a result of a customer ND or even intentional. Shootings in shops happen most days and never heard of a shop getting sued for not having a sign. I bet I could find a waffle house that had a shooting last night and they will not be sued.

Meanwhile, majority of places in Texas have been welcoming or neutral on allowing guns for 25 years with no repercussions.

Amazing the ridiculous or anecdotal scenarios folks make up to justify their anti-gun positions.

 

[Axxe55]

And you think posting a no guns sign gives the shop keeper civil immunity? Or that cousin cleetus can read it and will not enter?

But, a "No Guns" keeps criminals, and idiots out.

 

[Axxe55]

"I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but......"

 

[SQLGeek]

There's no God given right to keep and bear arms

Just because countries deny somebody’s God given/natural rights doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

 

[Axxe55]

Just because countries deny somebody’s God given/natural rights doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

In regards to the 2nd Amendment, the founding fathers did not grant us this right. They acknowledged the right as being inherent.

 

[Byrd666]

I'll return later for further perusal.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Too late to stop that. Already tens of thousands of laws that do just that.

Just look at businesses and vaccines....

This. I'm really tired of hearing the "my business my rules" argument when it comes to things like this. It's already not "my business my rules" and hasn't been for decades, if ever.

Minimum wage, bake the cake, mandatory health insurance, FMLA and now they want to extend that to several months PAID leave, vaccine mandates... the list goes on and on and grows every day, with the addtions to it almost always something the left screams for. I don't like it but we can't be the only side that doesn't play the game. It won't work.

Most of our LTC laws in Texas are legacy compromises made to get the thing passed to begin with. It shouldn't have had to be that way, but here we are.

I've always thought the 30.06 signs were stupid. aiui Texas has somewhat unique property rights whereby violating a business owner's sign was a criminal offense in and of itself, as opposed to most other states where you have to be asked to leave and refuse before it became a crime. Rather than carve out an exception for licensed carriers like they should have, they came up with this cumbersome sign that it was assumed businesses wouldn't bother with. It was a distinction without a difference and now, rather than fix it with an exception, we keep adding more stupid and confusing signage requirements. I try to keep up with this stuff and I can't even keep up with it. It's ridiculous.

One more thing and I'll shut up. We passed the parking lot bill a few years ago so that even if you couldn't carry into a businees, you could legally keep your firearm in your vehicle. The theory was that if you had to visit a prohibited or posted location that day, you were effectively disarmed for the entire day or trip because there would be no place to legally store your weapon. Well, almost all parking lots are private property and we had no trouble violating THOSE sacred property rights, because otherwise you'd have effectively eliminated the right to carry for many people. So the precedent has already been set, by OUR side. Why LTC holders continue to defend their own discrimination insofar as the actual premises are concerned is beyond me.

Not to mention the 51% and "court office" abuses. The whole thing needs a rewrite. It shouldn't be this hard in Texas for crying out loud.

I'm not even advocating for being legally ALLOWED to carry into any private business. If we followed the left's rules THAT'S where we'd be. I'd be fine just taking away the legal authority of the signs and make property owners ask you to leave first. That's it. That's how it is in essentially all other states (I think) and it seems to work fine there.

Rant over.

 

[Dash Riprock]

I have never understood any of the reasons for no carry signs for any ltc person. Why can’t I conceal carry at a voting booth? Am I more likely to shoot someone? I can see open carry as possibly influencing someone but not concealed. Why should a business care if I conceal carry? Am I wearing red underwear or white? Businesses property rights are violated routinely by armed robbers not LTC holders. Does LEO have better security background than I do. I don’t think so. Why 51% signs? I can go into a bar restaurant and not drink. Haven’t been to an execution lately. How many LTC holders have shot up schools? Post office parking lots. Is that the next Okay Corral?

Most of those things were compromises that they had to make to get the initial CC bill passed. Should have been cleaned up long ago (some were, like churches).

We're not as red as we think we are and never have been.

 

[Dash Riprock]

As it stands - the incident in Luby's was directly because of the laws of the day - there was no legal mechanism for anyone to be armed in that Luby's aside from a cop eating his lunch there (which, IIRC, there was not)

Actually, iirc, there were in fact cops who had just finished eating there. There was some kind of LEO conference across the street and a group of them were walking back to it when they heard the commotion. The gunman was still able to kill, what was it 20 something people?, even though those officers (I think it was DPS but not 100% sure) got there very quickly.