...  If your business is open to the public;  HEB, Denny's, Antique Shop, where there's a door for anyone to come in at random.  That portion of the building, or otherwise that public entrance should be exempt from prohibition of any legal concealed weapon prohibitions unless that business employs and retains armed security or they be civilly liable for everyone in their building if they are granted permission to prohibit my lawful civil right of self defense.

YOUR property rights, prohibiting MY civil rights should come with some liability.

Ban my gun?  Ok, you and YOUR business are now responsible for my safety.

How about you just don't go there?  

How about you just sit in the back of the bus, or just walk to work?


Gun owners need to change their mindset from "thank you Mastah for permission to carry" to "it is called Constitutional Carry for a reason", just like all the other protected classes have done.

Or perhaps you should change your mindset from trying to infringe on others people's rights, to respecting liberty in other areas.

Businesses have the "Right to Refuse Service" to anyone for any reason.  Don't buy from them if you don't like their politics.  I do it all the time.

I agree, nobody should be trying to infringe on others people's Constitutional rights.

However, the right to exclude people from your public business is not a Constitutional right. In fact, running a public business is a privilege granted by the state in forms or licenses, permits, rules, etc.

No they do not.

They can only do what the govt allows them to do.

The NFL tried to ban cops with guns from stadiums, how did that work out?

Read Civil Rights Act of 1964

Indeed, there's a long, long list of things any business has to do to have the public on premises - from the width and direction of doors, to number of bathrooms, fire exits, etc.  Plus all the non-discriminations aspects.  Business do not have the ability to refuse service to anyone and haven't for a long time.

Traditionally, Republicans and conservatives in general have been very supportive of businesses.  Lots of reasons for this - most businesses owners voted that way, big businesses look to the GOP for defense against labor unions supported by the Democrats, and for the support of capitalism.

But that began to change 10-15 years ago.  Many business started toting and preaching left wing rubbish.  Again lots of reasons for that - the infestation of leftist employees into companies especially into HR who hire and fire based on political beliefs, not competency.  Inability to withstand the glare of the media entertainment complex who would say mean things about any company who strayed from the leftist line.

And quite frankly, they found it far easier to to go against the right than the left.  The left will actually carry out boycotts and protest against any company who goes against them.  On the right - too lazy.  A post here was asking what non-Coke drink to buy - and most of the responses said that he was posting on a computer so that was made by a leftist company so he's a hypocrite, etc.  The right is very easy to ignore politically as there's no follow through.  

On a national level this change hasn't yet impacted the GOP - corporate tax rates are truly the holiest of holy grains of the national Republican party, and the hill that they would truly die upon, while surrendering on every other thing they run on.  Even for companies that take their tax savings and donate it to the Democrat party - that's how stupid the GOP is nationally.  

But on a local level, certainly on a personal level, I don't give two shits anymore about "business rights".  If they're open to the public, what right to they have to try to keep me and my personal defense firearm that's covered and concealed out of their store?  I can see open carry as it's visible and similar to say wearing a bathing suit.  But concealed is not visible, and it would be like them saying what type of drawers they allowed into a store.

At this point, after seeing how quickly businesses will run over to the left at the drop of a hat, I no longer have any qualms about using the heavy hand of government to force them to respect the rights of concealed carriers, and for the firearms industry in general. Besides Constitutional Carry, the biggest pro-gun bill this session was SB19, which will force businesses to do business with the firearms industry, or do no business with the State of Texas.

It's time to stop carrying the water of a sector that is not our political friend, and actively supports and funds those who wish to confiscate firearms from the public.  

I get that, and I'll continue to oppose you on this.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  I'll continue to support liberty whenever I'm able.  You can support tyranny when it benefits you if you want.


The important thing was that it didn't outlaw business practices, or force businesses to do business with the firearms industry.  It forced the state to not do business with companies that choose to intentionally not work with gun companies.  Businesses are still free to decide their course of action as they see fit.

No. Not only no but fuck no. Fuck no with sugar on top.


Shop somewhere else. It’s your choice to enter.

Boycotts are certainly a good option, but as we found out with Civil Rights, nothing tops fighting for your Constitutional rights.

It appears that a whole lot of folks here need to read up on exactly what, We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone, really means, and why it is perfectly legal, under certain circumstances.

Under federal antidiscrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person, for any reason, unless  the business is discriminating against a protected class.

Pretty sure that folks exercising their constitutional carry rights have not yet been declared to be a protected class.

Your absolute access to your personal rights end at someone else's doorstep. If you can't see that, then you have a very misguided notion of what the Constitution and this nation are supposed to stand for.

This is a drastic oversimplification. We live in a collective, a society, not the land of snowflakes where Renegade X gets to have everything in society meet his definition of the 2nd. This is precisely what leftists do, and it's just as wrong when we do it as when they do it.

No leftists force it on you, I am saying we should fight for it within the system. You know, like we fought for CHL/LTC, etc., Like the cops fought for 50 state carry, and 30.05 exemption.

And SB 20 that prevents hotels from a guest bringing their firearms in the rooms for safe storage. Not requiring your handgun be left in your car to be stolen. The 20% of the hotels that did not allow firearms were not doing their job (required by law) to inform guests they could not bring guns on premises,

This afternoon the second shooter in the 6 th St. shooting was arrested, one of the shooters was 14, the other 17. Both had stolen guns, more than likely from vehicles. These criminals are not that stupid, they know most of us gun owners obey the laws and will lock their firearms in their cars. That is where the criminals start breaking into cars.

A guy I was talking with today, he was a LT.C instructor (not one of those instructors) and he was taking his grandkids on a vacation around Texas, grandkids wanted to go to Six Flags. Now he knew he could not carry in Six Flags as per state law, so he called them up and talked to their security office. They said they have a couple hundred cars broken in monthly at Six Flags, but he could check in his handgun at the security office while they were in the park and pick it up when done.

Maybe if businesses don’t want guns on their property they need to have some skin in the game and have a safe place for people to secure their firearms if they are serious about no wanting guns in their business.

You would be "fighting" to force your rights into a position where they supersede the inalienable rights (property) of others.

I am not forcing anything. I would be happy just to scale back our trespassing laws similar to other states where you have to be asked to leave before you are cited. I think I am not alone in the regard, and that is the generally opinion of TSRA, GOA, NRA and a host of other gun activists.

When rights collide, which rights should take precedence, The only right that "Shall Not Be Infringed" or something not even worth a mention in the Constitution? I will go with the one so important the founders specifically enumerated it.

Can you cite any SCOTUS decisions where they stated property rights are inalienable? I must have missed that. Was it before or after Kelo v. City of New London? Yeah, property owners do not even have the right to own their property......

Yet quite a few states allow a simple purple paint job on a fence post or tree to indicate the property owners desire that no one trespass on his property. A sign saying NO GUNS should have the same effect. NO means NO.




There's a difference between those organizations advocating for gun rights and them saying "fuck you we want to open carry wherever we damn well please". I haven't seen the TSRA, NRA or GOA saying fuck your rights.




Again, "Shall not be infringed..." applies to government, not a business. If a business says No Gun/No Shirt/No Service......and you walk in anyway, they should have the right to refuse admittance and if you don't leave have you cited for trespassing. The police officer doesn't have to cite you for possessing the firearm, just for trespassing after you refused to leave. That's not a Second Amendment issue, but an asshole issue.

doubletap

I have never seen a business open to the public do that. So not sure relevance.



Yeah, only the cops get to say that.



Exactly what I want! In fact I even stated that in the post you quoted - "I would be happy just to scale back our trespassing laws similar to other states where you have to be asked to leave before you are cited."

So has anybody read this yet?

Specifically Page 15 where it says just about any type of sign bars entry?

FIFY

Yeah, that's the same. You're smarter than that

You are smarter than that too, and know I was not suggesting they were the same.

I was suggesting a change in mindset to stop accepting the status quo.

That change is here, whether folks like it or not. You can get on board, or get tossed aside like Cotton/Tripp/TSRA did.

What exactly is the change that you're suggesting?  You've been all over the place with your comments.  I doubt there are many here that don't want to get to Constitutional Carry, but not allowing property owners to control their own property isn't something that all of us think is part of that.

There are no “buts” in Constitutional Carry. That is the whole point of it and what separates it from everything else.  You are either for it or you are not. I am for it.

So your position is that there should be no way to prevent someone from carrying a gun on MY personal property.  Got it.  I think that's crazy and I hope that never happens in Texas.

No that is not my position, never has been, never will be, and never said any such thing.

Lame try at ridiculous spin and complete Fake News on your part

This one?

https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/3grj768k34x5pqmmvhpc85c/TXCC-Guide-Single-Pg-Digital.pdf?

Posted before, sorry.

A question about the State Fair. Did Dallas turn the running of the Fair over to a private management company before last year's run that was canceled?
Will it not being a city-run operation change the carry rules?

Businesses that are open to the public really are not personal property - they can't even control the number of doors they have or how wide they are.  Even the grade from the parking lot to the front door has rules for how steep it is.

No one is saying you have to let strangers with guns in your house.  The issue being discussed is should businesses, open to the public and subject to 100's of other state and Federal laws covering a myriad of topics from bathrooms to lighting to fire alarms, be allowed to keep concealed carriers out of their stores, when they are not visible, and have no impact on other customers or employees?

Open carry would be another topic, and more in line with dress codes or such, as open carry is visible, and could impact other shoppers.  But concealed carry impacts no one, unless the handgun has to be used for self-protection.

For many years businesses could keep their employees from keeping firearms in their cars, in the parking lot, under the same concept of property rights, until Texas changed the law about it and prevented companies from prohibiting concealed firearms, save for a few certain job sites.  Companies went to court and lost, and except for the tidal wave of blood that flowed (not really) nothing bad happened.

Personally, I would get rid of the ability for businesses to keep LTC's out via 30/06 signs.  If the state has given a person a license to carry in the state, then that should include all businesses open to the public.

You literally just said "no buts" after I pointed out Constitutional Carry isn't normally thought to supercede property rights.  I thought I had nailed down your point.  I guess I haven't.  

Let me know when you're done crawfishing on this topic and you care to actually make a point.

Would you care to expand on the logical difference between open carry and concealed carry as it relates to impact on other shoppers?  I'm not following.  Legally and logically, what is the difference, when discussing Constitutional Carry?

Point was made in one first posts - a change in mindset, and that is happening. There is a new sheriff in town and they are not accepting the status quo.

I don't follow this worship of property rights, when as above, businesses already have a huge number of things they have to do to be able to let the public shop in their stores.  

Since I'm gun focused, I don't see why we shouldn't fight to allow LTC'es to concealed carry everywhere in the state.

And as I first wrote, as a conservative, I'm about done with supporting the businesses side anyway.  They take our support and votes for Republicans, use it to get visas to bring over cheaper than US workers, and donate the majority of the political donations to a party that wants to ship me off to a camp.  And I'm supposed to care about their "holy property owner" rights?  Nope.  Don't want persons who have the ability to defend themselves on their property - too bad, or go to mail order only.

One is hidden one is visible.  One can't impact other shoppers or employees, save for some slight chance of seeing the bottom of a holster when someone grabs the chips off the top shelf.  

I can see no open carry in a business, as it might impact others.  But businesses should not be allowed to exclude concealed carry, and certainly not LTC carry.

Government regulates what I do with my private property (home and land).  Does that mean it's not my personal property?

Libertarians would certainly try to make that argument.

Businesses take various forms - a corporation has a charter granted by the state in order to operate as a legal entity. As a rule, states have been very permissive with what a corporation may do, although the grounds for the charter is that it is considered to be in the public interest to grant the corporate charter. Perhaps sound public policy would be more restrictive in what a corporation may do in interest of the public and the corporate shareholders, such as no political activity and respect the fundamental articulated rights of all citizens. Under such circumstances, a corporation that did not serve blacks, censored social media posts, or went 30.06 could have its charter by the state pulled and be put out of business in Texas - a more effective deterrent to bad conduct than paying a fine.

Other business forms incur more personal liability for the owners. BTW< if you lease you business location is it the property of the business? You can argue that you have control of the premises, but that is as far as you can go with the my property, my rules argument. Does the actual property owner over ride your desire?

Do property owners have the authority to tell people they are not allowed to have asthma inhalers? Can they ban Jews from entering their store? Can they sell human beings because PrIvAtE pRoPeRtY? Can a property owner punch a baby because PrIvAtE pRoPeRtY?


Property rights are not absolute. Your right to do as you please with your property is limited by the rights of other people. And when you open your property to the public, you give up a few of those rights. For example, in AZ, I can straight punch someone without warning for wandering into my house, even if I leave the door open. But I can't do that if I run a business where people are expected to walk in.

Now, I don't think we should be telling property owners they are not allowed to prohibit weapons. But I do think the operator of any facilities, whether privately owned or government assumes some responsibility for the safety of people on their property. And if they choose to prohibit weapons, that liability is increased. Further, if they choose to ban weapons, I don't believe a stupid little sticker is sufficient to ensure other patrons are complying with the policy. I believe if they want to ban weapons, they need to make a good faith effort to ensure compliance.

Signs don't give rights. Rights are a condition of being human and are universal.

lol. Irony.

Your rights don't supersede my rights.

It is a generic term.

The legislature has given them certain rights, freedoms, permissions, whatever.

The simple fact is you have no rights that can not be taken away.

No. If you're speaking about your home, then your word is law. Mostly. You still can't sell people or chop babies up for fertilizer. If you're speaking about your business, then some stupid little sign should carry no legal weight whatsoever. You want to ban guns, you need to make some attempt to screen for weapons and you need to accept enhanced liability for my safety if you disarm me. Irrespective of any sign or screening, you still have the authority to require someone to leave an have them arrested if they refuse.

think about what you just wrote

Maybe I can put a finer point on it. Businesses should be allowed to post whatever signs they wish. 1A and all that jazz. But signs should carry no legal weight. If I carry openly and the business owner doesn't like guns, he can trespass me. If I carry concealed, he doesn't know about it and I have broken no laws by ignoring his sign. I'll still prefer to do business elsewhere, but should I choose to patronize his establishment, I'm not breaking any law.

I did. Carefully. And I have for decades. There are two fundamental human rights in conflict here. One right is to do as you please with your own property. The other is to be armed. But the conflict is caused by the state. If the state didn't step in and grant legal authority to a stupid little sign, there would be no conflict. Just as the property owner can ignore my right to be armed, I can ignore his wish that I'm not armed. So long as I do it discreetly, no laws are broken, if those stupid signs aren't given police powers.

The right and just approach is that business owners be allowed to post whatever they wish and that they be allowed to inform someone they must leave on whatever grounds they choose and that they have police haul trespassers away if they refuse to leave.

QFMT.

Possibly. If I'm allergic to the drug in your inhaler I have the right to ask you to leave the premises......same as with any other allergy. A more common prohibition is peanuts.



No, because if you had read one paragraph of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (link above) you would know that a business owner can't.
FFS reading is fundamental.





No, read the fucking Thirteenth Amendment FFS.




Baby cow? Baby goat? Baby dipshit?
Private property rights don't exempt the property owner from federal, state or local laws, you should know that.



Who said anything of the sort?




No shit Sherlock.
It's already been covered in this thread.



Lucky you. Can you then sell those baby's you punch?



A business owner's liability has a lot to do with his awareness of previous crimes in or near his business, its called foreseeability. If I operate a business and there hasn't been a violent crime within a half mile it for the last X number of years....good luck proving foreseeability. If my business has had multiple 911 calls or multiple violent crimes on or near my business property I better be able to show that I've installed bright lights, hired security, trimmed bushes, etc to mitigate the opportunity for crime. Not doing those things exposes the business and employees to risk.

A "no guns" sign on a business door doesn't automatically make the business owner liable for customer safety.  If you see a NO GUNS sign, you are free to reverse direction and shop elsewhere.