Perhaps I'm missing something -- I hate to find myself in agreement with a Democrat.
I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't do with my private property or my private business. Are you saying you support the government forcing a private business owner to accept concealed firearms on their private property if they don't want to?
As a customer, if a business owner doesn't want my gun in their place of business, that should be his right. It's likewise my right to take my patronage elsewhere because I don't like his policy.
What's the problem with that?
Public property is something else entirely, of course, and public concealed carry should be the law in general.
How about the right of a business owner to allow smoking on their property? It’s perfectly legitimate to point out the hypocrisy of the dem’s sudden discovery of property rights.
Try rephrasing that and see if you still agree with its premise: "Are you saying you support the government forcing a private business owner to accept negroes on their private property if they don't want to?"
The thing is the private property owner is already allowing people without a permit to carry illegal weapons on the premises as long as he doesn't find out about it; it's something criminals do every hour of every day. There's no stopping someone from violating the 30.06 sign if they want to. The only purpose the sign serves is to keep the law-abiding from carrying there. And even then it doesn't apply to LEOs. And a lot of permit holders have more training with firearms and firearm safety than the average LEO.
[”As a customer, if a business owner doesn’t want my gun in their place of business, that should be his right.”]
OK, that makes sense, except you’re forgetting that according to the current law, not only can the owner bar you from carrying concealed weapons, but violation of that doesn’t merely mean you’re kicked out of that establishment.
It means that the state is then obliged to prosecute you for a weapons violation.
So, allow property owners to refuse them, but don’t make it a crime if they’re seen carrying... just throw them out, and arrest/prosecute if they give you any trouble about it.
“What’s the problem with that?”
Let us start with discrimination, these businesses are OPEN to the public, they cannot legally enforce something they cannot see. If they do not want guns on their prem, let them install metal detectors and and run an airport TSA security system.
If carrying concealed, correctly no one will ever know.
Movie theaters prohibit video recorders from being carried into the theater. But if I carry a camcorder into the theater anyway, the only thing the manager can do is eject me. He cannot subject me to legal penalties for having ignored his sign.
No, I agree that businesses have the right to prohibit patrons from carrying weapons. This may be a red herring though, since Perry may simply be referring to removing government restrictions on private businesses, rather than *forcing* businesses to allow gun-bearers on their premises.
Don’t conflate concealed carry laws with trespassing laws. They are very different and carry very different penalties. Noone in Texas is proposing a repeal of any trespass laws. I think everyone agrees with you that business owners have the right have rules about what’s allowed on their property and to kick people out for not following those rules. Noone wants to change that. The proposed change relates only to carry laws, not trespass laws. If this change goes into effect businesses can still make any rule they want (including rules about carrying guns) and kick out and refuse service to people who don’t follow those rules. The question here is whether the government should imprison people for years for carrying a gun.