A property owner can post it, and if you are caught in violation, you are simply guilty of trespass.
FWIW, they are rare; hospitals are the most common places to see them...
Posted on 10/31/2015 5:41:18 PM PDT by SteveinSATX
Exactly so!
Texas carry laws aren’t hugely better than those in the worst blue states. They’re worse than those in most of the west with the exception of Cali. Even the carry laws in Joe Biden’s home state of Delaware are better.
The Texas concealed carry permit is expensive, requires fingerprints and a photo, plus an approved training class. There is no open carry without a permit. Contrast this with such liberal enclaves as Vermont. Vermont never has required a permit for open or concealed carry. Well maybe that’s just an anomaly. But then there is Maine: they just chucked their permit requirement. Constitutional carry. New Hampshire charges $10 or $15 for their in state permit. Open carry without a permit is legal. They would have Constitutional Carry as well, but their idiot governor vetoed the bill earlier this year.
The upshot is that while Texas talks the talk when it comes to carry, it doesn’t walk the talk.
The issue in Texas was organized protests involving open carry of rifles since the horrible carry laws in Texas at the time prohibited open carry of handguns, even for permitholders. Texas carry laws still suck mightily, but they were changed recently so you can open carry a handgun with a permit. So, the rifle carry isn’t so much an issue as the underlying reason for the protests was corrected.
Contrary to what this journolist asserts, open or concealed carry is not an issue with businesses unless they choose to make it one. Open carry is still relatively unusual (I’m sad to say) and concealed carry is by its nature not seen. So unless the business management or ownership is hoplophobic or is under political pressure from the grabbers, it just isn’t on their radar.
Yep - Mississippi rules have become pretty good over the last couple years but most of what you said is spot-on from my own experience and habitual carrying - usually concealed in establishments and reserve the open carry for when out of doors. Only had one person comment on how scary guns can be, but I pointed out that if he was so dang scared he wouldn't have dared confront me with his "fears"....
"A main crux is it’s difficult for non-gun-carrying citizens to know the intents and motivations of gun-carriers, who have, by the laws of physics, the immediate upper hand in case of conflict."
Precisely so. And that is why we reject their insistence that we be dragged down their chosen, cowardly level of defenselessness.
Unless it is significantly inconvenient, I expect that I will usually (for both tactical and social reasons) continue to conceal when in public.
I will appreciate, however, freedom from the asinine requirement to conceal. (For one thing, I have never liked to wear a shirt with the tail not tucked in -- and, in Texas, sometimes a T-shirt is almost too warm....)
A property owner can post it, and if you are caught in violation, you are simply guilty of trespass.
FWIW, they are rare; hospitals are the most common places to see them...
Same here; I usually hang my jacket in the back of my vehicle when I drive. It will be a relief to not worry about legality when I go back to put it on...
Simple permission to enter, for one. That is fine with me.
OTOH, I'm considering printing up cards that say:
I’m a Virginian. I heard that the rules changed, didn’t realize that Texas delayed it until January. Pretty damn sad when yankee states have hugely better gun laws than Texas.
In any case I prefer OC as a rule although I happen to have a permit. It’s getting more common to see OC and it’s really no big deal. And BTW I live in an urban area.
ABSOLUTELY!!
I think it’s a stupid business policy, but that’s not my call and it’s not the government’s call.
I think the “lunch counter sit-ins” of the 1950s were a big mistake for this country. If a business owner/property owner wants to serve only a segment of the population, then on what grounds can anyone say “That’s not his choice”?
I see nothing in the Constitution which allows the government to step in and “correct” that business policy. Perhaps the marketplace will provide correction. But the law should not.
You asked: "What else ya got?"
My answer:
I've got more questions. Since you bring up the First Amendment: being on the owner's property after having been invited there, could they be denied the Free Speech right to say "No" to a sexual request, or any other request? And could they be denied the Liberty Right to leave?
Permission to enter may be denied, but that doesn't mean there is no right to enter. If my daughter is on the property of someone else and that someone is denying her the free speech right to say no to a sexual request and denying her the liberty right to leave, I claim the right to enter the property and remedy the situation, permission or not.
I feel that I don’t understand the point you are making. Sorry if I’m obtuse. I don’t mean to be.
I have the right to life. But that doesn’t mean I can move in and live in your house.
I have the right of free speech. But that doesn’t mean I can follow you around all day shouting at you.
I have the right to keep and bear arms, but if a property owner asks me to stay away, I’m really not sure that I can barge onto their property and declare that I can do whatever I want.
Can you state very simply whether you think property owners have a legitimate say in this sort of restriction?
I'll take the easy one first, which is your last question, the about being kidnapped. Put that way, which is a proper way to describe it, the answer presents itself.
Your first question is similar, but I'm not an attorney, so I wouldn't know the legal wrangling necessary to arrive at a legal reason that the person would have the God given right to say NO.
But they do have that right, and in this case I am sure it supersedes property rights.
I think these questions go back to whether the right to defend oneself supersede property rights. The right of a property owner to control what happens on his property?
That aspect never entered my mind.
Thanks Onyx, that’s very good news!
That's fair.
I believe too many take the position that "Property Rights", whatever that means, are the be-all-end-all, the trump card, the right that prevails in any assertion of rights. I don’t believe it's that simple.
Samuel Johnson in his dictionary of 1755 pertinently defined "right" as "just claim".
Noah Webster in his dictionary of 1828 pertinently defined "right" as "Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public."
I can't find the reference right now (maybe I recall incorrectly) but I recall reading something along the lines of "A Right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others limited only by one's ability and the similar rights of others".
When I think of rights, I don't necessarily limit myself to time and place.
Most people don't go into much detail on "property", or what "property rights" are, but at the least, property can be real, personal, tangible or intangible; sometimes in combination.
By the way, I think the right to have and hold property is basic to civilization and that without that right there is just savagery.
I have the right to life. But that doesn't mean I can move in and live in your house.
All else being equal, I agree. But suppose all else isn't equal. Suppose you're caught in a winter storm with a disabled vehicle or no vehicle and there is a nearby dwelling with an absent owner. Do you have the right, the just claim to life, to enter to save your life and the lives of any family you may have with you? What about the barn? Suppose you are the owner of a dwelling and someone caught in a winter storm with a disabled vehicle or no vehicle seeks entry. Do you have the right, the just claim based on property ownership, to keep them out when they will freeze to death in the storm? Whose rights are limited by the rights of others? The question is about what you have the right to do in each case, not what you would or wouldn't do regardless of the right, the just claim, to do so.
I have the right of free speech. But that doesn't mean I can follow you around all day shouting at you.
I'm not going to address that one.
I have the right to keep and bear arms, but if a property owner asks me to stay away, I'm really not sure that I can barge onto their property and declare that I can do whatever I want.
I'm not going to say you have the right to barge onto their property and declare that you can do whatever you want, or to actually do whatever you want declaration or not. You may have the right to barge onto their land while armed to retrieve stolen property or rescue a family member. In some times and places, under some circumstances, you may have a right to barge onto their land while armed to destroy a dam they've built across a stream that provides water to your own land downstream. It's a matter of whose rights are limited by another's rights, of who has the just claim. In my opinion the default is not always in deference to the real property owner.
Can you state very simply whether you think property owners have a legitimate say in this sort of restriction?
Sure, they have a legitimate say. But it's not that simple and they may not have the last say.
Consider a small community in the middle of nowhere in which the majority or consensus position favors the right to keep and bear arms. The community members have a property interest in the intangible property which is their community. They are the property owners of the community in addition to being real property owners in the community. Owners of a Mom and Pop store in the community may want to ban arms in their store. They live there; they are members of the community; they have a stake in the community; they are owners of the community along with the other community members even though they disagree with the others on this issue. Their rights may limit the rights of the others and they may or should have the last say.
Remembering that this is a small community in the middle of nowhere, suppose Michael Bloomberg buys the only grocery store or strip mall in anything like close proximity to the community. Being who he is, he wants to ban arms on his real property to include the parking lot. He doesn't live there; he's not a member of the community; he doesn't have a stake in the community other than the grocery; he's never going to set foot in the community. I believe his rights are limited by the rights of the others and he should not have the last say. I don't believe that he has the right or just claim based on his ownership of real property in the community in which he is otherwise not involved to force his standards on the members of the community, who do have just claim based on their ownership of the intangible property that is the community as well as their right to bear arms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.