MR Redenck
Regular Member
Good point. What really need to be addressed is UCW. Simple trespassing does not poor much salt on a wound. UCW does.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Open carry bill introduced in Texas
- Thread starter pooley
- Start date
Good point. What really need to be addressed is UCW. Simple trespassing does not poor much salt on a wound. UCW does.
Cowboy_Rick
Regular Member
Are we just worried about a bunch of signs or is there anyone that has knowledge about HB2756? Has it been made a "GERMAINE AMENDMENT"yet?
I'd worry about these signs later-after this gets passed even if it is an amendment!
I'd worry about these signs later-after this gets passed even if it is an amendment!
Last edited:
KBCraig
Regular Member
The thread has gotten a bit heated, so please understand that I'm not piling on or trying to be argumentative when I disagree with your statement.
The property owner's rights are the same, whether the property in question is a private home, a store with open doors 24/7, an empty lot that is treated by the general population as a public park, or an inaccessible mountaintop in Timbukistan.
Those rights have been abridged in the case of the store owner. The fact that their rights have been violated doesn't change that they have the right to limit access to anyone they wish, for any reason they wish. A citizen of Baltimore, Beijing, or Brooklyn has just as much right to own, use, and carry, openly or concealed, any handgun, long gun, or machine gun, as anyone in gun-friendly parts of America. They fact that their rights have been seriously infringed doesn't change the fact that those are their rights.
The courts can uphold such infringements, but it doesn't change the underlying right.
So, yes: I am an absolutist when it comes to property rights. I believe any property owner has the right to boot anyone for any reason, and I don't support the government infringing upon that right any more than I support the government infringing on my right to carrying whatever firearm I wish, in whatever manner I wish, so long as I don't violate any property owner's rights.
Texas currently violates the right of several private property owners when it comes to firearms: private schools, private hospitals, private nursing homes, private parimutuel racetracks, private sporting event venues, private bars and clubs that have 51% licenses, etc. All of these are prohibited from allowing firearms, even if they wish to do so.
(Yes, hospitals and nursing homes aren't off-limits technically without a 30.06 notice, but the state tells them they must post, in a different section of administrative code. Schools may give specific permission to an individual, but otherwise the general ban stands. Bars may allow managers to carry, but not the general public.)
While I support property owners' rights, what I don't support, is the draconian enhancement of penalty that happens when a trespasser is in possession of a "deadly weapon", even if that weapon isn't an element of the crime, or the reason for exclusion.
Last edited:
MR Redenck
Regular Member
While I support property owners' rights, what I don't support, is the draconian enhancement of penalty that happens when a trespasser is in possession of a "deadly weapon", even if that weapon isn't an element of the crime, or the reason for exclusion
True. The only time I think weapons should be a charging factor is when they are use to "commit" a crime. trespassing does not involve the use of a gun, roddery and assault does. What we have to do is decriminalize the possession of weapons unless they are used in a crime.
I do so agree with you redneck.
Kingfish
Regular Member
THIS!!!!! This is what I was trying to explain. The government has no place in regulating these matters. If a property owner wants me to leave, he asks me to leave and if I don't then there is a crime and I go to jail.
rushcreek2
Regular Member
Perhaps it would simplify the issue if we considered at least the theoretical-
If I wish to carry my handgun on private property owned by "A", I can offer to either purchase, or lease "A"'s property. Then I can change the carry policy.
I always wanted a "ranch" where I could run a few cows, and put some venison in the freezer, and yes - even set up my own gun range. So I did in 1980. Sadly, I found it necessary to sell same property after only a few short years. My point is - let's not dismiss private propery prerogatives - unless we are willing to relinquish our own.
If I wish to carry my handgun on private property owned by "A", I can offer to either purchase, or lease "A"'s property. Then I can change the carry policy.
I always wanted a "ranch" where I could run a few cows, and put some venison in the freezer, and yes - even set up my own gun range. So I did in 1980. Sadly, I found it necessary to sell same property after only a few short years. My point is - let's not dismiss private propery prerogatives - unless we are willing to relinquish our own.
Kingfish
Regular Member
Who said anything about that? My(our) point is that the state is using police powers to proactively enforce someones opinion. Noone at all is saying owners do not have the power and the RIGHT to ask anyone to leave for any reason. I even take it a step further and say that an owner has the right to ask ANYONE to leave even a protected class...If I don't want whites or christians or anyone else in my store, I should be able to ask them to leave (this should be handled by the free market not the state.)
In my opinion, the state has not been granted the power to enforce an opinion. If someone is asked to leave and they don' then it is trespass and they go to jail.
Again, what makes a gun different than green underwear? Why is there not a statute that makes wearing green underwear criminal somewhere with a sign that says "no green underwear"?
MR Redenck
Regular Member
Time Out. Refresh your thoughts with a nice little video.
[video=youtube;xgj_bq5Sj0s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgj_bq5Sj0s[/video]
[video=youtube;xgj_bq5Sj0s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgj_bq5Sj0s[/video]
And what would that be if not are drive to OC.
Oh I was just talking about the property rights issues. It seemed to have devolved into a non-productive argument
have gun will travel
Regular Member
so is this bill dead or is there some other bill it can be attach to and if so is this being done
ScottDLS
Regular Member
Property "owner" rights
So you DO support "property owners'" rights to use the power of the state to punish (with criminal sanction) behavior that you don't even notice (concealed carry), or that you haven't clearly prohibited. This behavior on "your" property, that is generally open to the public...i.e. You're inviting them to shop at your store, that you didn't even take the minimal prescribed actions to prohibit (proper 30.06)? Really...?
Also, I haven't been by KBCraig's store lately, nor Paw Walton's lumber yard...Unless Paw owns Home Depot. I was under the impression that I owned (along with others) Home Depot... So how do I know, in the absence of a legally posted 30.06 sign, that I am not honoring Paw's, or KBCraig's, or MY wishes when I carry a CCW past a non-30.06 sign?
I assume you are against the parking lot bill too...since it restricts employers' (aka private property owners) rights to control their property (rights) from us employee gun carriers.
Oh, and since it's such a gross violation of your rights as property owner for me to walk past your "circle/slash/frowny face/"i don't like evil guns" sticker"...why don't you believe that it should be a capital felony vs. a class A?
Well, regardless of any of this trivia, I just carry a pocket Constitution with me. That's my license to carry, any way I want...With, Heller and McDonald, I am immune from the whims of state and federal prosecutors and judges.
Back on topic... Open Carry is dead this session... My prediction,so is campus carry and parking lot bills.
I want to be proven wrong (on the bills)....but I probably won't.
So you DO support "property owners'" rights to use the power of the state to punish (with criminal sanction) behavior that you don't even notice (concealed carry), or that you haven't clearly prohibited. This behavior on "your" property, that is generally open to the public...i.e. You're inviting them to shop at your store, that you didn't even take the minimal prescribed actions to prohibit (proper 30.06)? Really...?
Also, I haven't been by KBCraig's store lately, nor Paw Walton's lumber yard...Unless Paw owns Home Depot. I was under the impression that I owned (along with others) Home Depot... So how do I know, in the absence of a legally posted 30.06 sign, that I am not honoring Paw's, or KBCraig's, or MY wishes when I carry a CCW past a non-30.06 sign?
I assume you are against the parking lot bill too...since it restricts employers' (aka private property owners) rights to control their property (rights) from us employee gun carriers.
Oh, and since it's such a gross violation of your rights as property owner for me to walk past your "circle/slash/frowny face/"i don't like evil guns" sticker"...why don't you believe that it should be a capital felony vs. a class A?
Well, regardless of any of this trivia, I just carry a pocket Constitution with me. That's my license to carry, any way I want...With, Heller and McDonald, I am immune from the whims of state and federal prosecutors and judges.
Back on topic... Open Carry is dead this session... My prediction,so is campus carry and parking lot bills.
I want to be proven wrong (on the bills)....but I probably won't.
77zach
Regular Member
Heller and McDonald say the state can do anything but ban certain handguns in your home or business.
MR Redenck
Regular Member
Pretty much how I understand it. " If it said anything else, we would have suit against all the states for violating that ruling".
TexasNative
Regular Member
Not to be argumentative, but it seems to me you got that backwards. Heller, applied to the states through McDonald, says that government can't ban handguns in homes. Neither ruling says anything either way about guns outside the home (beyond the "sensitive places" dictum, which doesn't address the overall issue of carry outside the home).
have gun will travel
Regular Member
ok if this bill is dead what need to be done next also is there any news on what george lavander is up to
Window_Seat
Regular Member
I would say that it would likely be best to push them to add it to an existing bill, and flood Gov. Rick Perry's office at the same time and start pressuring him to figure out a way to get this through.
Erik.
For all practical intents & purposes, the 82nd legislative session closes today. The only chance for HB2756 is to get the governor to add it to the agenda for the special session he's likely to call for tomorrow.