Jump to content

CHL in Private Business


RedScare

Recommended Posts

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editor...ed.21b5982.html

As some are aware, the Texas legislature is considering a bill to force businesses to allow CHL holders to carry weapons in their businesses. One has to ask, whose rights are more important? I always thought that property rights were important in Texas. In fact, much of the gun control debate centers around people demanding the right to protect their property and family from gun-toting criminals. Now, the legislature wants to force me to allow people to come onto my property with a gun. I can keep you off my property UNLESS you are armed? How backwards is that?

The point here is whether the government can dictate to me who and under what circumstances I must allow persons onto my property. So now, apparently I can refuse srvice to anyone...unless that person is armed! The logic here is unbelievable. Suppose I own a bar. A regular customer of my bar is a CHL holder, who is particularly obnoxious about his gun and his willingness to use it (the CHL procedures do not swear one to secrecy). The other patrons get nervous, and refuse to come into the bar. Under this law, I am powerless to expel this patron on that basis, even though it drives me out of business. His right to carry outweighs my right to make a living on my own property.

There are many opinions on carrying weapons. Some believe they may curtail crime. Some believe it makes things more dangerous. The important fact to remember is that they are both opinions. There are no conclusive studies that show that more guns equals less gun violence. The CHL law does NOT guarantee that the holder will not use it illegally. But, most importantly, if I do not want a gun holder on my property, that should be the end of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a private property to conduct business, nobody means no business

What I mean is you should be able to refuse business to anyone provided you aren't "illegally discriminating."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CDeb, I assume you are agreeing with the editorial and myself. For those who might be wondering, gun owners and CHL holders are not a "protected class" of persons for discrimination purposes.

Yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

licensed or not, how many people have guns in their car/truck while at work? i would bet that there are plenty roughnecks all over the port of houston with guns locked in their vehicles. i've met a few hunters who define the "right to bear arms" as the right to have a gun in the private property of their vehicle, licensed to carry or not.

how would a state law preclude a business owner from banning guns on the premises? i've been to chemical plants and manufacturing facilities in and around the houston area where vehicles are not allowed beyond a certain point without a full on search for weapons. these places (dow, shell, halliburton, baker hughes) are not going to allow weapons on the premises. if the law red is referring to would put these company policies at odds with a right to carry law, it will be in the courts soon after passage and/or heavily lobbied against.

bar and restaurant owners can refuse service to anyone disrupting business.

i'm not sure why the op ed contributor is worried about licensed gun owners when unlicensed gun owners bring weapons on to private property everyday. the difference is, as red pointed out, a braggart who is licensed and letting the world know. the answer to that is make him leave the bar (red's example) because he is alarming patrons and hope to god he doesn't go get his gun and return. but, go ahead and remove the safety from the pistol you have under the bar as a precaution. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bachanon, you entirely miss the point. In my example, the law would prohibit the patron's removal for having a gun. The business owner could remove disruptive customers, or one's that stink, but the one with a gun must be allowed to stay. This law is defining "disruptive" for us. If they are disruptive with a CHL, tough luck. No self-respecting conservative could support such a gross infringement on one's property rights, yet it is the so-called "conservatives" that are pushing this law.

As for those who carry guns on property, there currently are laws to deal with that. I don't understand why a self professed conservative like yourself would be so cavalier about trampling on property rights. Did you support the right of eminent domain for private purposes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

based on the editorial that you chose to link, i do not see proof positive that the concealed gun permit will "require" business owners to allow unruly licensed gun carriers any more privilege than a non licensed gun carrier. perhaps you've seen the legislation. i have not. the opinion on the san antonio website makes the assumption that "Lawmakers in Austin ought to consider that advice as they ponder bills that would force private interests, against their will, to allow people to carry weapons onto their property.". then he states what the law would require.........."And the measures under consideration would allow them to bring their weapons onto company property provided they leave them locked in their cars.".

this sounds to me like gun carriers who are employees and not bar patrons. having a gun in your car (your private property) on the premises of your job (another's private property) seems to be the bigger issue at hand.

i think a license to carry is an attempt to identify gun owners and a small step towards gun control. i don't know which side of the issue i fall on; however, the op ed piece does not shed light on the legislation. it appears to be a knee jerk reaction to a portion of information.

i don't think i will base my opinion of the legislation on this one op ed. do you have any solid information on the legislation itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...