San Anotonio 30.06 Establishments

[txinvestigator]

I agree fully, but I can't stand companies that only put up half ass stuff as a way to apease the sheeple. If they don't want me there, fine, I will take my business elsewhere. Otherwise, don't put up a half ass sign, man up as a company and stop trying to appease the sheeple.

So you decide to alert them so they put up proper signage,,screwing me over?

Wow

 

[duckknot]

I must say....I see a lot of people saying they won't spend money at places that don't support the second amendment who are awful butt hurt about this. They have chosen not to supoort the second amendment (regardless of whether their sign is proper) so you shouldn't support them.....the only person who screwed you over is the business who is trying to tell you you can't carry!

If a place doesn't want me to carry there then they obviously don't want me to spend my money there!

 

[satx78247]

duckknot,

I said essentially the same BUT you said it BETTER.

yours, satx

 

[winchster]

It could be argued that I'd they didn't want you to carry there they would put up the correct signage. Not like it's hard to get information.

 

[duckknot]

It could be argued that I'd they didn't want you to carry there they would put up the correct signage. Not like it's hard to get information.

Id rather not send my business somewhere not ready to take a stand in support of the second amendment!

Think about what you're saying.....knowingly posting an incorrect sign would mean they are trying to convince anti gunners that they are on their side but secretly on the side of those who carry? If you aren't willing to support the second amendment publicly through your actions, then, in my opinion, you do not deserve any support what so ever from those who carry!

 

[winchster]

Id rather not send my business somewhere not ready to take a stand in support of the second amendment!

Think about what you're saying.....knowingly posting an incorrect sign would mean they are trying to convince anti gunners that they are on their side but secretly on the side of those who carry? If you aren't willing to support the second amendment publicly through your actions, then, in my opinion, you do not deserve any support what so ever from those who carry!

And that is entirely your right to do so. Personally, I ignore irrelevant signs and don't do business with places that post relevant ones.
I understand your point, I think you're missing mine. If they wanted a correct sign but screwed it up, then why in the world would I correct them? It means nothing to me unless it is correct in every way. I don't make it a habit to correct behavior that has zero impact on my life, too many things to do already with things that DO impact my life.

 

[duckknot]

And that is entirely your right to do so. Personally, I ignore irrelevant signs and don't do business with places that post relevant ones.
I understand your point, I think you're missing mine. If they wanted a correct sign but screwed it up, then why in the world would I correct them? It means nothing to me unless it is correct in every way. I don't make it a habit to correct behavior that has zero impact on my life, too many things to do already with things that DO impact my life.

I know that legally it means nothing, for now, (and honestly I wouldn't go out of my way to correct them either as I wouldn't even give them the time of day). What I'm saying is that if the place is trying to restrict the right to carry and posts the wrong sign, what makes them any different than the place with the proper sign on a ideological basis? Okay, the impact on your life may not be direct but the "it isn't directly impacting me now" attitude is what is allowing anti gunners to gain a footing. If you support a place who has posted a sign (even if not legally enforceable, yet) restricting your right to carry, then you are helping to keep that attitude in business. How long will it take before the impact is direct? Both establishments are expressing the same beliefs and the same stance...one just screwed up on their signage.

Now, I do see your point that you aren't subject to that sign because it is improepr and that alerting them to the fact that they have the wrong sign will only lead them to get the correct sign but the battle is much bigger than the enforceability of the sign....the sign's very existence is an infringement of the 2nd amendment (more ground conceded) and one of the ways to fight it is to offer zero support to it's existence! The second amendment is currently under attack in this country and every little piece of ground we concede is a piece of ground that we won't get back.

 

[Younggun]

A business posting 30.06 is not an infringement of your rights, it's a business exercising theirs. You don't have the right to do anything, or even enter their property. They are NOT infringing on your rights in any way.

That said, I will exercise my right to not support them and will NEVER tell them if their sign is wrong.

 

[winchster]

I know that legally it means nothing, for now, (and honestly I wouldn't go out of my way to correct them either as I wouldn't even give them the time of day). What I'm saying is that if the place is trying to restrict the right to carry and posts the wrong sign, what makes them any different than the place with the proper sign on a ideological basis? Okay, the impact on your life may not be direct but the "it isn't directly impacting me now" attitude is what is allowing anti gunners to gain a footing. If you support a place who has posted a sign (even if not legally enforceable, yet) restricting your right to carry, then you are helping to keep that attitude in business. How long will it take before the impact is direct? Both establishments are expressing the same beliefs and the same stance...one just screwed up on their signage.

Now, I do see your point that you aren't subject to that sign because it is improepr and that alerting them to the fact that they have the wrong sign will only lead them to get the correct sign but the battle is much bigger than the enforceability of the sign....the sign's very existence is an infringement of the 2nd amendment (more ground conceded) and one of the ways to fight it is to offer zero support to it's existence! The second amendment is currently under attack in this country and every little piece of ground we concede is a piece of ground that we won't get back.

A proper sign on a private business is absolutely not an infringement in any way shape or fashion. Our right to carry end at the property owners right to establish whatever rule he decides on his property, and rightly so.

 

[duckknot]

A business posting 30.06 is not an infringement of your rights, it's a business exercising theirs. You don't have the right to do anything, or even enter their property. They are NOT infringing on your rights in any way.

That said, I will exercise my right to not support them and will NEVER tell them if their sign is wrong.

That's a good point, I didn't think of it that way.

However, the fact that the sign gives the government (law enforcement) the ability to strip you of your rights (arrest you and charge you with a felony) for carrying your handgun is an infringement. Now, this is improbable and we all know to avoid those areas and we all (hopefully) are law abiding gun owners so we don't run into this situation.....but all it takes is that time you didn't see the sign or some over zealous cop decides to make your life hell. Even when you are in the right, the "justice" system has every ability to make your life a living hell as they drag it on and on....and that is an infringement!

 

[satx78247]

Wincster,

And you would support his right to not allow "persons of color", disabled people, church members, "foreigners", democrats/republicans and/or anyone else that he decides to bar from entering his business premises?? = CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS trump "property rights" in "public accommodations" in virtually every court case, nationwide.

Nonetheless, I don't spend my money at places who would deny my rights as a citizen.

yours, satx

 

[txinvestigator]

.the sign's very existence is an infringement of the 2nd amendment (more ground conceded)

No, it is not an infringement. Unless the location is a government location.

 

[txinvestigator]

Wincster,

And you would support his right to not allow "persons of color", disabled people, church members, "foreigners", democrats/republicans and/or anyone else that he decides to bar from entering his business premises??

One cannot change one's skin color, or physical disability, can one?

 

[winchster]

Wincster,

And you would support his right to not allow "persons of color", disabled people, church members, "foreigners", democrats/republicans and/or anyone else that he decides to bar from entering his business premises?? = CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS trump "property rights" in "public accommodations" in virtually every court case, nationwide.

Nonetheless, I don't spend my money at places who would deny my rights as a citizen.

yours, satx

The sign in question doesn't bar anyone from entry.

I'm a firm believer in

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

No reason is required to be given.

Bakers should never be forced to bake a cake for someone they don't want to.

Just because it's public accommodation doesn't mean the business owner loses his rights.

 

[Younggun]

Wincster,

And you would support his right to not allow "persons of color", disabled people, church members, "foreigners", democrats/republicans and/or anyone else that he decides to bar from entering his business premises?? = CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS trump "property rights" in "public accommodations" in virtually every court case, nationwide.

Nonetheless, I don't spend my money at places who would deny my rights as a citizen.

yours, satx

I do.

And a business is private. Government buildings are "public".

A business is in business to make money, not "serve the public". The property or business is privately owned, in this context, it is not "public".

 

[satx78247]

Younggun,

NOT lawful according to law since 1964. = PUBLIC ACCOMODATIONS can NOT chose who to serve or not serve.
IF you choose to deny service to ANY member of the general public, you are in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

yours, satx

 

[RCK1999]

Younggun,

NOT lawful according to law since 1964. = PUBLIC ACCOMODATIONS can NOT chose who to serve or not serve.
IF you choose to deny service to ANY member of the general public, you are in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

yours, satx

Not to jump into your inter web squabble, but you need clarification on the civil rights act of 1964. It is very explicit:

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

The act does not block a business owner from denying access based on possession of a handgun. Unfortunately, Texas law gives that business owner the means to legally block access (30.06 code).

Now that this has been cleared up-carry on

 

[Younggun]

Younggun,

NOT lawful according to law since 1964. = PUBLIC ACCOMODATIONS can NOT chose who to serve or not serve.
IF you choose to deny service to ANY member of the general public, you are in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

yours, satx

Since when do laws have anything to do with people's rights?

Just because it's a law, doesn't make it in line with people's rights.

The gov shouldn't be able to pick and choose based on the criteria mentioned, a business should. Otherwise we become a liberal cesspool where where the rights of any individual are trumped by the wants of another.

The idea that a business should have to serve anyone is ridiculous, and laws forcing such are sickening. The idea that a bakery MUST bake a cake for a gay wedding, that a barber shop owned by a black man should have to cut a white mans hair, that ANY business should be forced to do business with ANY person or group is outrageous. Same goes for hiring.

What gives a person the RIGHT to do business with any privately owned company? Where is that outlined? Where is it even hinted at?

Should a health insurance company be forced to do business with everyone who walks in the door (so to speak)? <cough ACA cough cough>

Any privately owned business should be able to deny service to me or any other person for any reason they choose. We do not have a right to enter anyone else property. It's just something that people have been tricked in to believing and something liberals have taken to the extreme, but the entire premise is false.

 

[Younggun]

Keep in mind, I'm not debating on if it is morally correct, I'm debating actual rights. Not what the law is, but what rights we have or that have been infringed.

Respecting people's rights often times means allowing things we may not agree with. That is the biggest hurtle for most when it comes to supporting the rights of everyone, but supporting the rights of everyone is the only way I believe we can insure that our own are protected.

 

[duckknot]

No, it is not an infringement. Unless the location is a government location.

How is it not an infringement? The sign has "the power of law" meaning that the government backs the sign and has the ability to enforce it (with their armored personnel carriers, body armor and high powered rifles).