Venture Surplus ad

New Texas gun law!

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • M&P9_Rich

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 24, 2015
    39
    11
    M&P9 Rich, I really doubt there is that many innocent people getting indicted. Sure, there are cases like Michael Morton, who was unjustly sent to prison for the murder of his wife. But I think most in the prison system are exactly where they belong. Of course if you asked ANY prisoner in TDC, they will readily tell you that they were framed, and are innocent as a new born babe!
    You're pretty naïve or cynical to think not many innocent people get indicted but that's not the debate I'm trying to have. I'm wholeheartedly disagreeing with the idea that majority rule is OK on a Jury.
     

    LOCKHART

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 29, 2014
    1,354
    96
    Lockhart, Texas
    That's cool, that's what makes this country so great. Nobody has to agree with everyone. But I grew up in bad parts of Austin, and I knew lots of thugs and ner-do-wells. I KNEW some of the crap they pulled, but they always presented themselves as innocent babes! I've been accused of a lot of things but naive I'm sure not! LOL!
     

    pronstar

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 2, 2017
    10,542
    96
    Dallas
    The slippery slope I see, is that we shouldn’t be able to simply waive-away constitutional rights.

    What other rights should a business be able to revoke if we want to do business with them?

    What about banks not lending to firearms MFR’s, it’s the same issue, methinks.

    What if put up a polling place, but ask women to waive their 19A rights, and I only allow men to vote?

    Or the 15A, and don’t allow black people to vote?

    I understand these are complex issues, and that we already have limitations on our rights...it’s nice to have a logical discussion with people who aren’t getting butthurt LOL



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    The bill of rights is protection from government, both federal and state, not private businesses and property. A business may be open to public, but they make the policy of that business and what qualifies to enter.

    I don't like that the government makes laws that basically takes away ones privilege of setting policy on private property, therefore I can't say there should be a law that allows me to do what I want no matter my belief.

    The second amendment allows me to bear arms on public land and my own private property (with exceptions), not others private property.
     

    Big Dipper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    2,940
    96
    ATX & FC, WI
    The bill of rights is protection from government, both federal and state, not private businesses and property. A business may be open to public, but they make the policy of that business and what qualifies to enter.

    I don't like that the government makes laws that basically takes away ones privilege of setting policy on private property, therefore I can't say there should be a law that allows me to do what I want no matter my belief.

    The second amendment allows me to bear arms on public land and my own private property (with exceptions), not others private property.

    Please show me where in the U.S. Constitution this limitation is carved out. Is it the same place that grants the right only to hunters, or that provides for the limit on magazines?

    Yes a property owner should be able to reject anyone for any reason, thus the trespass laws.

    But, the legislature has gone too far in its infringement on our right by creating a law that requires a visitor to “self police” on something the property owner cannot or chooses not to monitor (as in a metal detector that insures that NO one is carrying) or be in violation of a law (created by the very government you have referred to).
     
    Last edited:

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    Please show me where in the U.S. Constitution this limitation is carved out. Is it the same place that grants the right only to hunters, or that provides for the limit on magazines?

    Yes a property owner should be able to reject anyone for any reason, thus the trespass laws.

    But, the legislature has gone too far in its infringement on our right by creating a law that requires a visitor to “self police” on something the property owner cannot or chooses not to monitor (as in a metal detector than insures that NO one is carrying) or be in violation of a law (created by the very government you have referred to).
    Just because we have bad laws shouldn't mean we should create more, then where does it end?
     

    LOCKHART

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 29, 2014
    1,354
    96
    Lockhart, Texas
    Well, isn't that what the so-called "lawmakers" try to do every time there is a mass shooting? Try to pass MORE bad laws? Instead of enforcing laws ALREADY on the books?
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    Well, isn't that what the so-called "lawmakers" try to do every time there is a mass shooting? Try to pass MORE bad laws? Instead of enforcing laws ALREADY on the books?
    True, unfortunately it's up to us to keep our politicians in check.

    I remember reading 1984 and was very glad that in 1984 it hadn't yet come to pass, but it seems that we are much closer to that today, and I'm afraid, unless the people stand up to it, that we are not too far from it.
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    Although I would like to see more businesses removing those signs, I think I would rather have those signs then a confrontation. At least at the door I know the thoughts of the owners on firearms and can decide whether to do business there or not.
     

    45tex

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 1, 2009
    3,449
    96
    Are you asserting that an individual has the right to enter anywhere they please, but they can't stay indefinitely?


    Or are you saying that a property owner has no right to prevent entry, but they l can only kick someone out if they're not there for legitimate business?

    If so, I disagree.
    A proprietor that allows unfettered access to his property may in fact ask anyone to leave and that disinvited person must leave. I never said anything about anybody going anywhere they wanted. Read it before you get mad and beat up your keyboard.
     

    pronstar

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 2, 2017
    10,542
    96
    Dallas
    Can I put up a sign at my place of business that suspends peoples 8A rights? If I catch you breaking the law, you can count on cruel and unusual punishment.

    How about a sign abolishing 13A rights, allowing me to keep slave labor?

    Can I hang a sign suspending the 16A, so I don’t need to pay federal taxes on what I make?




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    Can I put up a sign at my place of business that suspends peoples 8A rights? If I catch you breaking the law, you can count on cruel and unusual punishment.

    How about a sign abolishing 13A rights, allowing me to keep slave labor?

    Can I hang a sign suspending the 16A, so I don’t need to pay federal taxes on what I make?




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    Does any of those have to do with bringing anything into a place of business? You can't legally keep slaves at home and you don't need a sign to keep people from carrying a handgun on your home property.
     

    pharmaco

    Give me those potatoes
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 2, 2013
    646
    26
    Round Rock
    A proprietor that allows unfettered access to his property may in fact ask anyone to leave and that disinvited person must leave. I never said anything about anybody going anywhere they wanted. Read it before you get mad and beat up your keyboard.
    You're absolutely right, you didn't say that.
    I'm not sure where youre getting "mad" from, but it's a free country.

    You said:
    If you want the public on your property or in your business and you restrict their Constitutional rights in favor of your private property rights then you should be responsible for damage YOU engendered by allowing people there and restriscting their rights. You can be a puplic place or a private one but when you set conditions you should be held liable for the damage you allow.
    I fail to understand why running a business makes one think they are the more equal pigs on the farm

    So I was wrong, and I now assume you support the idea of making a private property owner liable for the actions of a third, unrelated party.

    You want the government to step in and punish business owners for the actions of criminals.

    Is that correct?
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    Let me put it this way, and I'm trying to make anyone angry, 30.06 & 30.07 does not say you can't exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. Those signs tell you that you commit criminal trespass laws if you don't follow their rule, just like "no loitering" or "no trespassing" signs. As I said, the bill of rights is a citizens protection from government, not from private property.

    For my own protection I don't do business with those that won't let me protect myself. I don't really mind a place that only posts a 30.07 sign, but if they won't allow any carry, I like to know up front.
     

    Big Dipper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    2,940
    96
    ATX & FC, WI
    My point remains. 30.06 and 30.07 ARE government infringements on a right. Not the individual property owner. He can do whatever he wants to keep you off of his property, for any reason, with just the trespass laws.


    Here’s a 1A analogy.

    I own XYZ Gifts. Someone comes in with a t-shirt that says “XYZ Gifts SUCKS”. Not quite libelous, but offensive. I tell him to leave, charge with trespass if necessary.

    Government decides to criminalize wearing offensive shirts. Makes it a crime to enter such a property with any clothing (covered or not) that disparages the business in any way. Most people would consider this an abridgment to the right of free speech by the GOVERNMENT, not the business owner!

    Plus, if a jacket, sweater, or shirt covers the offensive words, what offense has really been perpetrated?
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    The point is, free speech isn't protected on private property. Off the property someone can say anything bad about the business they want, but don't tell me a person can go inside a business and talk to the customers about how bad that business is and not be removed.
     

    majormadmax

    Úlfhéðnar
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 27, 2009
    15,841
    96
    San Antonio!
    My point remains. 30.06 and 30.07 ARE government infringements on a right. Not the individual property owner. He can do whatever he wants to keep you off of his property, for any reason, with just the trespass laws.

    The state of Texas doesn't impose where 30.06 or 30.07 are applied, it simply provides the mechanism by which business owners can prevent individuals from carrying on their private property. Neither prevent entry outside of those conditions, as 30.05 does.
     

    Big Dipper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    2,940
    96
    ATX & FC, WI
    Let me try again.

    Yes, the Bill of Rights only limits what the “government” can do regarding those rights.

    Yes a property owner can step all over “my rights” if I wish to enter his property.

    “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”
    “No openly carried firearms.”
    “Let me see what you have in that bag.”
    “No hats, hoodies or masks.”
    “No piercings or tats.”
    Etc.
    My issue is that the government has (with 30.06 and 30.07) criminalized the excercising of a right. That goes way beyond the property owner in some manner limiting or rejecting the “rights” of a visitor!

    Another (probably poor) analogy; atheist restaurant owner forbids people saying grace before dining and he refuses to let you return if you ever try it. Again, his call; our call whether to eat there or not.

    If there is also a law that says he can have you fined when his video shows you doing that. That is the government violating the BoR.
     
    Top Bottom