Bonnen Just Stuck a Knife in Our Back

[toddnjoyce]

We will never get rid of .30-06 and .30-07 for private properties. The Attorney General has pretty much stated what government entities can and can not ban LTC holders from.

30.06 was a compromise bone to throw and is an example that you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

That 30.06 exists establishes legal justification to criminally prosecute some who is exercising a constitutional right in a legal manner.

So dump 30.06 or give private business owners the ability to put a sign on the door that says you can’t wear a Jesus shirt and go into the store without criminal penalty.

Religion kills more people than guns do.

 

[SQLGeek]

Nevermind

 

[Big Dipper]

Because of this Wisconsin statute very few gun buster signs are seen in Wisconsin.

175.60  License to carry a concealed weapon.
(21) Immunity
(b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.

 

[oldag]

30.06 was a compromise bone to throw and is an example that you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

That 30.06 exists establishes legal justification to criminally prosecute some who is exercising a constitutional right in a legal manner.

So dump 30.06 or give private business owners the ability to put a sign on the door that says you can’t wear a Jesus shirt and go into the store without criminal penalty.

Religion kills more people than guns do.

Or, if we are going to let private business owners violate the Constitution (2A), then let some folks refuse to serve minorities or women, etc.

 

[Old_Inspector]

I have no problem with 30.06 and 30.07 signs. These are BIG signs that must be posted in English and Spanish and must be posted at the front of the store. If the owners are that concerned about firearms being carried on their property then I am glad to know who wants my business and who does not. Many stores in the Houston area (and other large metropolitan area) post 30.07 signs. No problem; carry concealed. If they post 30.06 signs; carry concealed. What is not seen is not a problem. As for Speaker Bonnen, if he believes that the anti-gunners are reasonable people, he is a fool and will be so proven. Permitless carry is probably not going to happen this session of the Legislature. Besides, this session of the Legislature has a LOT more Democrats (i.e., anti-gunners) than any time in the last 30 years so a lot more weird bills will make their way to the floor of the House and Senate.

 

[toddnjoyce]

... These are BIG signs that must be posted in English and Spanish and must be posted at the front of the store. ...

Not if this gets passed. Reduces max size to 8.5x11.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/HB00172I.pdf#navpanes=0

 

[toddnjoyce]

Currently there are 73 bills filed that deal with weapons for the 86th legislature, including 3 ERPO bills (2 in the House, 1 in the Senate). Nothing's been doled out to committees yet and the lege just adjourned until Feb 5. Of note, HB357 is constitutional carry and HB349 that makes it a Class A misdemeanor for someone who "possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells ...(9) a part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun."

 

[gshayd]

There are certain politicians in Texas who don't want to join the ranks. You figure that Texas would have constitutional carry by now.

 

[gshayd]

I thought that private property was also protected by the Constitution?

"if we are going to let private business owners violate the Constitution (2A)"

It gives us the right to decide how we employ our property. The argument I see on here is that the government should decide how property owners employ their property and not the property owner. Under that line of thought, the government would actually be the owner of the property and control how it is used. I would just be a name on the deed. Is that what you want? The government has pretty much stomped all over property rights with taxes and other laws. I don't think the government needs more power over how I employ my land.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I thought that private property was also protected by the Constitution?

"if we are going to let private business owners violate the Constitution (2A)"

It gives us the right to decide how we employ our property. The argument I see on here is that the government should decide how property owners employ their property and not the property owner. Under that line of thought, the government would actually be the owner of the property and control how it is used. I would just be a name on the deed. Is that what you want? The government has pretty much stomped all over property rights with taxes and other laws. I don't think the government needs more power over how I employ my land.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either your open to the public or not. Though the property may be privately owned, the purpose is to provide goods and services to the public.

If your open to the public, can you discriminate?

If your only open via membership or criteria, (Costco, for ex) you can do whatever you want.

I being up Costco because their terms & conditions of membership include the ability to terminate your membership if you bring a firearm into their warehouse, unless you’re LEO. They don’t post 30.06 or 30.07, except some of their liquor outlets do.

I carry concealed in Costco all the time and I’m willing to lose my membership over it.

7/11, on the other hand has no membership or other criteria. They are open to the public. They can’t keep me from wearing a Jesus shirt in there, but the government gives them the right to prevent me from exercising a Constitutional right? That’s incongruent, and why Clarence Thomas (I believe) is on the record as saying 2A is a disfavored right. You can’t expand every protection from the government except just one.

 

[dogbone]

Currently there are 73 bills filed that deal with weapons for the 86th legislature, including 3 ERPO bills (2 in the House, 1 in the Senate). Nothing's been doled out to committees yet and the lege just adjourned until Feb 5. Of note, HB357 is constitutional carry and HB349 that makes it a Class A misdemeanor for someone who "possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells ...(9) a part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun."

It's a sad commentary on the state of our rights when the number of bills is up to 77 less than a week later. Thanks for the link to the bills. It has been a great help in compiling my own list of bills to watch this session. I'm going to need a bigger spreadsheet.

 

[toddnjoyce]

It's a sad commentary on the state of our rights when the number of bills is up to 77 less than a week later. Thanks for the link to the bills. It has been a great help in compiling my own list of bills to watch this session. I'm going to need a bigger spreadsheet.

The TLO account can be a godsend in tracking this stuff.

 

[gshayd]

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either your open to the public or not. Though the property may be privately owned, the purpose is to provide goods and services to the public.

If your open to the public, can you discriminate?

If your only open via membership or criteria, (Costco, for ex) you can do whatever you want.

I being up Costco because their terms & conditions of membership include the ability to terminate your membership if you bring a firearm into their warehouse, unless you’re LEO. They don’t post 30.06 or 30.07, except some of their liquor outlets do.

I carry concealed in Costco all the time and I’m willing to lose my membership over it.

7/11, on the other hand has no membership or other criteria. They are open to the public. They can’t keep me from wearing a Jesus shirt in there, but the government gives them the right to prevent me from exercising a Constitutional right? That’s incongruent, and why Clarence Thomas (I believe) is on the record as saying 2A is a disfavored right. You can’t expand every protection from the government except just one.

I can discriminate by not purchasing any goods and services. A business is still private property. They have the right to ask you to leave.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I can discriminate by not purchasing any goods and services. A business is still private property. They have the right to ask you to leave.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[gshayd]

We’re going to have to agree to disagree.

works for me

 

[oldag]

I thought that private property was also protected by the Constitution?

"if we are going to let private business owners violate the Constitution (2A)"

It gives us the right to decide how we employ our property. The argument I see on here is that the government should decide how property owners employ their property and not the property owner. Under that line of thought, the government would actually be the owner of the property and control how it is used. I would just be a name on the deed. Is that what you want? The government has pretty much stomped all over property rights with taxes and other laws. I don't think the government needs more power over how I employ my land.

Private property ownership does not trump the Constitution.

Following your logic, you can have slaves on your private property.

 

[dogbone]

The TLO account can be a godsend in tracking this stuff.

It definitely is! In the process of setting up my bill and alert lists but new bills keep surfacing every day. It's hard keep up and catch them all, which is one reason constant communication is going to be needed this session. Your linked list was a help but one that slipped by both it and my own searches is a nasty one. HB 930, filed by Anchia, makes some drastic changes in Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.

 

[toddnjoyce]

It definitely is! In the process of setting up my bill and alert lists but new bills keep surfacing every day. It's hard keep up and catch them all, which is one reason constant communication is going to be needed this session. Your linked list was a help but one that slipped by both it and my own searches is a nasty one. HB 930, filed by Anchia, makes some drastic changes in Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.

TSRA blasted that one this week in there PAC update.

There’s separate threads on the ‘Bad’ and ‘Good’ bills as of 2/4/19.

 

[45tex]

I can discriminate by not purchasing any goods and services. A business is still private property. They have the right to ask you to leave.

Sure you can ask them to leave, until you ask a snowflake waiting to be offended minority. At which point you are guilty until you prove you are not a racist. And the government will be on the snowflakes side The government is always limiting one thing or another within the "public marketplace." Your private property rights don't seem as important to you unless the subject is guns, then you expect 101% of those rights. All gun owners hope for is fair treatment within the Constitution.

 

[gshayd]

Private property ownership does not trump the Constitution.

Following your logic, you can have slaves on your private property.

No the Thirteenth Amendment abolished Slavery. I did not use the word trump the Constitution. Those are your words. I said private property rights are in the Constitution. the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers discussed how the Constitution would protect our liberties and property from being usurped by the Federal Government.