If Constitutional Carry Passes

[TexasRedneck]

Damn....that sounds familiar - it's what I've been sayin' all along.

 

[kenboyles72]

From what I heard, from a reliable source, that he was waiting to sign all the 2A bills at once. This goes along with what that podcast was saying. As far as waiting to have this spectacular event, I can see that as well. These bills that have passed, are a very big deal to Texas and a lot blood, sweat and tears went into getting them passed. I know a lot of folk are wanting this to hurry up, but as long as Abbott doesn't veto them, all these bills will go into effect Sept. 1, with or without his signature. IMO, I think it would be good to wait a bit long and have a big event to praise this victory, if only to piss the D's off and watch them go crying to their safe spaces.

 

[Mike_from_Texas]

Maybe he’s giving the libs false hope that he may veto them and then will crush their dreams all at once.



Nah, he isn’t that smart and doesn’t have the balls to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Axxe55]

What's going to happen, when it happens, will happen at that time and place in history.

I'm rather curious though, as to what if, Abbott decides not to sign it, or he even goes as far as vetoing the bill? Are some going to get up a revolt and storm the capitol? Sit back in your safe places and have good cry? Start ranting and whining on the forum?

Personally, I'm hoping and praying that he does sign it and keeps his word. It's long overdue and the right thing that needs to be done. But in all honesty, if he doesn't sign it, or even if he vetoes the bill, nothing in the least will change in my life regarding carrying a gun for self defense.

I do know what I will do in the event if Abbott does renege on his word, and it has nothing to do with whining, bitching or moaning on this forum or any other for that matter.

 

[craigntx]

I bet the new applicable no gun signs will be displayed in 75% of businesses

 

[Rhino]

I bet the new applicable no gun signs will be displayed in 75% of businesses

Unfortunately I think you are right, but we need to work on a legal strategy against that. Instant lawsuits for any business that posts that and does not provide armed security at the door.

 

[Axxe55]

Unfortunately I think you are right, but we need to work on a legal strategy against that. Instant lawsuits for any business that posts that and does not provide armed security at the door.

High probability that will never happen.

If a business wants to prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premise's, that is entirely their choice and right to do so. If they post a legally recognized sign, stating they prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premise's, then you have the option of accepting the responsibility of making the choice, to either comply with their demands, or to do business elsewhere.

 

[Rhino]

High probability that will never happen.

If a business wants to prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premise's, that is entirely their choice and right to do so. If they post a legally recognized sign, stating they prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premise's, then you have the option of accepting the responsibility of making the choice, to either comply with their demands, or to do business elsewhere.

If my personal beliefs (baking a cake, anyone?) don’t count in my business, then a reasonable case could be made that forcing me to leave my weapon in my car is both unsafe, and exposes the weapon to theft, and is denying law-abiding citizens the right do self-defense, which is protected by the Texas Constitution.

 

[Axxe55]

If my personal beliefs (baking a cake, anyone?) don’t count in my business, then a reasonable case could be made that forcing me to leave my weapon in my car is both unsafe, and exposes the weapon to theft, and is denying law-abiding citizens the right do self-defense, which is protected by the Texas Constitution.

Forcing? How is anyone forcing you to leave your weapon? Or denying you the right to self defense?

But you think it's alright to "force" a privately owned business to take steps to insure your safety if they post a sign prohibiting the carrying of firearms on their property or premises?

And please show exactly where in the Texas Constitution it says a privately owned business has the responsibility to insure your safety if they post a No Guns sign.

You always have choices, no different than right now. If I see a business with a No Guns sign, I do business elsewhere. That simple. If they don't feel comfortable with a law abiding citizen carrying a legal firearm on their premises, then I'm not comfortable doing business with them and spending my money.

 

[ScottDLS]

I bet the new applicable no gun signs will be displayed in 75% of businesses

All three of them? New 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07? That would be a massive increase from the not even 1% of businesses regularly open to the public that post 30.06/7 today. That's a lot of real estate for all those signs. Of course the solution that should have been implemented 26 years ago with CHL is simply that in order to get you charged with trespass, a business (normally open to the public) should have to ask you to leave, and have you refuse, kind of like they already have to for everything else.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Unfortunately I think you are right, but we need to work on a legal strategy against that. Instant lawsuits for any business that posts that and does not provide armed security at the door.

There's discussion along those lines already. Stay tuned - and if you know a legislatore receptive to such a measure, please message me their name. Yeah - next session's bills are already being researched...

 

[Sasquatch]

You always have choices, no different than right now. If I see a business with a No Guns sign, I do business elsewhere. That simple. If they don't feel comfortable with a law abiding citizen carrying a legal firearm on their premises, then I'm not comfortable doing business with them and spending my money.

I get this point - but it only works when there are reasonable, viable alternative places to deal with. When there are no good alternatives, then your choice becomes 1.) do without - which is fine for wants, but not so much for needs. 2.) ignore the stupid sign and talk a walk on the dark side or 3.) disarm, and cede your right to carry / right to defend yourself by the means you deemed best to the other person/business.

I do think that a business open to the public should be responsible for the security / safety of the patrons if they post no-guns signs that carry the weight of law behind them. That business is telling you that their irrational fears are more important than your right to life, so in the rare instance that a situation occurs where you COULD have defended yourself with a firearm, but you abide their policy and then become injured or killed due to said policy - they should be responsible at least civilly, if not criminally as their mandate to disarm aided the criminal attack against you. Is that last bit a stretch? Maybe, maybe not. Would love to see a legislator with the balls to put that forward in the state house and make the "leaders" there take a stand.

Businesses are more prone to post signs because of fear, perceived liability, or because of insurance mandates. I've run into all three of those scenarios with a previous employer. Could've potentially lost my job, but when they discussed the matter with another person and realized that they were damned if they do, damned if they don't (meaning, if they enforced a carry prohibition and something happened to me and I got hurt or killed when I *could* have defended myself with a firearm, they were getting sued for everything they had anyway, they backed off from that policy and no more was said about it)

Having been in the position of a business owner crafting policies, dealing with insurers - I get it. Insurance underwriters want to minimize their risk in every way possible, and will throw out some seriously stupid mandates or push incentives to craft policies they think will limit their liability. Businesses - especially small businesses - are usually hyper aware of liability issues because they don't typically have war-chests to fight lawsuits or pay out claims. They're going to do whatever they think limits their chance of being sued. Big corporations just don't give a flying **** about you and will go with what their lawyers saw to do. If you die, you die, and they have a big legal team on retainer or on salary to fight your little law suit, and they've got insurance if they lose.

It comes down to whose rights, and what rights, are more important ultimately. Does your right to self defense trump someone elses' property rights, or do their property rights trump your right to self defense? We have legally protected classes based on age, gender/sex/gender "identity", sexual orientation, and ethnicity. If I were still a business owner, I couldn't tell a customer "don't gay it up around me" or "we don't do business with brown people" - I'd get my ass handed to me in court and probably face some sort of hate-crime charges from the state or feds, but its perfectly OK to discriminate against someone engaged in exercising their constitutionally recognized right. Its a rabbit hole that gets deep and ugly and honestly, I don't think it will ever be resolved.

In a perfect world, you could carry anywhere open to the public and not have issues. We wouldn't be excluded from carrying into government buildings (allegedly owned by We the People, right?) or hospitals (this one makes no sense to me either) or nursing homes (gonna visit Grammy? Leave the heater in the car, and enjoy your visit in our Easy Victim Zone.)

Rhino is right - if you can force a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, then why can't the same be applied for forcing a business to accept lawful carry of a firearm? Current logic is the right to be gay trumps the right to carry. Makes me want to find an anti-gun baker and trying to force them to make a cake celebrating Constitutional Carry with a big AR-15 and a pair of Glocks, with John Wick and John Rambo hi-fiving in the center.

What good is the right to carry, if you can only exercise that right in your home, on your property, or on the street, and you're forced to either become a criminal, or go disarmed to patronize a business, see the doctor, mail a package, or watch your kid's baseball game? Not much of a "right" at that point, as a severely restricted, easily revoked privilege.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

.

 

[Axxe55]

I get this point - but it only works when there are reasonable, viable alternative places to deal with. When there are no good alternatives, then your choice becomes 1.) do without - which is fine for wants, but not so much for needs. 2.) ignore the stupid sign and talk a walk on the dark side or 3.) disarm, and cede your right to carry / right to defend yourself by the means you deemed best to the other person/business.

I do think that a business open to the public should be responsible for the security / safety of the patrons if they post no-guns signs that carry the weight of law behind them. That business is telling you that their irrational fears are more important than your right to life, so in the rare instance that a situation occurs where you COULD have defended yourself with a firearm, but you abide their policy and then become injured or killed due to said policy - they should be responsible at least civilly, if not criminally as their mandate to disarm aided the criminal attack against you. Is that last bit a stretch? Maybe, maybe not. Would love to see a legislator with the balls to put that forward in the state house and make the "leaders" there take a stand.

Businesses are more prone to post signs because of fear, perceived liability, or because of insurance mandates. I've run into all three of those scenarios with a previous employer. Could've potentially lost my job, but when they discussed the matter with another person and realized that they were damned if they do, damned if they don't (meaning, if they enforced a carry prohibition and something happened to me and I got hurt or killed when I *could* have defended myself with a firearm, they were getting sued for everything they had anyway, they backed off from that policy and no more was said about it)

Having been in the position of a business owner crafting policies, dealing with insurers - I get it. Insurance underwriters want to minimize their risk in every way possible, and will throw out some seriously stupid mandates or push incentives to craft policies they think will limit their liability. Businesses - especially small businesses - are usually hyper aware of liability issues because they don't typically have war-chests to fight lawsuits or pay out claims. They're going to do whatever they think limits their chance of being sued. Big corporations just don't give a flying **** about you and will go with what their lawyers saw to do. If you die, you die, and they have a big legal team on retainer or on salary to fight your little law suit, and they've got insurance if they lose.

It comes down to whose rights, and what rights, are more important ultimately. Does your right to self defense trump someone elses' property rights, or do their property rights trump your right to self defense? We have legally protected classes based on age, gender/sex/gender "identity", sexual orientation, and ethnicity. If I were still a business owner, I couldn't tell a customer "don't gay it up around me" or "we don't do business with brown people" - I'd get my ass handed to me in court and probably face some sort of hate-crime charges from the state or feds, but its perfectly OK to discriminate against someone engaged in exercising their constitutionally recognized right. Its a rabbit hole that gets deep and ugly and honestly, I don't think it will ever be resolved.

In a perfect world, you could carry anywhere open to the public and not have issues. We wouldn't be excluded from carrying into government buildings (allegedly owned by We the People, right?) or hospitals (this one makes no sense to me either) or nursing homes (gonna visit Grammy? Leave the heater in the car, and enjoy your visit in our Easy Victim Zone.)

Rhino is right - if you can force a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, then why can't the same be applied for forcing a business to accept lawful carry of a firearm? Current logic is the right to be gay trumps the right to carry. Makes me want to find an anti-gun baker and trying to force them to make a cake celebrating Constitutional Carry with a big AR-15 and a pair of Glocks, with John Wick and John Rambo hi-fiving in the center.

What good is the right to carry, if you can only exercise that right in your home, on your property, or on the street, and you're forced to either become a criminal, or go disarmed to patronize a business, see the doctor, mail a package, or watch your kid's baseball game? Not much of a "right" at that point, as a severely restricted, easily revoked privilege.

I don't agree with the decision to force the baker to make a wedding cake for the gay couple. It went against their religious principles, and beliefs, and it was IMO the wrong decision. It took away their choice in who they wanted to do business with and was in essence telling them how to run their business. That was wrong.

And forcing any business IMO to take on the responsibility for the safety of it's customers for what might happen if another third party decides to commit a violent criminal action is going in the same direction as forcing a baker tt make a wedding cake for a gay couple, against their beliefs.

Based on my own personal observations since open carry was passed a few years ago, what I have noticed just in my area of Texas, very, very few places even put up 30.07 signs, Very, very few places even had 30.06 signs before that and still remains that way currently. Honestly, IMO, when this bill becomes law, I suspect and predict that very little is actually going to be much different than it is right now currently.

I think some are over-thinking what could, or might happen.

 

[craigntx]

All three of them?

All the signage will ironically provide great concealment for the crooks

 

[oldag]

Forcing? How is anyone forcing you to leave your weapon? Or denying you the right to self defense?

But you think it's alright to "force" a privately owned business to take steps to insure your safety if they post a sign prohibiting the carrying of firearms on their property or premises?

And please show exactly where in the Texas Constitution it says a privately owned business has the responsibility to insure your safety if they post a No Guns sign.

You always have choices, no different than right now. If I see a business with a No Guns sign, I do business elsewhere. That simple. If they don't feel comfortable with a law abiding citizen carrying a legal firearm on their premises, then I'm not comfortable doing business with them and spending my money.

Show me where in the 2A there is an exemption for businesses open to the public to forbid my 2A rights.

 

[Renegade]

Instant lawsuits for any business that posts that and does not provide armed security at the door.

Everyone of those lawsuits ever filed has lost.

 

[rotor]

We always hear that insurance policies require no gun signs. I am retired now but when I was in business I never had a policy that mentioned guns. Can anyone demonstrate a policy that forces a business owner to restrict gun entry? Or is this just an excuse?

 

[ScottDLS]

We always hear that insurance policies require no gun signs. I am retired now but when I was in business I never had a policy that mentioned guns. Can anyone demonstrate a policy that forces a business owner to restrict gun entry? Or is this just an excuse?

I think it's an urban legend used by insurance brokers and business owners as an excuse. I'd like to see the general line business policy that requires and specifies specific postings of Texas PC 30.06/7 compliant signs.

 

[Sasquatch]

Here's an article relating to Texas specifically.

How Does Open Carry Affect Insurance for Texas Businesses?

Open carry legislation went into effect in Texas on January 1, 2016. This means that ordinary citizens with an existing concealed handgun license, can openly carry their firearms in public. There are several exceptions, including college campuses, federal and state owned land and in businesses...

hettlerinsurance.com

Here's one written for businesses in Illinois (yes, I know, but it gives the commie state perspective, and we all know scummy lawyers don't mind commie tactics when it suits them)

How to Respond to Employees Who Want to Bring Guns to Work

In the wake of recent mass shootings in workplaces and at entertainment venues, employees may want to bring guns to work to protect themselves and their customers. So what can employers do if they don’t want armed employees in the workplace?

www.shrm.org

My own experience with insurance under writers was in Oregon, and not relevant specifically to Texas except anecdotally. Our general liability insurance excluded coverage in the event an employee used a firearm. It did not differentiate that use in terms of lawful or unlawful. They did not blatantly say "ban guns or else" but if you look at the policy, it said "ban guns or else" in lawyer speak. As the partner in charge of crafting our policies, I drafted up our policy explicitly with the language "no unlawful carry, possesion, or use of a firearm, dangerous or deadly weapon" - the insurance people were happy, but the policy explicitly allowed for the legal possession and carrying of such devices. We did not verbally encourage, or discourage our employees from carrying. Upon hire, or upon counseling them I read the policy manual as written, asked if they had any questions, and had them sign that they received written copy and understood the policies within, fully expecting to be sued should an incident occur.

A difference between Oregon and Texas - Oregon mandates all businesses with employees have workers compensation insurance to cover employees, while Texas does not. The workers comp policy would come into play in covering the employee if they were injured by the use of firearms - and IIRC our policy made no mention about lawful or unlawful use of that firearm - but that's workers comp, not general lines - and it was compulsory workers comp at that.