I figured, but wanted to document. Lol
San Anotonio 30.06 Establishments
- Thread starter TattooedGlock
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
I'm holding off a while to see how this comes out, but ............... all the responses are, in my opinion, just opinions of an individual's own translations of "rights, laws, etc., etc.") (sarcasm)
100% Correct. One side here is arguing rights and ideals and how things should be. The other side is arguing laws and precedent set by court cases. Neither side is ever going to agree because they are arguing different things.
I'm holding off a while to see how this comes out, but ............... all the responses are, in my opinion, just opinions of an individual's own translations of "rights, laws, etc., etc.") (sarcasm)
I'd say I agree. But wouldn't want to sully your name
One of my contentions is that concealed carry laws regulate and restrict bearing arms. This guy other guy is saying I'm saying 2+2=5.
I'm simply pointing out that you have to pay a tax to bear arms in this state while out and about in your day.
A tax is a restriction. It's not a redirect at all. It is in support of one of the main pillars of the argument. Government is restricting ones ability to bear arms.
Ok, let's say CHL was done away with and we went to full blown constitutional carry (like it should be), you would still have no right to carry on another persons property, because you have no right, constitutional or otherwise, to be on that persons property.
For that reason, the CHL itself is irrelevant to your claim that a person disallowing carry on their privately owned property is infringing on your 2A rights.
But and I think this is key. (And I really do think this) it's not the government telling you no.
Careful...you are changing your story slightly now. You originally were trying to make the point that 30.06 specifically equates to government infringing on your 2A. That is where it was pointed out that your are wrong (2+2=5). Now you are broadening your statement to say CHL laws, in general, infringe on our 2A. Those are two very different arguments.
Neither is it with posted 30.06. It is the property owner telling you no, not the government. The sign does nothing that verbal notice would not do.
Even with CC passed, the sign would most likely still exist with the wording altered slightly.
The government isn't telling you with a 30.06 sign. The owner is. The sign is only different than verbal in that the state mandated how it must be phrased.
He's never going to understand the concept.
I'm starting to like 30.06 under certain circumstances (people) LOL
stdreb27;1062514R said:
Arguably a post hoc ergo propter hoc failure in logic.
The only way your above would conform to a logical conclusion as to "government restrictions" is if the government required you to frequent those places of business.
Some gun owners will ignore an invalid no guns sign. Most will honor a valid 30.06 sign. If I'm correct Young gun and others of are of opinion that entering the property of either sign is a violation of the property owners right. However only one is breaking the law. It's the government that will levy the penalty for breaking the law. There is no legal penalty for just violating the owner property rights.
No, we said, his request is not an infringement of our right to carry. As stated above, it would only be an infringement if we were required to go there.
I ignore incorrect signs and avoid places with correct ones.
[/FONT]
Many, if not most who hold a CHL will do so.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
Most CHL holder's know they damned well better honor what would be a felony if they did not.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
I did not take that as a blanket belief on their part, due to the fact that some business owners will knowingly post an invalid sign to assuage the feelings of their unthinking clientele, knowing full well the signage is not enforceable to a CHL.
more than one way to skin a cat...
It's because the sign doesn't say, pursuant to my irrational fear of guns. I don't want you to bring guns into my store...
It says, and this is my characterization, pursuant to a state law. You can't bring a gun in here.
And why is that? If one were to follow your logic, your trampling on property rights regardless of signage?
I was correcting your interpretation of what we said.
If the sign is incorrect i have no reason to believe they are serious in their request.
If the sign is correct, their desire is communicated quite clearly.
Lol, so no guns doesn't really mean no guns?
