Some thoughts on fixing the proliferation of 30.06 and 30.07 signs next session

[A.Texas.Yankee]

Race? Sex? Age? Religion?





www.AtomicLabRat.com

Yes. Free market capitalism should (and would) decide whether or not those businesses fail, not regulations.

Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk

 

[Big Dipper]

It reads that the immunity applied in WI is not exactly the same as what is being discussed in this thread.

The way I read it, WI is saying the store can't be sued if a license holder does something stupid. Nothing to do with liability for the actions of a criminal if the property owner prohibits carry.


Sent from my HAL 9000

But, even that level of immunity is not available to Texas merchants! Perhaps if it were, there would be fewer 30.06 aand 30.07 signs.

Also, that might be an easier argument to make to the legislature given the stats on how law abiding LTC licensees are.

 

[SC-Texas]

And this is what I was thinking of. Maybe immunity from suit

www.AtomicLabRat.com

 

[SC-Texas]

I like the wording of that WI law

www.AtomicLabRat.com

 

[CrazedJava]

I am not interested in trampling on the rights of others. I believe in the old saying "Your rights begin at the end of your nose and my rights end at the end of my fist"

No fan of the 30.06 or 30.07 but I wouldn't want anyone to tell me how I can and can't behave on my property. Already too many laws that do just that.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Law abiding unless stupid laws make me into a criminal. Then I'll choose to be a criminal.

 

[Younggun]

So you don't believe in property rights?


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Younggun]

Or only property rights when it suits your interest?


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[JohnnyLoco]

So you don't believe in property rights?


Sent from my HAL 9000

Not over 2nd amendment, self-defense rights.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

There is no political ideology that believes property/land rights are absolute, especially when you look at libertarianism which views your body as your property which you are bound to defend.

A property owner has no right to invite people to their property under the condition that those people forfeit their own property rights, the right to protect their own body.

 

[Younggun]

Not over 2nd amendment, self-defense rights.

They do not deny your 2A right, they deny the privilege of entering the private property. You make the choice to enter.




Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Charlie]

They do not deny your 2A right, they deny the privilege of entering the private property. You make the choice to enter.




Sent from my HAL 9000

Correct. My property, my rules.

 

[Younggun]

There is no political ideology that believes property/land rights are absolute, especially when you look at libertarianism which views your body as your property which you are bound to defend.

A property owner has no right to invite people to their property under the condition that those people forfeit their own property rights, the right to protect their own body.

Not sure which version of libertarianism you follow.

Does a property owner have a right to control who enters their property or not? If so, they have the right to place conditions for entry. You do not have any explicit right to enter someone's private property so you couldn't possibly have any rights pertaining to carrying on private property.

You have the right to not enter the private property.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[JohnnyLoco]

To point out how idiotic the "property rights" idea is, just imagine a business owner posting a sign that says if a thug runs in and starts swinging at you, you cannot avoid his punches and certainly not hit him back.

A sign such as this would be laughed at and would never become legal, it's stupid. Everyone has the right to protect themselves from bodily injury. This is indisputable.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Not sure which version of libertarianism you follow.

Does a property owner have a right to control who enters their property or not? If so, they have the right to place conditions for entry. You do not have any explicit right to enter someone's private property so you couldn't possibly have any rights pertaining to carrying on private property.

You have the right to not enter the private property.


Sent from my HAL 9000

Nope. Such is an immoral condition that a true libertarian would not impose. Would not be legal in a true libertarian society.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Correct. My property, my rules.

Not really. There's always rules. How did you get the property? I don't suppose you found it in the wild.

 

[Younggun]

I think you are confused. A libertarian view would be that the property owner has full control over his/her property, who can enter, and under what conditions.

You are simply trying to twist things to fit your preference. That mindset is how we have managed to lose so many rights. I don't take you for being pro big government.

A true libertarian supports the rights of others, even when it doesn't benefit them. Including property rights.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Charlie]

I bought mine!
So, you're saying I can come over to your house and walk in anytime, with guns, etc., without your permission? It certainly sounds that way. If someone comes to my house and walks in without my permission, they may not walk out, depending upon the circumstances.

 

[Younggun]

I find the idea that a property owner has no rights to regulate entry into his/her property to be immoral.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Charlie]

I find the idea that a property owner has no rights to regulate entry into his/her property to be immoral.


Sent from my HAL 9000

I think JohnnyLoco is just doin' a little trollin' this morning!