Texas Businesses Adapt to New Open Carry Law

[Kirk Freeman]

would support a bill that restricts the property rights of an owner.

Well, there is that 14th Amendment and all, but I know that is not in INGO's favor . . . today.

Anywho, I spent almost an hour reading everything about this new open carry statute and the best the antis could do is "it may scare women and children."

I don't think that emotions will hold up well against the sustained attack of the TSRA.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What if it is a hotel in Atlanta?

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/515

Should be completely legal. Let the free market or public action sort it out.

 

[Dirtebiker]

As long as you're clear to add that "mental deficient" is referring to people that have an issue with my store policy.

Ok, IF that's the way you meant it.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Should be completely legal. Let the free market or public action sort it out.

Should be completely legal for a business to deny people because of the color of their skin?

 

[IndyDave1776]

In my reckoning, the issue of private prohibitions is an easy one to solve. A property owner is not obligated to accept behavior he deems unacceptable, and likewise, I am not obligated to patronize businesses whose policies I consider unacceptable with the exception of those using public property to conduct their businesses. If I am forced to subsidize them, that opens some new issues.

While we are on the subject, I will share that I tried open carry exactly once. I felt like I was standing naked in public. Needless to say, it was an experiment that was not repeated.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ha, no self-respecting gun owner, who understands what liberty is, would support a bill that restricts the property rights of an owner. A property owner should be able to be as bigoted as he would like, on HIS property. Why do you hate freedom comrade GFGT?

Pthbbbb! That's so...old thinking. I am being oppressed and I want the government to force you to recognize and accept my rights. Why do you hate?

 

[actaeon277]

"Carrying a gun outside, on your person where it's visible, is at least an implied threat," he says.

Some would say carrying concealed is at least an implied threat.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Should be completely legal for a business to deny people because of the color of their skin?

For whatever reason

 

[KG1]

As long as you're clear to add that "mental deficient" is referring to people that have an issue with my store policy.

Yeah none of this is surprising to me because I pretty much get the vibe you put out that anyone who disagrees with anything you have to say on any subject would be a mental deficient to your superior intellect and logic in your eyes.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah none of this is surprising to me because I pretty much get the vibe you put out that anyone who disagrees with anything you have to say on any subject would be a mental deficient to your superior intellect and logic in your eyes.

Don't fault me for your perceived deficiencies. I'm not the cause of whatever "inadequacies" you believe you have.


Kut (doesn't want to know, and will take your word on it)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Should be completely legal. Let the free market or public action sort it out.

Ok, well, we'll just need to get you and Mikey Luttig on the Supreme Court and . . . nevermind.

 

[KG1]

Don't fault me for your perceived deficiencies. I'm not the cause of whatever "inadequacies" you believe you have.


Kut (doesn't want to know, and will take your word on it)

Exactly the kind of attitude I'm referring to. And just on a closing note because I don't really wish to continue this ad hom tete-a-tete I would like to add that I never stated whether or not I agree with your point of view regarding any mode of carry on private property.

I just took a bit of issue with the last line in that original post about questioning whether someone that disagrees with YOUR logic should be allowed to carry a firearm at all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Exactly the kind of attitude I'm referring to. And just on a closing note because I don't really wish to continue this ad hom tete-a-tete I would like to add that I never stated whether or not I agree with your point of view regarding any mode of carry on private property.

I just took a bit of issue with the last line in that original post about questioning whether someone that disagrees with YOUR logic should be allowed to carry a firearm at all.

I think you probably looked a little too deep into it. I was referring to myself in the role of a store owner who is dealing with a person that has an issue with my store's policy. I could care less how a person carries, as long as it doesn't conflict with the policy of the person whose property they are standing on. If that person doesn't understand why the owner's right trump theirs, then yeah, that person is a mental deficient.... even after he has left the property.

 

[stephen87]

I'd say 1,000,000 to 1, they're not a threat. But a business is all about knowing your clientele. Our society is full of "if I don't see it, it's not there" people, and unfortunately sometimes you have to cater to that type. I see absolutely nothing wrong with requiring carriers to conceal if I'm operating a business where the sight of a gun may deter business. I doubt most gun owners would have issue with the policy. They ARE, after all, allowed to carry their firearms, I would just ask that they are concealed. If they can't understand the logic, then I'd question whether or not they should be carrying in the first place.

My logic is superior, when it's my business, and you walk through my doors. Somebody have a problem with that? Don't let the GTFO sign smack you in the butt on the way out. If they're not in my store they can carry in whatever way a mental deficient carries.

As long as you're clear to add that "mental deficient" is referring to people that have an issue with my store policy.

Better? If we can't agree to conceal because Kut says it's logical, we're a mental deficient. Your words. Not mine. Quoted both examples you wanted quoted. Black and white. Right there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Better? If we can't agree to conceal because Kut says it's logical, we're a mental deficient. Your words. Not mine. Quoted both examples you wanted quoted. Black and white. Right there.

So yeah, now I am starting to wonder.

Kut (is going to have to make sure to add a really BIG sign, and some handholders at the entrance)

 

[Leadeye]

Meh, this whole issue will get sorted out by big insurance companies after a few shoot outs between patrons and robbers where other people get hit. It's a really unlikely thing to happen, but if you're running a business you have to have liability insurance and the underwriters make those decisions.

Sad fact of life.

 

[Twangbanger]

Meh, this whole issue will get sorted out by big insurance companies after a few shoot outs between patrons and robbers where other people get hit. It's a really unlikely thing to happen, but if you're running a business you have to have liability insurance and the underwriters make those decisions.

Sad fact of life.

Very true. A sad fact of capitalism is that (most) all businesses, at heart, are cowards when it comes to principle vs. revenue. Once this becomes a "thing," it probably won't matter whether it's OC or CC - businesses will likely prohibit _both_. Once it becomes standard practice at ALL businesses, and your "wallet cards" are flatly ignored - are you going to do without groceries? Unless you're going to grow 100% of your food year-round the rest of your life, have Peapod deliver every bite of food you eat, or get all your food placed into your trunk at Kroger or dispensed through a window by a 17 year-old...your only choice will be to engage in secret, civil disobedience to ensure your own safety in public.

Back into that closet, gunowners! Your 15 minutes of sunshine just ended.

We all better enjoy this little window of freedom we have right now. It's going to be short-lived. We could have shut the hell up and CC'ed...but: Ry-eets.

 

[OakRiver]

So it Texas awash with "blood in the streets" yet?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Very true. A sad fact of capitalism is that (most) all businesses, at heart, are cowards when it comes to principle vs. revenue. Once this becomes a "thing," it probably won't matter whether it's OC or CC - businesses will likely prohibit _both_. Once it becomes standard practice at ALL businesses, and your "wallet cards" are flatly ignored - are you going to do without groceries? Unless you're going to grow 100% of your food year-round the rest of your life, have Peapod deliver every bite of food you eat, or get all your food placed into your trunk at Kroger or dispensed through a window by a 17 year-old...your only choice will be to engage in secret, civil disobedience to ensure your own safety in public.

Back into that closet, gunowners! Your 15 minutes of sunshine just ended.

We all better enjoy this little window of freedom we have right now. It's going to be short-lived. We could have shut the hell up and CC'ed...but: Ry-eets.

That is the inherent flaw of capitalism. Revenue always reigns supreme.

 

[IndyDave1776]

One thing we need to keep in perspective is that the way the Texas law was written, interpreted, and enforced, my understanding is that you could get busted for carrying illegally if your licensed concealed gun so much as printed. It was very near carrying illegally. If anyone could tell in any way shape or form you were carrying, you were not considered 'concealed'. I see the big victory in relief from that.