The fact is all of the states suck, they all squash 1 set of rights and pander to the other set. We are all in a constant game of tug of war, by design. The Constitution is in the middle and both sides are pulling as hard as they can to destroy it.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Unlikely.I wonder if we could get Sununu to make a similar declaration.
You’re advocating the use of state sanctioned force to require a property owner to do something he doesn’t want to do. That’s statism.P. S. No, I'm punching back twice as hard against state-enforced gun-free zones.
When you raise the cost of establishing them, you lower the number of them.
Your advocating the use of state sanctioned force to limit rights.You’re advocating the use of state sanctioned force to require a property owner to do something he doesn’t want to do. That’s statism.
No. That’s the state enforcing private property rights. Very different kettle of fish and while not perfect it’s nicely parsed to balance the right of the property owner to set limitations on who can come onto his property with those of the rest of us who want to defend ourselves.Your advocating the use of state sanctioned force to limit rights.
This. Abbot gets shit from the right about not being tough enough. Given what he’s got to deal with from the blue CA invaders in the major cities I think he does a decent job but this is just smoke and mirror pandering to his base.As others have said if he was serious he would demand the legislature revoke all gun laws period, then arrest every ATF agent in the state. He's not doing that. So all show and no pony.
Wow nice spin. You can spin it all you want. It’s still statism.No. That’s the state enforcing private property rights. Very different kettle of fish and while not perfect it’s nicely parsed to balance the right of the property owner to set limitations on who can come onto his property with those of the rest of us who want to defend ourselves.
Property rights are natural rights. Life, liberty, property. Protecting natural rights is the only justification for the existence of the state.Wow nice spin. You can spin it all you want. It’s still statism.
Someones right of self defense doesn’t deprive anyone of their property. All it deprives you of is a false sense of safeness.Property rights are natural rights. Life, liberty, property. Protecting natural rights is the only justification for the existence of the state.
Incorrect. If I as a property owner decide I don’t want armed people on my property I have the right to prohibit it. I’d be stupid to prohibit it but in a free society I have the right to be stupid. One of the duties of the state is to protect my right to do as I wish with my property- even if it is stupid. SCOTUS upheld this right when it ruled Masterpiece Cake Shop didn’t have to make a gay wedding cake.Someones right of self defense doesn’t deprive anyone of their property. All it deprives you of is a false sense of safeness.
Holding out for you to explain what right SCOTUS upheld in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins.SCOTUS upheld this right when it ruled Masterpiece Cake Shop didn’t have to make a gay wedding cake.
It affirmed that state constitutions can afford broader rights than the federal one.Holding out for you to explain what right SCOTUS upheld in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins.
You are missing the point. States without such restrictions still afford the property owner the right to kick people out for things such as carrying a firearm. If the individual doesn't leave, charges for trespassing can be pressed.Incorrect. If I as a property owner decide I don’t want armed people on my property I have the right to prohibit it. I’d be stupid to prohibit it but in a free society I have the right to be stupid. One of the duties of the state is to protect my right to do as I wish with my property- even if it is stupid. SCOTUS upheld this right when it ruled Masterpiece Cake Shop didn’t have to make a gay wedding cake.
It’s only a misdemeanor if you refuse to leave. Look, I live here. The reality is this: if you miss a 30 06 sign and someone happens to figure out you’re carrying concealed and asks you to please leave - and you say ‘oh sorry, didn’t see the sign’ and go out and put your gun in the car it’s a no harm, no foul, no misdemeanor. If you refuse and they have to call the cops it’s a Class 3 misdemeanor with a decent fine. If you refuse to obey the cop it’s a felony.You are missing the point. States without such restrictions still afford the property owner the right to kick people out for things such as carrying a firearm. If the individual doesn't leave, charges for trespassing can be pressed.
In states like TX, the individual can be charged with a misdemeanor for carrying on said property.
Yup. I think TX has a gun free zone law that says if your armed in the zone u are commiting a crime. I think???Enlighten us as to what they are please.
basically you need a permit to carry. Carry is defined as on your person off your property. Your car is considered your property so you don’t need one to have it in the car. Permit is shall issue once you take a class. No restrictions on ownership - if it’s federally legal you can own it permit or not. There are some restrictions where you can carry. Bars, government buildings, schools.
that's it.
Schools and business that derive more than 51% of their business from the sale of alcoholYup. I think TX has a gun free zone law that says if your armed in the zone u are commiting a crime. I think???
Happens every day.You’re advocating the use of state sanctioned force to require a property owner to do something he doesn’t want to do. That’s statism.
Missed the business part and read this as "schools that derive more than 51% of their business from the sale of alcohol".Schools and business that derive more than 51% of their business from the sale of alcohol
Hell, I read it that way and just figured it was a minischool fraction of them.Missed the business part and read this as "schools that derive more than 51% of their business from the sale of alcohol".
You’re right it does, so why advocate for more of it? You arguing that ‘it’s OK as long as I agree with it’?Happens every day.
Your going to put in handicapped ramps and bathrooms and elevators .
Can't afford it ? Too bad.
You WILL follow health codes or get shut down.
That gay couple holding hands at the table ? If you're the type to be offended by it you won't be tossing them out unless you want a crippling lawsuit or hate crime charges. Or both.
Same with any minority.
The only group you are free to discriminate against is gun owners.
FIFY and enlightened. While MA bans carry under the influence, there is no legal prohibition on being a designated defender while you also serve as the designated driver. And it's not just bars - any place that posts a notice 50% of its income is from the sale of alcohol for on premises consumption.Enlighten us as to what they are please.
basically you need a permit to carry. Carry is defined as on your person off your property. Your car is considered your property so you don’t need one to have it in the car. Permit is shall issue once you take a class. No restrictions on ownership - if it’s federally legal you can own it permit or not. There are some restrictions where you can carry. Bars, government buildings, schools, and any place that has places a no guns compliant with TX law 30.06 (30.07 for open carry).
Try visiting any hospital (they all have em), a rental car facility near the DFW airport (I think it was Hertz) or the TX Schoolbook Depository (though when I was there the sign was not binding as it did not meet the legally required font size).I’ve literally never seen an 06 sign. I’ve seen 07’s but as I don’t open carry it’s not an issue.
Rob I referenced the signage and 51% in many places in this thread, you just didn’t bother to quote them.FIFY and enlightened. While MA bans carry under the influence, there is no legal prohibition on being a designated defender while you also serve as the designated driver. And it's not just bars - any place that posts a notice 50% of its income is from the sale of alcohol for on premises consumption.
There are many more places you cannot legally carry in TX than in MA.
I'm arguing that the only people it's ok to discriminate against is us.You’re right it does, so why advocate for more of it? You arguing that ‘it’s OK as long as I agree with it’?
Places that are gun ban areas in TX but not in MA:Rob I referenced the signage and 51% in many places in this thread, you just didn’t bother to quote them.
You can carry more places in MA
You have a stat for that or is it your opinion? What guns can I buy in MA without a permit? Ammo? Oh yeah. Right.