What is the punishment for carrying a pistol in a store…concealed, of course…
for protection of course…
what;s the point of having a gun if you can’t carrying the dang thing around?
how protected am I…if a thief knows everyone going back to his car is unarmed?
I’m in texas…and as far as I klnow, people can’t bring their guns in stores (concealed of course)…for fear of government punishment…
I looked here, and it states:
“It is unlawful for a handgun license holder to carry a handgun on the premises of: […] the property of another after receiving notice that concealed handguns are forbidden on that property.”
It kind of looks like you just can’t have one on another’s property if they tell you that you can’t.
It gave Penal Code § 46.01 et seq. and Gov’t. Code § 411.171 et seq. as the primary source, so I’d check that if I were you.
This is why I don’t understand concealed weapons laws. First off, if no one can carry around a gun, then a criminal will basically know he’s safe. Second, if you’re only allowed to carry around a gun unconcealed, then guess who’s going to get shot first by the criminal. Everyone with a gun. The only thing that makes sense is for there to be no gun laws so that the criminal won’t know who has a gun. The moment he takes someone hostage will be the same moment he gets shot from behind.
I think it’s considered trespassing: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/tchlaws0102.pdf
see pgs 26-27
Private businesses have the right to prohibit gun possession on their premises.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/faq.htm
“Private property owners may give notice excluding license holders from carrying concealed handguns. If you carry a concealed handgun on posted property, you can be charged with criminal trespass by a license holder. The charge is a Class A misdemeanor, and if you are convicted, your license will be revoked.”
EDIT: Nvm, Brian already answered.
Private businesses have the right to prohibit gun possession on their premises.
That they do, and in Ohio where most can carry a concealed gun leagally into a private business, most business have a “do not carry” sign posted on the door.
"
Private businesses have the right to prohibit gun possession on their premises.
That they do, and in Ohio where most can carry a concealed gun leagally into a private business, most business have a “do not carry” sign posted on the door."
I understand, people have a right to ask people not to bring guns on their property…at the same time…none of that matters…
all that matters is the punishment the government will give you if you are caught…
if there’s no punishment…I’d carry my gun inside stores all the time…and restuarants…whether they have a sign or not…
I couldn’t care less about the stupid sign…all that stops me is the punishment from the government.
I agree 100% with Brian on the counterproductivity of gun laws. Now, a store owner should probably have the right to ask you to come unarmed, but should we take such a store owner seriously? First, one should educate oneself on whether or not a gun-banning store owner can take legal action against you because of this.
If they cannot, then the reasonable course of action is going to be to disregard “no guns allowed signs”; if they can, then you should make a point out of boycotting such places.
“First, one should educate oneself on whether or not a gun-banning store owner can take legal action against you because of this.”
I think you have to ask this question about any law, not just gun laws. If the law lacks enforcement, it’s not much of a law.
EDIT: "if there’s no punishment…I’d carry my gun inside stores all the time…and restuarants…whether they have a sign or not…
I couldn’t care less about the stupid sign."
How un-libertarian of you, whatever happened to private property rights?
I think store owners are able to calculate what is better for their business; what type of clientele they have, what is or is not productive, the nature of enforcing self-made laws on their business, the effects of a self made law on business, etc, than the average passerby, customer, government, boycotter, or theoretical constructor of political theory telling the owner what they should or should not do and how to do it.
Of course, but in the case of particularly vicious ones, like gun or drug laws, their mere existence is enough of a vexation to all but the most state-loving indoctrinaires, regardless of enforcement.
“Of course, but in the case of particularly vicious ones, like gun or drug laws, their mere existence is enough of a vexation to all but the most state-loving indoctrinaires, regardless of enforcement.”
The state could also be used to force these people to allow guns on their property whether they want them there or not.
If you think that’s what some of us have implied, then you should work on making your strawmen less transparent.
“If you think that’s what some of us have implied, then you should work on making your strawmen less transparent.”
I don’t think that’s what you’re implying, I think that’s what I’m explicitly saying. If I don’t like what someone does with their own property, I try to force them to do what I want. Takes much less time than boycotting and it’s certainly more effective. It seems, however, that you would only disagree with my means but not with my ends.
What is your evidence that boycott is ineffective?
Since your means are aggressive, they contradict my ends (namely freedom from legal aggression). I don’t even deny the right of shopkeepers to disallow people from entering armed, but I do consider these people vicious and/or idiotic.
“What is your evidence that boycott is ineffective?”
I really haven’t studied it, so I don’t know either way. It seems like forcing people is just simpler and if the law no longer protects people’s right to tell people not to bring guns on their premises, they won’t have legal recourse in the event that people do bring guns on their property. Problem solved.
If I don’t like what someone does with their own property, I try to force them to do what I want. Takes much less time than boycotting and it’s certainly more effective.
The problem with line of thought is: if you have unproductive methods (such as government) that can’t calculate and have zero concept of efficency as a significant part of the culture we would be reduced to a stone age standard of living with a severly dwindled population.
but I do consider these people vicious and/or idiotic
I don’t know how you can calculate what is best or “non idiotic” for all shopkeeps everywhere at all times.
“if you have unproductive methods (such as government) that can’t calculate and have zero concept of efficency as a significant part of the culture we would be reduced to a stone age standard of living with a severly dwindled population.”
Government IS a significant part of our culture. I mean the OP asked a question for which there was a government provided answer. Wasn’t even that hard to find.
Government IS a significant part of our culture
Even in this day and age, not compared with most other governments as far as market forces are concerned.
If you only consider your conflict with someone vis-a-vis, then force seems like the obvious choice. If you realize that whatever’s bothering you is something that bothers other people, then boycott is the way to go. So pedophiles can be easily boycotted but people with green eyes are probably can’t be. You would have to attack green-eyed people but have a good chance of completely ostrasizing pedophiles.
An example of a strong/successful boycott is Ghandi’s boycott of british goods. Pretty effective. The problem with violence is that the other party can fight back, so you have to deal with whatever blowback as well as the cost of gearing up to attack them. Pyschologically, I think violence is like a line that once you cross its hard to go back untill one or both parties are completely spent. Even if you don’t care about the other party, they’re still more valuable in tact as trade partners. I consider attacking people you don’t like to be akin to kicking machines which malfunction… not helping. Even though Libertarians usually think violence in self defense is justified, I stress that we do not have to act on that right. Violence is generally a last resort for the reasons I gave above.