Lets find out where we all stand.

I voted for #4 although I admit waffling between #3 and #4.

Simple question for those who answered #5 and for JD who came close to answering 5.

Do you believe that you should have the right to carry a handgun into my home when I don't want you to do so? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Absolutely not, if it is your private home.

Absolutely not, if it is your private home.

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Thanks for the response.

But that is a restriction, and #5 states no restrictions.

That's why I consider #5 to be as ridiculous as #1, for which no one voted. There are simply some gun control laws that make total sense, at least to me, and should NEVER be abolished. A person should always have the right to ban guns from his home. An establishment should always have the right to ban guns. People who carry guns should not be allowed to drink alcohol in excess, or at all.

I'm surprised that only 1 person who voted for #5 has responded to my simple question.

NiceGuy53, you are correct. My apologies. As I said, I went back and forth between 3 and 4 and finally landed on #3. Although I am content with the gun control in my state of Texas, I think some states laws should be stricter in some regards. But before IB hops on my case, I am NOT advocating that ANY state enact stricter gun control laws. I also believe that some states probably have TOO strict gun control laws, such as N.J. and its issuance of CHLs.

We have a case right now in Kansas. A man goes into a store. Shoppers say that he is carrying a weapon. He is. He has a concealed carry permit but his light weight summer shirt fails to hide the outline of a gun. The police are called and he is asked to leave. He is dismayed because there is no signage saying that he can't bring his weapon into the store. The police sympathize but say, though he is breaking no laws, every business has a right to choose to do business with a customer.....unless you're gay and looking for a bakery or photographer.

So tell me that, if a store can refuse a customer because they are legally doing something, shouldn't they also be able to refuse service to a gay couple doing something that they owners find offensive and illegal in some states?

Also, who decides what is excessive when it comes to drinking alcohol? I've seen some highly functioning alcoholics and some stone cold sober morons. Just look at some of the postings here.

As for your question....I'm been thinking about it if you don't mind. A home owner has every right to deny you entrance to their house but does an apartment complex have the authority to have an apartment if you own a gun? Think about smoking. Can a renter deny you entry? Can the building management deny you ownership or carry rights in a building? If you have a CCW, how do they enforce it? Pat downs on every floor?

We have a case right now in Kansas. A man goes into a store. Shoppers say that he is carrying a weapon. He is. He has a concealed carry permit but his light weight summer shirt fails to hide the outline of a gun. The police are called and he is asked to leave. He is dismayed because there is no signage saying that he can't bring his weapon into the store. The police sympathize but say, though he is breaking no laws, every business has a right to choose to do business with a customer.....unless you're gay and looking for a bakery or photographer.

So tell me that, if a store can refuse a customer because they are legally doing something, shouldn't they also be able to refuse service to a gay couple doing something that they owners find offensive and illegal in some states?
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I don't know Kansas law but in Texas that guy would be breaking the law. If you are a CHL holder and carrying your weapon where it is in plain view then you are in violation.
If someone can reasonably detect that you are carrying a weapon I believe that can be considered plain view or intentional display. It is the burden of the CHL holder to maintain concealment at all times. If Kansas law is similar then the cops let him off easy. Not to say that a Texas cop wouldn't. Just saying.
The few times I've been stopped since having a CHL I've seen a different demeanor from the officer than I did previous to having a CHL. It's almost as if they relax a little when you present your ID.

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun
on or about the license holder’s person under the authority of Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain
view of another person in a public place.

Thanks for the response.

But that is a restriction, and #5 states no restrictions.

That's why I consider #5 to be as ridiculous as #1, for which no one voted. There are simply some gun control laws that make total sense, at least to me, and should NEVER be abolished. A person should always have the right to ban guns from his home. An establishment should always have the right to ban guns. People who carry guns should not be allowed to drink alcohol in excess, or at all.

I'm surprised that only 1 person who voted for #5 has responded to my simple question.

NiceGuy53, you are correct. My apologies. As I said, I went back and forth between 3 and 4 and finally landed on #3. Although I am content with the gun control in my state of Texas, I think some states laws should be stricter in some regards. But before IB hops on my case, I am NOT advocating that ANY state enact stricter gun control laws. I also believe that some states probably have TOO strict gun control laws, such as N.J. and its issuance of CHLs. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You already did, Speedy:

I also want laws in place that put minimum restrictions on those that want to carry concealed handguns, unlike the states of Utah and Wyoming. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

We have a case right now in Kansas. A man goes into a store. Shoppers say that he is carrying a weapon. He is. He has a concealed carry permit but his light weight summer shirt fails to hide the outline of a gun. The police are called and he is asked to leave. He is dismayed because there is no signage saying that he can't bring his weapon into the store. The police sympathize but say, though he is breaking no laws, every business has a right to choose to do business with a customer.....unless you're gay and looking for a bakery or photographer.

So tell me that, if a store can refuse a customer because they are legally doing something, shouldn't they also be able to refuse service to a gay couple doing something that they owners find offensive and illegal in some states?

Also, who decides what is excessive when it comes to drinking alcohol? I've seen some highly functioning alcoholics and some stone cold sober morons. Just look at some of the postings here.

As for your question....I'm been thinking about it if you don't mind. A home owner has every right to deny you entrance to their house but does an apartment complex have the authority to have an apartment if you own a gun? Think about smoking. Can a renter deny you entry? Can the building management deny you ownership or carry rights in a building? If you have a CCW, how do they enforce it? Pat downs on every floor? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

There are activities that business owners might find offensive and not want in their stores. A male and female, or a gay couple, come into a store and start making out in front of everyone. I would expect most store owners to ask the couple to leave, even though no laws are being broken. Simply holding hands, probably not, although that might differ from state to state. Open carry of rifles is allowed in Texas. But ask people if they want to see people openly carrying a rifle in Walmart or a food market and they will say no and would probably leave the building. Result -- lost sales.

Regarding alcohol, each state sets the alcohol blood level at which a person is considered intoxicated. Fair?? As you say, each person is affected by alcohol differently, but you can't make laws for each person.

Not sure exactly what you are getting at in the last paragraph. The purpose of my question was to point out how, in my mind, ridiculous it is to answer #5. You answered that the right of a homeowner to ban guns from his/her homes should not be questioned. I totally agree. Yet that is a restriction on gun owners' rights. There are simply several other examples I could come up with where a gun owners' rights should not be absolute.

You already did, Speedy: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I realize that you probably never made it out of 8th grade, but try auditing a college Marketing course and you might be able to differentiate between a "want" and a "need".

IDIOT.

Bring back dueling. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

That would be cool

Or with guns

I realize that you probably never made it out of 8th grade, but try auditing a college Marketing course and you might be able to differentiate between a "want" and a "need".

IDIOT. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You "want" and "vote" for more stringent gun control laws, Speedy. YOU said it! You OWN it, Speedy!

I also want laws in place that put minimum restrictions on those that want to carry concealed handguns, unlike the states of Utah and Wyoming. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That would be cool


Originally Posted by zerodahero

But not so cool for the loser! Lol.

Dr William Petty was a retiring, somewhat donnish character who fell foul over a point of religion and politics - the same thing in English Civil War-era London - some time in the Commonwealth. Sir Heirome Sankey was a serving soldier, what we would now think of as a jock or bonehead, who had a reputation as a killing gentleman. Having backed Petty into a corner over their argument, Petty employed his wits to have the duel take place in a large and pitch black cellar, the weapons felling axes almost too heavy for a man to lift. The exact course of the combat is lost to history (well, it was dark) but Sankey walked out of the duel in disgust, conceding the field of honour and thus the point to Petty.


http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopic...-2-346651.html

,

I don't know Kansas law but in Texas that guy would be breaking the law. If you are a CHL holder and carrying your weapon where it is in plain view then you are in violation.
If someone can reasonably detect that you are carrying a weapon I believe that can be considered plain view or intentional display. It is the burden of the CHL holder to maintain concealment at all times. If Kansas law is similar then the cops let him off easy. Not to say that a Texas cop wouldn't. Just saying.
The few times I've been stopped since having a CHL I've seen a different demeanor from the officer than I did previous to having a CHL. It's almost as if they relax a little when you present your ID.

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun
on or about the license holder’s person under the authority of Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain
view of another person in a public place. Originally Posted by boardman

I think they have amended that, placing more emphasis on "intentionally".
It is a defense if the CHL holder convinces a judge or jury that it was accidental.

Of course, you will probably still have to " take the ride", as they say.

That last paragraph raises the possibility that a third party tries to deny you the right to bear arms. In this case, the real owner of an apartment. Does an apartment management center (on behalf of the owner) have the right to say that you can't possess a gun in your apartment? I pointed out smoking because they already do that (but smoking is not a right).

I think they have amended that, placing more emphasis on "intentionally". It is a defense if the CHL holder convinces a judge or jury that it was accidental. Of course, you will probably still have to " take the ride", as they say. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I would think that someone claiming they saw a handgun through a shirt would probably not fly with an investigating officer, unless the person carrying the handgun displayed an attitude that focused the officer's attention on him or her to find "something" to base an arrest upon, even if slim and thin. IMO most arrests in "marginal" circumstances are motivated by the officer being pissed off at the arrestee .... sometimes referred to as POP ... piss off the police.