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

[stealthyeliminator]

One of the big reasons why RKBA is not a protected civil right is because no one has gone to the legislative branch & judicial branch & made a big fuss about being discriminated against (need to take a page out of the LGBT Movement).

I disagree with needing to take a page from their book. I still hold the position that if the anti-discrimination laws shouldn't exist in the first place (and they shouldn't, not in the form in which they exist today at least), then we should not lobby for protection under them. Some have had the stance that so long as those laws do exist, and so long as any group is receiving privilege under them, we should also lobby for privilege under them. In my view that's only increasing the overall abuse, where we should be seeking to decrease it. My view is that the correct and right option is to lessen the overall oppression as opposed to making sure everyone gets to oppress others the same amount. My view is that, for instance, if one lobbied on one hand that a baker should be able to deny a customer for whatever reason, but then one lobbied on the other hand that they should have the same privilege as the guy who forced the baker to work for him, then one would be a hypocrite.

 

[solus]

I disagree with needing to take a page from their book. I still hold the position that if the anti-discrimination laws shouldn't exist in the first place (and they shouldn't, not in the form in which they exist today at least), then we should not lobby for protection under them. Some have had the stance that so long as those laws do exist, and so long as any group is receiving privilege under them, we should also lobby for privilege under them. In my view that's only increasing the overall abuse, where we should be seeking to decrease it. My view is that the correct and right option is to lessen the overall oppression as opposed to making sure everyone gets to oppress others the same amount. My view is that, for instance, if one lobbied on one hand that a baker should be able to deny a customer for whatever reason, but then one lobbied on the other hand that they should have the same privilege as the guy who forced the baker to work for him, then one would be a hypocrite.

that is of course, your opinion...

and that worked so well in FL, TX, ad nauseam, to progress 'the cause' which by the way, nobody can seem to articulate across the nation because the individual grassroots/egomaniacs can't agree on a commonality to present to anybody who can make any iota of a difference across the board.

softly humming and lip sync'g the mantra as i walk into the sunset...'there is always next year...we'll do better...well, hope so, er maybe....gee hope so..."

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

In my view that's only increasing the overall abuse, where we should be seeking to decrease it. My view is that the correct and right option is to lessen the overall oppression as opposed to making sure everyone gets to oppress others the same amount.

How is that working out for you/us so far? Can you point to a single success in decreasing anti-discrimination laws in this nation?

My view is that, for instance, if one lobbied on one hand that a baker should be able to deny a customer for whatever reason, but then one lobbied on the other hand that they should have the same privilege as the guy who forced the baker to work for him, then one would be a hypocrite.

What if one didn't lobby that a baker should be free to deny service "for whatever reason"?

Or at what point do we realize that we have a set of rules under which the game is being played and we either play by the rules in place or we handicap ourselves and lose?

So long as the other guy can infringe on you with zero cost to himself, where is his inducement to limit his infringements of your rights?

To be clear, I don't believe anti-discrimination laws are going to go away. I think that is a lost cause. I also think society works a lot better without segregated drinking fountains.

I do not believe that individuals should be denied basic goods, services, housing, or employment based on their membership in any demographic: sex, sexual orientation, religion, political, race, etc.

At the same time, neither should an individual be forced to propagate an idea he disagrees with or abhors.

A baker should not deny goods or services simply because a customer is homosexual, republican, Mormon, or carrying a gun. Individuals should not expect to have to seek out a business that doesn't discriminate. If you are open to the public, you ought to serve the public.

However, a baker should be perfectly free to decline to provide goods or services to a GOP convention or candidate's event, to an NRA fund raiser, to a Mormon Church event, or to a homosexual "wedding"/reception. These events are intended to advance various ideas with which the baker may disagree. These events are different than an individual who may be a member of a group that holds such an event.

So long as gun owners are willing to sit at the back of the proverbial bus out of some profound respect for others' "rights" to treat us in ways that are not acceptable toward any other identifiable group, we will be mistreated. And as we can see on the thread about the homosexual "pride" parade wanting to ban OC, our falling on our swords will garner us zero good will from those who want to mistreat us.

Sorry, but feelings of moral superiority only go so far when you need to buy a tank of gas or get your wife or kid something to eat and a toilet to use while driving cross country.

Charles

 

[solus]

piper, well said...with some interesting analogies...the back of the bus was, imho, exemplary...

now, piper, how do you get your site gathering the commonality together across the nation to precipitate a viable game plan to begin the move forward for some articulated concept to begin reaching objectives and goals.

ipse

pm sent

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I intentionally redacted references to our past discussions, bagpiper, because I have no intention of traveling those roads again. If anyone is interested they can search for the past discussions, I think there's no reason to rehash them. The topic has been well-beaten.

 

[utbagpiper]

now, piper, how do you get your site gathering the commonality together across the nation to precipitate a viable game plan to begin the move forward for some articulated concept to begin reaching objectives and goals.

It starts by convincing RKBA activists to express their thoughts coherently and without snarkiness or hidden agendas toward each other. I doubt we'll ever get past that first step.

 

[utbagpiper]

I intentionally redacted references to our past discussions, bagpiper, because I have no intention of traveling those roads again. If anyone is interested they can search for the past discussions, I think there's no reason to rehash them. The topic has been well-beaten.

That is fair.

I assert again, however, that neither you nor anyone else can point to a single success in reversing anti-discrimination laws. You have a principled position. But it is a position without a single practical success.

And with the greatest of respect, if you were to have success and eliminate anti-discrimination laws, I'm not at all convinced society would be a better place for it. I respect your principles. I just disagree with their application in this case.

Charles

 

[stealthyeliminator]

and that worked so well in FL, TX,

I've not been active in advocating policies concerning discrimination or liability, so I'm not sure what you think you're critiquing. I'm not sure what you think you're saying.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I assert again, however, that neither you nor anyone else can point to a single success in reversing anti-discrimination laws.

I appreciate the decorum. I hope it never breaks down between us again. I must just say, I'm not sure it's fair to say I'm unable to point to any successes where I've made no effort, nor accepted any responsibility to do so. I'm also not sure there's been any significant effort made to reverse anti-discrimination laws (especially for the reasons I raise to do so) and so it may not even be fair to say that a lack of reversal represents a failure.

Open carry in Texas was prohibited for over a century, yet that did not deter us from advocating its reversal, and we achieved a victory there. I'm not sure that past failures offer reasonable deterrence for any particular advocacy. (solus, before you reply, please spare us the denial that we had a victory since the victory was less than perfect. It goes without saying that the victory fell short of the ultimate goal, yet it would be unreasonable to say there was no victory at all)

 

[mnrobitaille]

I made a couple of posts on Facebook that goes a bit into this conversation.

For carrying of arms, all these gun-free zones, not mandated by Federal or State law, should be made illegal & disallowed. How is it ok for a guy to walk into a shopping mall wearing a "f@‪#‎k‬ the Police" shirt & can shop, yet a responsibly armed citizen walks into that same mall with a properly holstered sidearm is asked to leave? Both are protected rights: the shirt is 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech), & the properly holstered sidearm is 2nd Amendment (Right to Keep & Bear Arms). However the responsibly armed citizen can be hit with a trespassing charge if they don't comply for just wanting to keep themselves, family, & friends safe from those intent to do harm (which could include that person wearing the "F@#k the Police" Shirt).

 

[solus]

That is fair.
I assert again, however, that neither you nor anyone else can point to a single success in reversing anti-discrimination laws. You have a principled position. But it is a position without a single practical success. And with the greatest of respect, if you were to have success and eliminate anti-discrimination laws, I'm not at all convinced society would be a better place for it. I respect your principles. I just disagree with their application in this case.
Charles

I appreciate the decorum. I hope it never breaks down between us again. I must just say, I'm not sure it's fair to say I'm unable to point to any successes where I've made no effort, nor accepted any responsibility to do so. I'm also not sure there's been any significant effort made to reverse anti-discrimination laws (especially for the reasons I raise to do so) and so it may not even be fair to say that a lack of reversal represents a failure.

Open carry in Texas was prohibited for over a century, yet that did not deter us from advocating its reversal, and we achieved a victory there. I'm not sure that past failures offer reasonable deterrence for any particular advocacy. (solus, before you reply, please spare us the denial that we had a victory since the victory was less than perfect. It goes without saying that the victory fell short of the ultimate goal, yet it would be unreasonable to say there was no victory at all)

stealth, don't need to...the mate said if quite succinctly

glad you listen to other's perspective about your, how did you put it... quote:... the victory was less than perfect. unquote.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

I appreciate the decorum. I hope it never breaks down between us again. I must just say, I'm not sure it's fair to say I'm unable to point to any successes where I've made no effort, nor accepted any responsibility to do so. I'm also not sure there's been any significant effort made to reverse anti-discrimination laws (especially for the reasons I raise to do so) and so it may not even be fair to say that a lack of reversal represents a failure.

Open carry in Texas was prohibited for over a century, yet that did not deter us from advocating its reversal, and we achieved a victory there. I'm not sure that past failures offer reasonable deterrence for any particular advocacy.

I'm not saying you are responsible to reverse any laws. I do think that the fact that nobody credible has even tried to reverse anti-discrimination laws is evidence of the difficulty. We've got almost 30 years of work on rolling back anti-RKBA/anti-self-defense laws: wasn't it about 1988 when Florida passed non-discriminatory permits? And in that time we've seen success build on success for RKBA.

But attacking anti-discrimination laws? Consider the company one would have to keep in such an endeavor.

For every non-bigoted libertarian acting on true principle of property rights and association you'd have a couple of hateful KKK members, skin heads, neo-Nazis, or Westboro loon who just hates certain people and wants to push them out of society....kind of like the way gun grabbers want to push us out of society if they can't just seize our guns outright.

For every Walter William who is ok with the free market and who would rather know who doesn't want to serve him, you're going to end up with how many Al Sharptons, Jesse Jackson, New Black Panther, ADL, SPLC, or pink mafia member calling you names that won't make it past the filter here and encouraging or even perpetuating violence that might not get as much attention from the authorities as it should....while any self-defense on your part is going to be cast as an obvious hate crime against a minority on the part of an evil bigot who wants to see people discriminated against.

If the religious right in this nation cannot stem the tide of forcing bakers and photographers to participate in homosexual events--and all evidence is in half the States they can't--then I just don't see how we can reasonable expect to roll back existing anti-discrimination or ADA protections. That isn't to say something unforeseeable can't happen in the future that changes this. But for now, it looks to me to be unforeseeable.

I think your principles are defensible in principle. In practice, I think you get excoriated, and we still have gun owners being pushed into the closet or disarmed in far too many cases.

Charles

 

[solus]

snipp.... I do think that the fact that nobody credible has even tried to reverse anti-discrimination laws is evidence of the difficulty. snipp...

But attacking anti-discrimination laws? Consider the company one would have to keep in such an endeavor.

snipp...


If the religious right in this nation cannot stem the tide of forcing bakers and photographers to participate in homosexual events--and all evidence is in half the States they can't--then I just don't see how we can reasonable expect to roll back existing anti-discrimination or ADA protections. That isn't to say something unforeseeable can't happen in the future that changes this. But for now, it looks to me to be unforeseeable.

Charles

quote: Since North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory signed a controversial new LGBT bill into law March 23, corporations, government officials, universities and prominent newsmakers have come out staunchly against the measure.

More than 100 top executives from major companies, including major Charlotte employers like Bank of America, have signed a letter opposing the “anti-LGBT” legislation. The NBA, set to host its All-Star Game in Charlotte next year, has also said it’s against measure. Some states and cities are banning government-funded travel to North Carolina.

Lionsgate, A+E network, Fox, PepsiCo, Hyatt, Reddit, Ingersoll-Rand, The Dow Chemical Company, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Smiles by Payet Family Dentistry, Northrop Grumman, Barnes and Noble, Sivan Capri Agency, Ralph Lauren, American Apparel, Qualcomm, Twilio, Udacity, Choice Hotels International, Pandora Media, EMC Corporation, NBA, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, American Airlines, Lowe’s Cos., Facebook, Google, Box, Salesforce, Levi Strauss & Co., Encore Music Publishers, Airbnb, Apple, Red Hat, Citrix, Square, Twitter, Lyft, Pfizer Inc., LinkedIn, Glassdoor, Dropbox, YouTube, Starbucks, Citibank, TD Bank, Hilton, Starwood, Accenture, Kellogg’s, Uber, Tumblr, Gogobot, Intel, Yahoo, Orbitz.com, CheapTickets.com, Gilt, Replacements, Ltd., Zynga, Jawbone, Braintree, Matrix Partners, Cisco Systems, IBM, Biogen, Miramax, Pinterest, Marriott International, and of course paypal is not opening an office of 400 ppl in the state. unquote http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article69251877.html

i'm sorry mate you were saying anti discrimination can't be overturned...of course it can be done as you are watching it unfold before your eyes ~ this is after only been two weeks since the idiot savant signed the legislation and the great citizens of this country are screaming bloody h3ll about it and with what the governor and legislation understands ~ loss of tourist dollars and other revenue...

interestingly as there are yet another 40+ names on the cite of cities, universities, and private individuals who i didn't take the time to extract...

if the cause is just, the american people across the country will rise up and speak out...

but yet the small minded grassroots firearm entities just keep their egos engaged pushing their own agenda within their little fiefdoms and you get OC w/permits or nothing like FL.

to assure equal time...yes there are those who are encouraging the governor he did the right thing but i believe you will discern the $$$$$ being taken away speaks the loudest...

ipse

to prove the $$$$ wins...the GA governor changed his mind on signing his approval on a similar legislation.

 

[OC for ME]

It seems Texans should focus their efforts on legislative efforts to make the sign harmless under the law, or, focus their efforts on legislative efforts to remove the prior restraint on their enumerated right to bear arms. I recommend the latter.

 

[solus]

It seems Texans should focus their efforts on legislative efforts to make the sign harmless under the law, or, focus their efforts on legislative efforts to remove the prior restraint on their enumerated right to bear arms. I recommend the latter.

need to focus on reexamining the need for signs in the first place through a public education campaign as well as eliminate the need to have a permit to OC.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

(unwelcome form of addressed used as a personal attack removed)
you were saying anti discrimination can't be overturned...

The bill you reference might be characterized as a "pro discrimination" law. Hence, your long winded screed backs my assertion rather than undermining it.

Was that your intention? Or do you ramble to hear yourself type?

Charles

 

[cloudcroft]

sc-texas,

Yes, it seems HARDLY ANYONE in TX is OCing in public but that's true for just about ANY state -- even in the Free States where un-permitted OC is in effect, such as where I am presently here in CO. But I'd expect it to be the very same in OTHER Free States such as AZ, NM, etc., also: Don't expect to see ANY Ocers. Although I do have a CO CC permit, I OC here exclusively, and in NM when I visit there so I never USE the permit. My CO CC permit is only useful when I visit TX.

Due to unforeseen and sudden circumstances, however, I will be needing to return to TX (El Paso) in about 6 months and when I do, will also be OCing exclusively...ESPECIALLY since OC is new to TX and we need OCers out there in public to D&E* the public right up front (something CCers can't do). I may even try to get some OC Events/Get-Togethers going in El Paso if possible to organize the "OC Movement" a bit better and get the word out more...

Sadly, TX hasn't made OCing AT ALL as easy (as here in CO) due to needing a CC permit to OC in TX. They took 2 steps forward (since 1871) and then 1 step back, if you will. Gov. Abbot should NOT have signed an "incomplete" CO bill for anything less than UN-permitted OC...but he did (as I feared and predicted before an OC bill came to his desk). I suspect it's so he could say he kept a campaign promise but had no real interest in signing the best OC bill -- or at least an improved bill. And like former Gov. Perry, from what I can gather Abbott didn't take any personal and assertive action to influence (sponsors and wording) any OC legislation that would be coming to his desk. Now TX is much like backwards OK and OR. But that's water under the bridge now...

*D&E = Desensitize & Educate

While I had a CC permit when I left TX in 2013, it became null/void when I moved to CO (even though not expiring until 2016, IIRC). Consequently, I'll need to start the process all over again to get another/new TX CC permit and so until I GET said permit, can't legally be armed gun-wise ALL THAT TIME (which REALLY annoys me to say the least). My EDC knife will be my only "self-defense tool" (which HAD been Plan B when I'd OC a handgun in Free States -- my gun was Plan A) on me until the permit arrives.

Anyway, just agreeing with you that the public doesn't see anyone (or hardly anyone) OCing in TX, and it's going to stay that way until more "carriers" (meaning MAINLY CCers of course, but who also are very anti-OC) start OCing -- at least occasionally (for several reasons I won't go into now). But not seeing OCers is to be expected as I RARELY see OCers here in CO or NM, and probably that'd be the same for AZ, too.

Regardless, I believe we need WAY MORE OCers out there on the streets of EVERY state where residents legally CAN OC, and as I've been doing my part here in CO to accomplish that D&E, I'll be OCing also in TX every time I go out -- that is, once I get that sorry TX permission slip. ;-)

I hope (eventually) we can AT LEAST get UN-permitted OC in TX.

As for "fixing the proliferation of 30.06 and 30.07 signs" and such, that's a problem in every state, but personally I just don't go where gun-carriers aren't wanted, not even carrying concealed. IIRC, Starbucks here in CO were one of the very FIRST stores I no longer patronized (thanks to CEO Howard Shultz "coming out" as he did). Fortunately, MOST places I go every day -- supermarkets, coffeeshops, home-imporvement, gas stations, banks and such -- didn't go anti-gun and I OC there regularly.

Legally/legislatively speaking though, I don't know realistically what can be done about the signs.

Good luck to you there in the Houston area (Humble)!

WAY too much "local-color" street-trash to look out for in the Houston metroplex area (~60 miles around and all the way down South to the beach in Galveston) -- be safe!


*******************************
ETA:

P.S. Just saw this news story: "BREAKING: Mississippi Poised To Become Newest Constitutional Carry State"

http://concealednation.org/2016/04/...-to-become-newest-constitutional-carry-state/

Why do other states (one-after-another) actively push getting Constitutional Carry passed yet "pro-gun" Texas doesn't? Is there ANYTHING officially being done in Austin on this?

Forgive me if Constitutional Carry IS in-progress and I missed it, but I don't recall hearing a peep from our "leadership" there on it.

 

[rushcreek2]

Mainly...I am seeing 30.07 signage. In one restaurant I frequent they opted to post TWO 30.07 SIGNS - side by side - on their double glass front door.

Another eatery that I like has their double glass front door 30.07 signs with Spanish version on the left door...and English on the right door. Problem is the RIGHT side door is customarily OPEN...rendering the English sign nonexistent.

The employees are not really tuned into these signs.

As time goes on....barring any issues with patrons trying to force the Open carry issue....these signs will gradually become less "invisible"...and eventually disappear.

Meantime...If I see a 30.07 sign I don't open carry...and enjoy my meal.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

The bill you reference might be characterized as a "pro discrimination" law. Hence, your long winded screed backs my assertion rather than undermining it.

Was that your intention? Or do you ramble to hear yourself type?

Charles

I'm pretty sure he was highlighting all of the opposition to the bill.

 

[utbagpiper]

I'm pretty sure he was highlighting all of the opposition to the bill.

Indeed he was. Which, again, makes my point that trying to roll back anti-discrimination laws is a tough row to hoe. Opposition to what might be described as pro-discrimination-choice bill might well be taken as a sign of the support for anti-discrimination laws.