Ep. 140

[Vazombihunter]

Hey all! This is Chad from VA. First off, I want to thank you Bob for being so kind as to answer my question. I fully respect and agree with your opinion. I plan to maintain the same respectful manner as I have now when I start carrying. I will be going to take my CCW course this weekend (I'm 21 this Friday!) and going to my courthouse to submit my application within the week. The purpose of this post is to get some other listener opinions on my question. For those who missed it, my question in a nutshell was, what is your opinion of us young guys who may come off as intimidating who carry. DISCLAIMER! When I say come off as intimidating I mean appearance. I've been told that I look intimidating. I do not use intimidation (with or without a firearm) to scare or get a rise out of people EVER. I am very respectful and polite. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! Thanks everyone!

[Bob Mayne]

Thanks for submitting our question, Chad.  I'm also looking forward to other responses.  If you can, listen to the show first, so we don't repeat some stuff if possible. 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Hi Bob, not sure if this should go into a different thread, up to you. 

At one point in episode 140 you ask why (paraphrasing) if the state can't take away your rights then why can a property owner?  I'm trying to be as objective as possible (I know it's hard to tell tone on the internet.)

The answer is this.  The Constitution does not protect you from others.  The Constitution protects you from the government.  Its a very important distinction. 

[Bob Mayne]

Well, that's one of the best points I've read on this topic in quite awhile, but let me use your argument for a minute.  You're correct, the Constitution protects us from the government.  It also protects rights that are "inalienable."   I've said on my podcast quite a few times, that this is a touchy subject, but here's a hypothetical situation.  Can an employer legally deny a person a job based on race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc?  The answer is no, because the people who apply for jobs have so called rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution.  An employer who tries to deny a person a job due to the fact that he doesn't like his race, is breaking the law.  Yet, that employer is not the government, he's a private citizen.  However, he's breaking the law, if he discriminates because of these types of criteria.  He's not allowed to take away the job seeker's rights, just because he's a private citizen running a private business. 

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that there should be limits to property owner rights, just as there are limits to what the government can do (supposedly.)  Therefore, I think one of those limits should be that a property owner should not have the right to take away my constitutionally protected right under the 2nd amendment!

What do you think?

[Mexican_Hippie]

Bob, that's a great point.

The problem for me is that race, religion, creed, sexual orientation aren't "rights"; they're "characteristics" or "protected classes."  It's who you are.  Another one of those "characteristics" could be "gun owner/carrier."

It would be inappropriate to act out (what you do) based on those characteristics at work in many circumstances.  So you can be homosexual at work (who you are) but can't have sex with someone of the same sex at work (what you do).


Again, this my two cents on the internet.  It's worth what you pay for it  

[Mexican_Hippie]

I really enjoy these discussions.  I think it makes people hone their view points and clarify what they really believe and why. 

I'm a new listener to your podcast and its excellent.  Keep up the great work!

[Dave.45]

I wonder what the founding fathers would say about the government dictating who you could and couldn't hire (or couldn't not hire as the case is today)? I'm not saying I disagree with "equal opportunity," but our government is involved in lots of areas that the constitution never intended. I am big on 2nd amendment rights, but I am also big on property rights. We need to create an environment where employers and businesses want to be accessible to armed citizens, not to force them to welcome us by our own use of overreaching government.

... Ok, climbing down off the soap box now...

[Bob Mayne]

As I said it's a sticky subject. My main point here is, why doesn't the 2nd amendment enjoy the same status as most of the other amendments?  And should a property owner be allowed the right to deny a citizen their 2nd amendment rights?  I'm not talking about homeowners I'm referring to business owners. I'm all for property rights too, but I think there needs to be a a line of no crossover drawn and that line is that you can't deny a protected 2nd amendment right. The founding fathers did not want NO government, they wanted limited government. I wonder what they would say about a property owner denying a law abiding citizen their 2nd amendment right?  As adamant as they were in wanting citizens to keep and bear arms it seems plausible that they wouldn't like it much.

[EmptyMags]

Hey all! This is Chad from VA. First off, I want to thank you Bob for being so kind as to answer my question. I fully respect and agree with your opinion. I plan to maintain the same respectful manner as I have now when I start carrying. I will be going to take my CCW course this weekend (I'm 21 this Friday!) and going to my courthouse to submit my application within the week. The purpose of this post is to get some other listener opinions on my question. For those who missed it, my question in a nutshell was, what is your opinion of us young guys who may come off as intimidating who carry. DISCLAIMER! When I say come off as intimidating I mean appearance. I've been told that I look intimidating. I do not use intimidation (with or without a firearm) to scare or get a rise out of people EVER. I am very respectful and polite. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! Thanks everyone!

I am right in the middle of listening to #140 as I type this, Bob is answering your question at the moment, and I thought I'd chime in. I'm a relatively big guy compared to most people I know. I am tattooed in highly visible places on my body. No gauged ears but I'm the tall big guy with a shaved head and a goatee and tattooos all over my arms. I've been described as intimidating as well. In my experience, when I am open carrying, random strangers in the grocery store or wherever treat me the same as when I am carrying concealed. For the most part I think I am treated just the same as anyone else. No one usually gives a second look. That said I do find that old ladies in rascal scooters like to scowl at my arms when they see the tattoos.

I'm closing in on 30, and I've been carrying as long as I've been old enough to do so. The only time I've ever been treated particularly badly because I was doing something involved with guns, was when I walked into a local shop that specializes in black powder, and I was looking for help and possibly getting an old cap and ball revolver fixed. Younger tattoo'd whippersnapper didn't belong in the old man's shop.

I used to think there was another shop here in town that treated me different because of the tattoos, they'd always stare and never say hi or ask if I needed help when I approached the counter. Come to find out by talking with more people, they treated everyone suspiciously. They eventually went out of business.

[haskovez]

Well actually the constitution doesn't say anything about who you can or can't hire.  Those laws were passed under the Civil Rights act, and while I agree with the spirit of the laws (I think racism, sexism, etc is disgusting), I am not sure that the parts that extend to private people are valid under the original intent of the constitution.  The parts applying to the government definitely so, but if you are to truly have liberty that entails free association with anyone you want.  So while I am happy we don't have segregated restaurants in this country anymore part of me is also bothered that someone could go into a minority owned restaurant dressed in KKK or Nazi garb and legally have to be served.

I personally think the best thing in a free society is for the property owners to decide who they allow on their property and whether or not they are armed.  It would also make it easier for me as an individual to avoid doing business with people who are racist but have to hide that fact now.  That being said, it is unlikely those laws will be repealed to allow true free association anymore, but even so I am not willing to further encroach on property owners to say that they can't dictate who can or can't have arms on it.  That being said living in Texas I would be likely to avoid doing business with any place that posted a 30-06, but in truth I have only ever seen it posted on Baylor (which we are still going to use that Hospital) and on a Chuckie Cheese in Plano (which I would avoid but sometimes there are nieces and nephews birthday parties there that I can't miss).

I think the Parking Lot bill is the perfect compromise between property owners and the individual.  It allows you to protect yourself between your home and place of work and to treat your car as an extension of your castle (with as much time as many people spend in their cars it should be looked at as this way), and yet also allows an employer to control their property as they see fit.

Well, that's one of the best points I've read on this topic in quite awhile, but let me use your argument for a minute.  You're correct, the Constitution protects us from the government.  It also protects rights that are "inalienable."   I've said on my podcast quite a few times, that this is a touchy subject, but here's a hypothetical situation.  Can an employer legally deny a person a job based on race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc?  The answer is no, because the people who apply for jobs have so called rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution.  An employer who tries to deny a person a job due to the fact that he doesn't like his race, is breaking the law.  Yet, that employer is not the government, he's a private citizen.  However, he's breaking the law, if he discriminates because of these types of criteria.  He's not allowed to take away the job seeker's rights, just because he's a private citizen running a private business. 

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that there should be limits to property owner rights, just as there are limits to what the government can do (supposedly.)  Therefore, I think one of those limits should be that a property owner should not have the right to take away my constitutionally protected right under the 2nd amendment!

What do you think?

[EmptyMags]

Re: the interviewee on this episode.

Talking about a specific round that Air Marshals might use. I think it is this: http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=815172

[Skarz.Skog]

Re: the interviewee on this episode.

Talking about a specific round that Air Marshals might use. I think it is this: http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=815172

The FAMS carry pistols chambered for the .357 Sig.

[EmptyMags]

Re: the interviewee on this episode.

Talking about a specific round that Air Marshals might use. I think it is this: http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=815172

The FAMS carry pistols chambered for the .357 Sig.

Thanks, I was not sure what caliber. I'm not even sure if its this brand/type. Its just what I've been told that seems to match the description given by the person in the interview. Here is the .357 sig stuff.

[Skarz.Skog]

Re: the interviewee on this episode.

Talking about a specific round that Air Marshals might use. I think it is this: http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=815172

The FAMS carry pistols chambered for the .357 Sig.

Thanks, I was not sure what caliber. I'm not even sure if its this brand/type. Its just what I've been told that seems to match the description given by the person in the interview. Here is the .357 sig stuff.

My experience with them leads me to believe this is not the exact load but it is a frangible projectile.

[Bob Mayne]

haskovez, I agree it's a decent compromise, and if the Constitution is to protect us from government as it's been said here, (which is the original intent) I wonder why we can't carry in government buildings?  Those supposedly are not private property.

[Bob Mayne]

Don't the air marshals use .357sig, Speer Gold Dot special low penetration round, or something like that?

[Skarz.Skog]

Don't the air marshals use .357sig, Speer Gold Dot special low penetration round, or something like that?

Ask NS2.  He's around them during training quite a bit.  I expect that he would know.

My understanding is that it is a frangible projectile and that they don't like to discuss it.

[Mexican_Hippie]

haskovez, I agree it's a decent compromise, and if the Constitution is to protect us from government as it's been said here, (which is the original intent) I wonder why we can't carry in government buildings?  Those supposedly are not private property.

You can carry in government buildings in Texas, including the Capital.  In fact, the Capital building has a special security line for CHl holders to pass through. Also, State law preempts local governments from posting 30.06 signs at ineligible locations.  Cities have been sued and had to remove them. Below is quoted information that I did not come up with, but is good info.

Unless there is a court in the building, or an office used by a court, you can carry there. A 30.06 can legally be posted outside a meeting of a governmental entity prohibiting carry at the meeting.

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;
(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;
(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;
(4) on the premises of a racetrack;
(5) in or into a secured area of an airport; or
(6) within 1,000 feet of premises the location of which is designated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as a place of execution under Article 43.19, Code of Criminal Procedure, on a day that a sentence of death is set to be imposed on the designated premises and the person received notice that:
(A) going within 1,000 feet of the premises with a weapon listed under this subsection was prohibited; or
(B) possessing a weapon listed under this subsection within 1,000 feet of the premises was prohibited.

Sec. 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 fails to conceal the handgun.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event;
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental entity.


(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

A 30.06 sign at a government location not listed in 46.3 or 46.035 can be ignored.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

[Bob Mayne]

haskovez, I agree it's a decent compromise, and if the Constitution is to protect us from government as it's been said here, (which is the original intent) I wonder why we can't carry in government buildings?  Those supposedly are not private property.

What I meant by this was .... Federal Buildings. If I'm not mistaken we can't carry in Federal Buildings. Which if you think about it, that's a great example of where the Feds take away our 2nd amendment rights, completely.

[Vazombihunter]

I am right in the middle of listening to #140 as I type this, Bob is answering your question at the moment, and I thought I'd chime in. I'm a relatively big guy compared to most people I know. I am tattooed in highly visible places on my body. No gauged ears but I'm the tall big guy with a shaved head and a goatee and tattooos all over my arms. I've been described as intimidating as well. In my experience, when I am open carrying, random strangers in the grocery store or wherever treat me the same as when I am carrying concealed. For the most part I think I am treated just the same as anyone else. No one usually gives a second look. That said I do find that old ladies in rascal scooters like to scowl at my arms when they see the tattoos.



I'm closing in on 30, and I've been carrying as long as I've been old enough to do so. The only time I've ever been treated particularly badly because I was doing something involved with guns, was when I walked into a local shop that specializes in black powder, and I was looking for help and possibly getting an old cap and ball revolver fixed. Younger tattoo'd whippersnapper didn't belong in the old man's shop.

I used to think there was another shop here in town that treated me different because of the tattoos, they'd always stare and never say hi or ask if I needed help when I approached the counter. Come to find out by talking with more people, they treated everyone suspiciously. They eventually went out of business.

Thanks for the input! I'm glad to hear from another "scary" fella on their experience with firearms and personal appearance. I know as long as in law abiding and respectful I have nothing to worry about!