• dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    In Texas there is a law that only LEOs can carry in an establishment that makes 51% or more of its revenue from alcohol sales, and other businesses can post that firearms are not permitted. I’m curious how this ruling squares with those laws.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      Because this law is about places that do not have signs. It’s the question of, “I have a gun and want to go into a store, but there is no sign saying “no guns” and I can’t find the owner. Who do I talk to so I can get agreement to come into the store?” This is not banning “no guns allowed” signs. It’s about having to ask permission of a person who may not even live in the state to enter a place that the public is allowed to enter.

      • Cort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        but the Texas law means you have to locate the owner AND ask for detailed sales records to determine if a business makes more than 50% of its revenue on alcohol.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I fucking hate people in this country.

        Like “leave the gun in your fucking car you freak” isn’t an option?

        • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          I totally agree. I’m just saying the ruling isn’t insane. The people who feel like they need to carry a gun everywhere they go might be insane, but having a law that says a person can’t enter a public space without checking for permission to follow their constitutional right isn’t a good law.