11 votes

Texas: Car dealers are not allowed to sell on Sunday

Sean Willeford remembers going into stores on Sundays and seeing covers draped over tools, knives and other items that couldn't be bought that day.

Those covers - and the blue laws that prevented certain purchases on Sundays - are long gone for the most part.

But Willeford and others are frustrated by one of the few remaining restrictions - the ban on car dealerships being open on both Saturday and Sunday.

"From a societal standpoint, it's ludicrous," said Willeford, 43, of Arlington, who was shopping for cars recently. "I can buy almost anything I want on a Sunday except for a car.

"It's really an inconvenience more than anything."

Continues: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Car-...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

:o(

What ever hapenned to states rights? Or the rights of individuals to govern themselves at the local level, city, county etc.?

What was everyone doing while Dr. Paul was busy writing and speaking about these very issues, taking a nap?

If you don't like the laws, change them, or move someplace where they are more agreeable to your particular lifestyle.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Or maybe

laws such as these that meddle with individuals conducting a perfectly legal business shouldn't be made in the first place. People shouldn't have to relocate or deal with the circus that is politics to be granted the liberties that are our natural birthright.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

The fact that it's "legal" would argue

that it isn't a "birthright." Society (at some level), not our Creator, decides what is a legal business or not and operating parameters thereof. Although, like in Sedgewick, Maine, I'm all for contracts made between two parties (whenever), above and beyond state or federal law, so long as, like in Sedgewick, Maine, parties voluntarily waive government protections that go hand-in-hand with those laws. http://www.dailypaul.com/279503/sedgwick-maine-is-first-town...

I like the idea of people deciding how they wish to be governed at the local level, including state level, the 50 states/50 experiments idea - with the above-commenter's two choices: change things or relocate. There are always pros and cons to be weighed! Where you *choose* to live depends on your priorities. And what Texas offers must be a priority for many; people have been FLOCKING to the state. Whereas, the trend here in New York is described as "an exodus."

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Yes, society

through free market engagements by individuals should be able to determine what the norms are for the community. If enough people in the community feel that strongly about certain items not being purchased on certain days or at certain times they can choose to not patronize that business during those times, or at all, and try to convince others to do the same. If this is successful the business owner will be compelled to change his hours, or relocate if it's that important to him, and if not it simply means there is a big enough market of people who don't hold the opposing opinion and he is supplying a service they like during the hours/days they prefer.

I do believe it is every person's birthright to engage in whatever business they so choose in the manner they so choose so long as it does not infringe on the liberty of others. I don't hold the opinion that just because the state has determined it to be within the scope of its rules that it is not an issue of personal liberty. The state has also determined that issues concerning gun ownership are within the scope of its rules and the term "legal" can be applied matters of gun ownership and carry as well, but that doesn't mean gun ownership/carry isn't a natural right. The same can be said for freedom of expression with regard to free speech zones or other infringements on this freedom (e.g. individuals being arrested for dancing at Jefferson Memorial, an act of expression a federal court found to be unlawful).

The state of Texas determining automobiles and alcohol to be "legal" merchandise (they have no business making this determination to begin with, imo) and then setting arbitrary rules on the times these items may be sold based on the religious values of the majority infringes on the rights of those who do not hold those beliefs (who are not infringing on the rights of those who do hold such beliefs by conducting their business in this manner). The fact that these blue laws may be in place more out of tradition (most likely the case with autos) as opposed to moral concerns (still the case with alcohol) doesn't justify their continued existence.

Don't get me wrong, there are many things I love about Texas (on the top of the list for me would be the preservation of the freedom to home school here). The blue laws obviously aren't a priority to me because I could have always stayed in Wyoming where they do not exist. But that doesn't mean I'm not gonna bitch about them until they are removed (I don't *only* bitch about it; I vote and petition my reps on liberty issues any chance I get, but bitching every now and then helps me keep my sanity in the meantime). The problem with issues like this is that once a right is lost it's often very hard to get it back. It was a mistake for blue laws to be put in place in the first place regardless of how popular they were or continue to be. The Patriot Act was a mistake as well regardless of how popular it was or continues to be. Any potential gun control legislation that may come into existence would be a mistake regardless of how popular it would be. And people shouldn't have to relocate to obtain the birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thanks for responding in a reasonable manner (I truly mean that!). I appreciate you at least engaging in productive discussion of the topic even though you may disagree with me, unlike the other commenter.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

I know that I disagree

with some here at the DP. My big issue where rights are concerned has to do with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT overstepping its bounds, those bounds as per THE CONSTITUTION. I'm all for those powers not stated to be left to the states and the people - with the states and the people figuring it out from there as they so choose.

Here's a "for instance." Here in my neck of the woods and many other locales around the country, we have zoning laws. Now some might say, "It's my property and I should be able to do with it what I like." But the people here wish to preserve a certain environment in their neighborhoods; so, areas are zoned residential or, even more specifically, for one or two-family homes or with a minimum lot size. That's how (most) residents prefer it. [Some townships have stricter zoning laws than others. It's a tradeoff: the stricter laws preserve both property values and the kind of environment in which families wish to live and raise their children; the laxer laws offer more freedom to subdivide properties or allow a homeowner to, say, have a lawncare business with an industrial-looking shed, equipment, and trucks parked on the property.] It's my understanding that, in Houston (or at least parts of it), there aren't such zoning laws. A property zoned for business could be sold to someone who wished to build a house or an apartment building on the property and visa versa. And I say that's just fine if that's how the people in Houston prefer it.

It's fine with me if the residents/voters within a state or county have blue laws or dry counties (for whatever reason) or any other laws a majority agree on SO LONG AS... and this is key!... such laws do not abridge our rights AS PER THE CONSTITUTION. You raised the issue of "gun control laws." Those are - well, they should be - protected by the 2nd Amendment.

One further caveat. Regarding local (state, county, or town) governments, I have a grave concern over the difference between legislation that is enacted via genuinely representative government vs. actions taken by public-private partnerships, or PPP's that do NOT have the same safeguards. (They exist at the federal level as well.) And I'll leave on that "note."

I also appreciate discussion of a subject to try to understand different perspectives and perhaps discover that there is something to be taken into consideration that I hadn't thought of. Everyone brings some different background or experience to the discussion. Though, as to your comment, I'm guilty myself of occasionally using poetry (or lyrics) to make a point, if hopefully nonetheless of some substantive value. :)
http://www.dailypaul.com/278081/new-jersey-woman-arrested-fo...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I guess it all comes down to role of govt.

I believe the only legitimate role for government, if it is to even exist at all, is to protect liberty, that's it. I know that's a very hardline Libertarian view and, yes, I am personally a voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist (don't worry, I'm not advocating for some sort of violent takeover of the govt ;), but my ideas about that are a whole other discussion I won't get into right now). So, just so long as an individual is not infringing upon the liberties of others to do as they wish with their own body and their own property the government has no business getting involved. If a racist store owner wishes to discriminate against minorities coming into his place of business, that should be up to him, even if 99% of the town disagrees with him. Therein lies the beauty of the free market, if all the townsfolk disagree with him, they will not patronize his store and he'll most likely go out of business. If he somehow manages to keep his doors open (maybe he's independently wealthy) at least people will be aware of his views and won't be unknowingly providing monetary support to an individual who holds views they find abhorrent. In the meantime some people might try to appeal to this man to change his views on a personal level (which would arguably be more efficient than the government forcing a false type of tolerance that is in action only and not in spirit). This would apply to any moral issue, such as blue laws and dry counties, regardless of the number of people who support or oppose it in the community.

I don't believe a legitimate role for the government is to protect the property value of individuals, whether through zoning laws or any other means. It is not my view that the government ought to guard against the risk that is inherent in life. Justifying government involvement to protect people's investments can, and often does, lead to problematic lines of reasoning. People don't consider proper risk assessment before making decisions because they count on a sort of government strong-arming by the majority (or the loudest voices in the room, or those with the deepest pockets) to protect them against those risks. Again we should look to the free market for issues such as this. If an individual is in the market for a house but doesn't want to worry about neighbors who may not keep up on their maintenance or tidy up their yard or build a structure they don't like he can buy a property with quite a bit of acreage to keep distance between him and any potential neighbors. If this individual doesn't want a large lot he could buy a house in a gated community where the deed restrictions set by the developer keep the appearance of lots to a standard that he finds acceptable. Or he could buy a condominium.

For me it really boils down to this: Liberty is the default setting for every human being, any add-ons to this setting should be done voluntarily on the part of each individual through free-market only, and the government is only there to make sure nobody tries to alter the original software.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

I agree with most of what you said

But just as a corporate developer has a right to set standards for his property to protect his investment, I think that a group of citizens should also have the right to voluntarily decide among themselves (via representative local government) to set standards for their community, such that their real estate investments are not only protected financially (from a single homeowner's use or disposal of his property lowering everyone's property value - is there a free-market solution for that?), but protected also in terms of the intended use of properties. Families often choose a residential neighborhood so their children can play outside or ride bikes on low-traffic suburban streets in relative safety among known neighbors; that would change for everyone if one individual opened a factory on the street.

I'm here at the Daily Paul because I've been to communist countries, and what is most important to me is the need to fight against centralized government (not to mention one world government), the overstepping of the federal government beyond the powers stated in the Constitution, as well as the failure of the federal government to protect Americans' rights according to the Constitution. For me, the major issues concern the federal gov't vs. the states and people. I'm asking this because I don't really know: is Ron Paul considered a libertarian hard-liner? In terms of the powers and influence of a president, I can't think of any issue where I disagreed with his stated policy goals.

[Well, maybe re abortion. Given that Constitutional rights pertain to persons, I think a case could be made that it would be appropriate for the federal government to define that term, that is, vs. leaving it up to the states. While some here at the DP disagree, for that purpose I support defining a person as someone who has been born, that is, according to the traditional way in which we determine the age of a person - from the time of birth.]

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

when you restrict someone's use of their property

that is a taking. Has anyone ever been compensated for the taking of the free use of their property due to zoning laws? As required by the Constitution.

doubtful. so the pukes that write these laws are just stealing it. thuggery at its best.

I don't see it as such a b&w issue

Nor is the Constitution clear on the issue beyond it not being legal to take ownership of someone's property for public use without compensation (NOT that I agree with the current interpretation of "public use" by some states). I don't view everything in terms of the individual. That would be fine if our individual actions didn't have an effect on others, but generally we live in communities. And given that one person's choice of how to use or dispose of his property can affect the value and use of his neighbor's, I'm fine with a town's residents voting for zoning laws that give them some assurance that their investments will be protected. If that makes me not a libertarian, so be it.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

it makes you communistic

or facist. very far from libertarian and freedom.

Get real

Get real

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

so if people voted to

restrict your life in what ever manner you would be OK with that? as long as it was voted on.

total nonsense. people have rights that can't be just voted away.

stalin and hitler would love slaves like you.

:o)

should not this
should not that
dreamed last night
my dog was a cat
when from sleep
with sad suprise
I awoke to the sound of barking

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

MmHmm

Very poetic. Got a point?

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

:o)

Think, speak, in this order. Now go practice for a while and get back to me. Maybe then will I choose to enlighten you. And quit hatin' LOLOL

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Lolwhat?!

Methinks you need to take a little of your own advice there, dear. If you think juvenile sniping prefaced with a cheesy little clown-nosed smily/frowny in lieu of an actual argument makes you "enlightened" I just feel sorry for you.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Blue laws

are ridiculous.

If a business wants to be open 7 days a week, they have every right to do so. If they want to be closed on Sunday that should be their choice as well. This should go for all businesses. They have the right to set their own hours.

I used to live in Wyoming and when I moved to Texas I was more than slightly perplexed by the whole idea of blue laws and dry counties. I asked my boyfriend (a native Texan and now my husband) "What do you MEAN 'dry county', nobody can sell any alcohol? Is this not America?" I was even more surprised when my boss told me the state used to have asinine laws such as allowing the sale of hammers on Sunday, but not nails. Sadly, some of those asinine laws are still in place. Hopefully that will change soon.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

America?

Was America founded on the idea of a strong centralized govt protecting the individual from lower levels of govt?

Quite the opposite.

Unfortunately, what it is about today is the end all be all force centered in Washington DC "freeing" its own people from the shackles of state and local govts AND liberating people from around the world from their tyrants as well.

I happen to disagree with this idea of America. And Washington DC can shove whenever it sticks its nose in matters that are none of its business.

Erm, what?

Are you implying that I'm saying the federal govt should step in and free Texas from its blue laws? Because that is not at all what I am saying. In saying "Is this not America?" I was saying is this not the country founded on the ideas that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit and run their business the way they want without undue interference from ANY government body. The asinine blue laws should never have been put in place to begin with. The government at any level, local, state, or federal, should keep its nose out of people's business hours and selling of legal merchandise.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

:o)

define: "legal merchandise"

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Are you going to argue

that cars and alcohol are not legal merchandise?

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

:o)

You don't even know what you are saying do you? The fact that you chose for your example two of the most regulated commodities in the history of the universe proves it. But hey, don't let me stand between you and this Utopian society you have envisioned. Peace. ROFL

I'm out. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart, best laughs I've had in a week.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Regulated = Illegal?

You're clearly brilliant. I especially appreciate your cogent arguments.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

:o)

Yes, I am. Thank you for noticing, and you're more than welcome, it's been a pleasure.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Guess I should apologize.

It's not nice to pick on those who don't comprehend sarcasm.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Panty hose

I can still remember when you couldn't buy panty hose on Sundays.

LMAO!

Pantyhose, so scandalous!

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

I've come to this conversation very late.

And after reading many of the comments, it seems to boil down to this:

Who defines rights?

1. The individual? Each individual is free to do whatever they please, as long as they think they are harming no one.

2. The majority of the people agreeing on a set of principles for all to live by.

3. A code given by a higher being- a God (or deification of a code, in and of itself- such as the Constitution.)

I believe the correct answer is 3. (Deification of a code excluded.) The other choices will end in tyranny of the dollar, mob rule, and endless quarrels.

The reason for the blue laws is in applying the Ten Commandments.

Blue laws have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments.

You apparently mistake Scripture with Christianity. Nowhere is Sunday (the first day of the week) mentioned as a weekly observance of any kind. And nowhere in Scripture are true Christians ordered to force their Scriptural belief on others. The very fact that they make laws that force others to adhere to their mistaken beliefs just goes to show that they aren't Christian after all. Same goes for the Jewish religion which is the root of Christianity.

But then I guess we could be glad that the Muslims aren't in power yet. Talk about forced adherence.

Tell that to the people who made the laws.

It IS about the Ten Commandments. And I confess, I do make the mistake of linking Scripture with Christianity, LOL.