Do you carry into places where they post signs telling you not to?


PDA






big inch
March 23, 2005, 09:37 AM
If you are carrying and are entering a place where they have posted a sign that says "No firearms" (or something similar), what do you do? Continue on inside? Turn around and leave? Return to your vehicle and leave your weapon there?

I'm of the opinion that I would rather have my weapon to defend myself and deal with any problem that may arise from carrying despite the property owner's misguided wishes. Of course, 99.9998% of the time, no one would even know that I have a concealed weapon. That is the point of "concealed" isn't it? :uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you carry into places where they post signs telling you not to?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TechBrute
March 23, 2005, 09:42 AM
Here in Texas, the sign must meet certain requirements, or you can legally ignore, which I'm sure most of us do. I've been known to disregard SOME (not all) of the legitimate signs in the interest of expediency. IE, if I park and walk all the way from the back of the parking lot to a store that I'm just going to be running and and coming right back out, I'm not going to hike all the way back to the car just to leave the gun exposed to thieves while I wait vulnerably in the store. Before choosing to break the law like that, I weigh several options including what type of establishment it is, what the relationship I have with the management is, and how well my gun is concealed.

pax
March 23, 2005, 09:49 AM
In Washington, if the place is posted "no guns," and you carry a gun in anyway, and you don't keep it concealed, and you get caught, and they verbally request that you remove your gun from the premises, and you refuse to do so, and you remain on the premises and refuse to leave until the cops arrive, then you can get dinged on a misdemeanor trespass charge. ("Misdemeanor trespass" in this case means, "Hey world, I acted like an *******!")

I do not generally spend my money in places that are posted, but I have no real compunction about ignoring unenforceable signs. If my life isn't in danger, no one will ever know I carried a weapon there. And if my life is in danger, I'll have more important things to worry about than whether the property owner is offended that I retained my means of self defense.

Leaving the gun in the car is an absolute last-resort option. Cars get stolen.

pax

edited to clarify -- I'm not talking about places where it is outright illegal to carry, such as courthouses or schools. Just about posted private property.

answerguy
March 23, 2005, 09:58 AM
Something to consider is- What would be the penalty if found out?

Candy store- asked to leave

School house- asked to assume the position

Stand_Watie
March 23, 2005, 10:02 AM
Yes, unless the sign says

"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"

and

"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"

mec
March 23, 2005, 10:06 AM
It's been almost two years since my last CHL instructor refresher course. At that time, exactly zero licensees had been charged with carrying in a 30-06 posted or a legally prohibited area.

My practice is to ignore circle/slash no guns signs and refuse to do business with the rare places that post the legal sign.

R.H. Lee
March 23, 2005, 10:08 AM
I have never seen such a sign. Maybe they don't have them here.

bogie
March 23, 2005, 10:09 AM
I pay attention to their wishes. They don't get my money.

They also get told why. Occasionally they get shown a receipt from a competing business that welcomes my money.

nwmanitou
March 23, 2005, 10:17 AM
If there are no laws being broken or no risk of getting fired, then concealed means concealed.

GunWares
March 23, 2005, 10:57 AM
Okay, but how about Federal facilities, such as the Post Office? Although the actual language of the law is a little vague, it would appear that it's a no-no to carry in the P.O., and I just as soon not anger the Washington-headed monster. Of course, I live out in the boonies in ranching country, so leaving the pistol in the truck is not a big deal.

thatguy
March 23, 2005, 10:59 AM
Some states have laws allowing businesses to post carry as off limits. As noted, Texas (maybe others) have specific rules regarding the signs, other states don't.

To answer your question, if it means breaking the law, then no, I don't ignore signs. It it's just violating their policy, I ignore tham since they won't know I have a gun unless something goes terribly wrong.

What kicks my ass is gun stores posted no concealed carry. I have seen two, now.

Werewolf
March 23, 2005, 11:05 AM
Not too many no firearms signs in OK but if there is one and you violate it you could lose your CCW if caught. The OK SDA addresses that issue specifically - and defines the penalty. It is a misdemeanor to carry in a posted place. As far as I know the only sign requirement is that it be visible and either graphicly, in words or both basically say no weapons allowed. It doesn't have to reference the law, be in specific colors, use any specific wording etc.

Carrying in places that are posted or that the law prohibits is a personal choice. It would be foolish in my opinion to tell the world that one breaks the law by carrying when one shouldn't.

answerguy
March 23, 2005, 11:11 AM
Okay, but how about Federal facilities, such as the Post Office? Although the actual language of the law is a little vague, it would appear that it's a no-no to carry in the P.O., and I just as soon not anger the Washington-headed monster. Of course, I live out in the boonies in ranching country, so leaving the pistol in the truck is not a big deal.

I am sure that it would make a big difference as to what post office you got exposed at.
A big city post office where no one knows you could be a big problem.
A small town post office where you are a familiar face might get you just a friendly "Hey you dropped something".

A post office that also has federal courts may be a whole different can of worms.

Ktulu
March 23, 2005, 11:11 AM
I have no idea. In the 3 or 4 years Michigan has had a "shall-issue" I haven't seen one sign. That doesn't mean they are not there. Unless it's a big freaking sign that I couldn't possibly miss, I don't spend any time reading the signs and stickers on store doors.

EghtySx
March 23, 2005, 11:22 AM
Concealed means concealed. The way I understand it is that personal protection is a God-given right protected by the highest law in the land.

There will come a time on this earth when the laws of man do not agree with the laws of God. You will be judged on which you follow.

Ala Dan
March 23, 2005, 11:25 AM
We had a gunstore here in my area that had a sign afixed to their front
door that read:

WARNING!

"NO LOADED WEAPONS BEYOND THIS POINT"

I was in full police uniform, and did an about face and exited the area.
On that particular day, I ended up buying a NIB Glock 27 form my
current employer Simmons Sporting Goods. Needless to say, the other
business folded within the year.

El Rojo
March 23, 2005, 11:27 AM
I have never seen such a sign. Maybe they don't have them here.That is the nice thing about the PRK, no one assumes anyone is packing so there are no signs! And even if there is (I think the RaboBank Arena has a no carry sign, but see the metal detector rule), I use the metal detector rule. If there is a metal detector, I leave it in the car. If there isn't, they don't mind if I carry there. A pretty simple rule really.

The key is CONCEALED CARRY. It should not be dropping out or falling on the floor period at any time.

answerguy
March 23, 2005, 11:31 AM
Ktulu,
I have no idea. In the 3 or 4 years Michigan has had a "shall-issue" I haven't seen one sign. That doesn't mean they are not there. Unless it's a big freaking sign that I couldn't possibly miss, I don't spend any time reading the signs and stickers on store doors.

The old MCRGO board use to have regular discussions on where 'no gun' signs had been spotted. The only business that I can think of that has a 'no guns' sign is the Sunrise Family Credit Union, which happens to be right in my back yard.

HankB
March 23, 2005, 11:32 AM
Valid Texas PC30.06 signs and "51" signs are something I observe . . . but the only place I frequent which has posted a valid sign is my employer ( :( ) and the facility isn't open to the public.

Invalid signs I ignore - in some cases, places have deliberately posted invalid signs to placate the sheeple, recognizing that CHL holders who've been properly trained know the invalid signs have no legal standing.

Post offices are a question mark - some laws would seem to prohibit carrying, but there's an exception "for lawful purposes" which would seem to apply to CHL holders transacting postal business. But established case law seems to be nonexistant, so I don't plan to become the test case by being caught.

Augustwest
March 23, 2005, 11:34 AM
I don't often come upon such signs, but if I do, and they are posted on private property, then I respect the owners' property rights. Anyone who posts such a sign is, however, much less likely to get my business in the future.

Public property is a whole different story...

enfield303
March 23, 2005, 11:39 AM
The last time I was at the Gaga-Mall, oops, I mean Mega-mall, they had a no forearms sign posted just as you walk in the door. It has been a while, but if I remember right, it was just one of the circle-with-a-gun signs. I don't recall if it had any legalspeak along with it. Places like that make me nervous anyway(my Uber-Mall-Ninja instincts tend to go a little nuts. too many people). I live in one of the three counties in Iowa that make it damn near impossible to get a CCW(Bloody liberal College Towns). Anyway, my question is what good does a sign like that do? If you are trying to prevent illegal firearms on the premises, what good is the damn sign? Your average Gang-Puke is just gonna ignore it anyway.

TexasRifleman
March 23, 2005, 11:46 AM
It's funny everyone worries so much about this Post Office thing. The law says "other lawful purposes" and if a legally obtained CHL is not a lawful purpose then what the hell is?

How come we never hear of anyone being charged with carrying in a Post Office? Is it because they don't get caught? Or, is it the fact that it's really not against the law.

I carry in the Post Office all the time, and I feel I'm well within the statutes to do so.

I do love to ignore the "No Guns" signs here in Texas, especially the little red circle with the slash through the gun. Those are for the soccer moms.

answerguy
March 23, 2005, 11:46 AM
Enfield303,

Please don't correct your typo, everyone knows what you meant and we all could use the chuckle it provided.

Timmit
March 23, 2005, 12:38 PM
I don't think I've ever seen one of those signs here in Colorado.

zogorion
March 23, 2005, 12:39 PM
There is a shopping mall here in my area, that is widely known to have a "No Guns" policy. The security guards can't carry at the mall, and the local Police Department has to lock thier guns in their cruiser before they respond to a call inside the mall. This is true, I asked the local LEA. The strange thing is, there is no signs or any literature that acknowledges this fact. It seems to be some urban legend that has support from the mall owner and the local LE. I don't really go there for any reason, but I'd still carry if I did.

On the other hand, the local Bass Pro Shops has a sign that I love. It reads "All firearms must be checked at the counter before entering store, except for concealed carry permit holders."

mainmech48
March 23, 2005, 12:55 PM
In the small Indiana town where I live there are no businesses of which I am aware that have such a sign posted. Should I find one, I would turn around and leave. Then I would send them a polite letter telling them that I took my business to "X" competitor and why.

On the rare occasion that I go to our post office, I place my carry piece in the concealed steel locker installed for that pupose in back of the seat in my truck. While the chances of being caught violating the ban on carry in this particular Federal facility might be small, the potential consequences in terms of arrest record and being bankrupted by attorney's fees make tempting Fate unattractive.

On the even rarer visit to our county court/office building it's the same drill.

Tilt with the windmill all you like, but keep in mind who gets hurt when you lose.

Bobarino
March 23, 2005, 01:07 PM
i live in WA and Pax summed it up pretty well. on the rare occasion that i run into a no weapons sign in a private business, i take my business elsewhere. in other cases, such as the post office and national parks, which i frequent, the only way anyone would ever know i was carrying is if i had to actually draw my firearm in self defense and then, as previously stated, i would have much bigger things to worry about than the trespassing or possession charge. i'd rather be alive and in a courtroom than dead with my gun securely locked up in the glove box. just an opinion.

Bobby

GRB
March 23, 2005, 01:14 PM
Big Inch,

I'm of the opinion that I would rather have my weapon to defend myself and deal with any problem that may arise from carrying despite the property owner's misguided wishes.I have to say that I think you are the misguided one in regard to your words on this topic, that is if what you seem to be implying is what you actually do - and that would be that you enter armed despite the wishes of the property owner. No matter what a person feels about firearms or firearms laws, no matter what side of the issue they are on, does not make one iota of difference to the property owner's right to restrict anyone from entering his/her property while armed. It is by definition that person's property - it is not your property - and the words you chose to write, in my opinion, reflect or at least hint at a high level of disrespect and arrogant disregard for another person's rights if indeed you actually disregard those wishes and enter such propert armed. I think they also speak of a along with a certain measure of irresponsibility toward gun ownership.

My guess is that you said is based on what you believe to be your rights. Your rights as granted by the Constitution of the United States apply to federal government and to state governments not to the wishes of private citizens (in general unless they violate you civil rights or violate the law). There is absolutely no violation of your rights by a private citizen keeping you off of his/her property while you are armed unless the law specifically grants you such a right and federal law does not (I cannot speak to every state's laws). I think, an attitude like the one implied in your words can potentially do a lot to screw the rest of the gun owning community who prefer to respect the rights and wishes of others just as we would hope they would respect our gun ownership rights.

Better than going into such an establishment would probably be your staying out all together when armed or not. Then make it known to the owner that you are in effect boycotting the establishment based upon your ideas about gun ownership and carrying on private property of others. Get other gun owners to do likewise. (It did a lot with regard to K-Mart when they decided, or were planning, to stop selling firearms.) If it is a business, then the business may well change the rule if enough of us are active in this regard. Activists come in all sizes, shapes, colors, religions and in all political persuasions. You don't have to be a ultra left lib to be active in trying to support your cause. Doing what you are doing or what you have said you are doing is likely to get you in trouble and to help put another nail in the coffins of legal firearms ownership and concealed carry. When you or another like you gets discovered carrying against the will of the property owner, well - it can often lead to bad press or at least to bad relations with the property owner.

You of course can do as you please, the sad thing is that the whole of the gun owning community is often negatively effected by the actions of a single gun owner. I would hope you would reconsider how you approach an establishment that prohibits firearms on the premises.

As for me I ask the owner if I can enter with the firearm because I am carrying it as a federal agent. Most times they allow me in. I have left my firearm locked away in the security office at many courthouses and also in some casinos (this was state law in the casinos and as for the courthouses it was the regulations and I was working and had to go in). I also have left it locked up in a lock box with US Customs when I went into mexico and Canada.

I was stopped at a Gun Show by local police at the door and they told me I had to unload it, have it strapped with a nylon locking tie, and carry it exposed in that manner. I was also told I could put it in my car. A brief talk with their next higher superior officer got me an apology and an explanation that the officers had been acting under a mistaken assumption. I went in still armed. This was not violating rules, nor was it taking advantage of my status as a federal agent, it was me carrying under my federal authority and, it was two cops at the door with an order and no common sense or, it was at least 2 cops without the desire to use their duly authorized and appropriate discretion. If however, the sergeant had told me I was not going in armed, I would have left. If I had been carrying a personal weapon that was not also doubling as an agency approved carry weapon, I would have had it tied or would not have entered. I probably would have left. As it was I registered my complaint with the Police Depatment and with the GunShow promoter. I found out this was the doing of the Police Department in the local community and not the promoter's wish, so I stayed and enjoyed the gun show.

All the best,
GB

Ktulu
March 23, 2005, 01:54 PM
Your rights as granted by the Constitution of the United States apply to federal government and to state governments not to the wishes of private citizens (in general unless they violate you civil rights or violate the law).

Actually Glenn, you are misguided as well. The Constitution grants no rights. It merely seeks to protect some of the rights that are inherent to all human beings. This isn’t just semantics it is part of the very heart of liberty and freedom.

However, I agree that it's the store owners right to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. The storeowners right to use their property as he/she wishes does not negate my right to protect myself and vice versa. If I wish to patronize his/her store I must temporarily forfeit my right to KABA. To ignore his/her right to do with their property as they wish is trespassing. It's a violation of someone’s rights just as sure as gun control is a violation of mine.

secamp32
March 23, 2005, 02:24 PM
I find it difficult to believe that any on-duty police officer would disarm themselves while answering a call. I would not. If there is an emergency that requires police response they can not prevent us from entering armed. The only time we lock our guns in the car is when we go to the jail, and then only after we are thru the gate. (before we remove the prisoner from the car)

Too Many Choices!?
March 23, 2005, 02:54 PM
:)

PS gotta love Gods sense of humor making penal code number correspond to a totally unconcealable and one of the most popular rifle calibers.... :evil:

Tom Servo
March 23, 2005, 03:59 PM
"No guns?" No business. Here in Georgia, there's no legally-enforceable sign, but some businesses have their own signs. If possible, I avoid them.

In this part of the country, you don't stay in business long by banning gunowners :)

That said, the only two places I frequent that have signs are the Post Office (which I observe--that could get hairy) and a certain bank who has my mortgage. Ironically, said national bank has no security whatsoever, and the closest branch to me is in a neighborhood largely populated by illegals and meth-addicts. I'll carry there, thank you.

Good example of the ramifications of those signs: Waffle House has signs forbidding firearms. The one near me has had two shootings on the premises and five or six in the parking lot this year so far. There's an IHOP two blocks away where I'm never the only person carrying, and they've had nothing worse than the occasional dine-and-dash in the seven years they've been open.

30 cal slob
March 23, 2005, 04:20 PM
1) Posted places don't get my business. Just as well, they are gun-free victim zones.

2) On the other hand, it's not such a good idea leaving your gun in your car, where it could get stolen.

Cops I talk to get really ticked off about #2, because it's cops who then have to pull yet another gun off the street.

Catch-22 I suppose. I can understand why CCWer's will just ignore posted no-carry signs (I've only seen this in North Carolina, Florida, and Texas).

R.H. Lee
March 23, 2005, 04:31 PM
As for me I ask the owner if I can enter with the firearm because I am carrying it as a federal agent. And that makes you special, right?

rritter
March 23, 2005, 04:46 PM
The way I figure it, in Texas there is a legally defined way for a property owner to post a sign banning guns, and enforce that policy with the power of the state. Any place that does not post a compliant sign isn't really serious about keeping guns off the property, and is just posting the sign they have ("No firearms", for instance) to keep the non-gun folks happy.

That said, if they find out that you have a gun and ask you to leave, or notify you personally (by voice or in writing) that guns are prohibited, you must leave or possibly face trespass charges.

MarkDido
March 23, 2005, 05:15 PM
There is a shopping mall here in my area, that is widely known to have a "No Guns" policy. The security guards can't carry at the mall, and the local Police Department has to lock thier guns in their cruiser before they respond to a call inside the mall. This is true, I asked the local LEA.

If I were HPD, I would advise that mall to contract with some private security firm, because MY officers would not be responding to their facility unarmed.

TechBrute
March 23, 2005, 05:18 PM
Even the most anti-gun morons don't want police with their zen-ninja gun ability to be unarmed. ***? :banghead:

Standing Wolf
March 23, 2005, 05:41 PM
I've never seen such a sign in Colorado. If I ever do, I'll probably ignore it.

Norm357
March 23, 2005, 05:43 PM
In Ga, those signs carry no legal weight, so I just ignore them.

Norm357
March 23, 2005, 05:45 PM
"There is a shopping mall here in my area, that is widely known to have a "No Guns" policy. The security guards can't carry at the mall, and the local Police Department has to lock thier guns in their cruiser before they respond to a call inside the mall. This is true, I asked the local LEA."


I call BS on this. Im sure that VA has some law or statue that forbids disarming on duty LEOs.

Andrew Rothman
March 23, 2005, 06:07 PM
I can't figure out whether I'm a pragmatic idealist or an idealistic pragmatist.

My state's laws are just like Pax's, as is my personal decision tree.

I pragmatically ignore the unenforcable signs, but prefer to shop where my rights are respected, and I let merchants know.

On the other hand, I won't disarm and I won't let silly ninnies dictate the path that I travel. So in the absence of lawsd with teeth or metal detectors, I go armed wherever I go.

The other day I had to visit the claims department at my auto insurance company's regional headquarters. They had a lobby with two unarmed guards, a passcard system to get past the lobby, and a "no guns" sign -- two out of three of which served no purpose at all.

Which two is left as an exercise for the reader. :D

answerguy
March 23, 2005, 06:26 PM
Well Matt, let me give it a try.

The other day I had to visit the claims department at my auto insurance company's regional headquarters. They had a lobby with two unarmed guards, a passcard system to get past the lobby, and a "no guns" sign -- two out of three of which served no purpose at all.

The 'no guns' sign is obviously useless in preventing crime. I'd venture a guess that a sign has never stopped a crime from being committed. And may have well caused crime by letting criminals know that their victims will be unarmed.

The unarmed guards will stop some criminals just by their presense, but won't stop a determined criminal. If the guards aren't totally disabled they can at least call for cops (guys with guns).

I'd have to see what this passcard system looks like to venture a guess about it.

50 Freak
March 23, 2005, 06:53 PM
You know it seems like to me that the only ones worried about these "no guns allowed" signs are law abiding citizens. If I was a criminal and illegally carrying I wouldn't give a rat's ass if I saw that sign or not.

Just keep this point in mind if you ever disarmed before entering someplace because of some stupid "no guns allowed". If that place get hit by an armed bad guy, just how much help will you get from that sign. Are the owners of that store obligated to protect you or your loved ones now that you left your gun in the car?

GRB
March 23, 2005, 07:34 PM
RileyMC,

I said this:
As for me I ask the owner if I can enter with the firearm because I am carrying it as a federal agent.

Then someone who I will not try to imply is special or less than special said this:
And that makes you special, right?

I guess if you mean I consider myself special because of the fact that I asked for the owner's permission or asked the police sergeant's permission before trying to sneak in armed, as opposed to thinking I am special because of my status and authority to carry as a federal law enforcement officer - then yes I am special. I am special because I showed respect to the owner and actually asked permission to enter his/her property armed, or because I asked if the rule also applies to armed LEOs and so on. Respectful people are always quite special.

Were you implying something else by your question? Did you by chance mean that I think my status as a federal law enforcement officer makes me special, well I'll answer - by definition it does exactly just that because I am a Special Agent.

In actuality I do not think myself special because I am a federal agent. I am however authorized to carry at all times, and if I wanted or needed to get into the establishment that had a 'no firearms' sign I would ask permission and enter if granted or, I would lock up my gun (if it was a law or regulation as in some states regarding casinos) or, I would not go in because I chose not to do business therein (as in the case of a gun store saying no firearms inside). Know why I ask at places like Casinos? I ask at places like casinos because I am not aware of all the laws regarding them. Are you aware of the laws regarding firearms in casinos and how they apply to federal agents. I am not. If I ask first and they let me in that is well and fine. If they say it is a state law that I cannot enter armed, then I politely ask where I can store my firearms.

From the way you worded your post, I get the idea that you seem to think I feel myself special. Of course, maybe I am reading your post wrong but then again I doubt it. There is always one in the crowd who immediately has to be the wise guy and try to put down an LEO. Funny how that 'right' at the end of your sentence can give one the idea of a certain implication as opposed to making one think it was a legitimate and polite question. If the way I read your post is correct, let me just say how amusing it is to see you think like that after the way I worded my previous post. I tried darned hard to show just the opposite of me thinking myself special (except maybe manners wise) but; let me spell it out for you again here:

I am not special that is why I do not sneak a gun past security.

I am not special that is why I honor a property owner's wishes if they want no guns at all on their property.

I am not special that is why I ask if the rules also apply to armed law enforcement officers, it is just a fact that the rules are often different for armed LEOs. For instance I can travel anywhere within the US armed. I can fly on any domestic flight armed. Can you do that legally. I can. That does not make me special - it makes my being allowed to carry at such times an exception to the rule.

Hopefully you can better understand my outlook through this post since you seemingly, at least to me, had difficulty understanding my last post. Hopefully this has answered your question.

Best regards,
Glenn B

3rdpig
March 23, 2005, 07:39 PM
Signs? Signs? What signs? I'm a busy guy with a lot on my mind, I don't have time to read no stinkin' signs! If for some reason my concealed weapon becomes visible and I'm asked to leave I certainly will (and not go back), but so far after 26 years of daily carry I've seen no signs and have never been asked to leave for carrying a weapon. If anyone were to ask me why I didn't see the sign I'd probably say "I was checking out the babe in tight jeans in front of me and didn't see it, maybe you should ban girls in tight clothes if you want us guys to see your stinkin' signs".

Mannlicher
March 23, 2005, 08:10 PM
Who? Me?

akviper
March 23, 2005, 08:25 PM
No guns = no money from my pocket. Federal no carry facilities do not give you any option if you absolutely have to do business there. You do not want to end up in federal court as the judges have no sense of humor whatsoever. I visited the Mall of America last year. I entered through the Nordstrom's store and there was no sign. When I got to the inner mall entrance I saw the no guns sign. Normally I would turn around but curiosity got the best of me. I made the mistake of buying several items at a clothing store. When I went to leave, I saw a small firearms prohibited in this store sign that I missed on the way in. I immediately returned to the check stand and returned the items I had just purchased. When they asked why I pointed to their sign and told them I didn't do business in stores that would only allow criminals to carry firearms. They weren't happy but I got my money back. As to the mall that prohibits even LE from entering with firearms, I think your chief LEO needs to have a "come to God" talk with them. As a chief LEO I would not allow my officers to enter without full safety equipment. Before any one tries to imply that I'm trying to argue special privilidges for LE that is not my point. I believe the no guns signs are only obeyed by the good guys. The bad guys won't even think twice when they walk past the sign with their weapons.

GaryP
March 23, 2005, 08:34 PM
This issue is a "No Brainer" for me! I just conduct my business elsewhere unless it is a Bank, Post Office, School, Government Building, Parade, any Public place that collects an Admission Fee -- Theaters, Fairs, Ball Games etc --, or an Establishment where Alcoholic Beverages are sold(No carry zones in NC :( ) in which case I abide by North Carolina Law unless I unintentionally forget due to being focused on whatever and in a hurry! OOPS! :D




:evil:

Bobarino
March 23, 2005, 08:36 PM
i wonder the same thing as 50 Freak. if a business chooses to disarm its customers and said customer is injured in a manner that could have been prevented with a firearm, is the owner liable? what obligation does the owner have to keep their customers safe if they choose to disarm them?

GB,

so if i, as a citizen concerned for my own safety, ask for the owner's permission to carry on the premisis as you did, then am i special too? does the sign say "no guns excpet for police, federal agents and special people that ask permission"? and if it says no guns, how does being a federal agent entitle you to priveledges that i don't have? after all, i'm authorized to carry everywhere it isn't prohibited by law too. should exceptions be made for me just because i ask? i'm not trying to start an arguement with you, just want you to think about what you think really makes you special. in your posts, it does sound like you think its because you're a federal agent. after all as a federal agent should you not try to set an example by following the posted laws and rules and not ask for exceptions because of your job?

Bobby

RRTX
March 23, 2005, 09:08 PM
I do the same as most of my fellow Texans posted already, unless it's the legal 30.06 posting I ignore it.

Stevie-Ray
March 23, 2005, 09:37 PM
Evidently, Applebees had signs such as these for a while, and newly licensed people were up in arms, so to speak. Letters were written, people spoke to the managers, and Applebees relented. AFAIK, no Applebees restaurants now sport the signs. Sometimes it pays to bitch. As for me, I'd probably ignore it anyway, unless I knew about it ahead of time. Then I wouldn't patronize their establishment.

K40
March 23, 2005, 09:49 PM
Here in rural NV, my town has quite the Old West reputation. One bar casino down the street plays on this for the tourists(very few) and has a sign(old west lettering) with"Check your guns at the door". I always thought it was just for the rustic value, anyway when my wife bartended there for some time she did have a few older gentlemen hand over their weapons prior to imbibing. She would graciously accept them and put them behind the bar until they left the establishment(No policy that she knew of). I dont think the owners would find it very cute. But around here I see kids walking down the street with their 22 slung over their shoulders. No one really cares. In fact, my first handgun purchase - bought at the Gun/Floral shop (Guns and Roses locally ;) ) down the street I took to another bar to gloat to the patrons. Show and tell :)

Stand_Watie
March 23, 2005, 10:02 PM
"There is a shopping mall here in my area, that is widely known to have a "No Guns" policy. The security guards can't carry at the mall, and the local Police Department has to lock thier guns in their cruiser before they respond to a call inside the mall. This is true, I asked the local LEA.

"I call BS on this. Im sure that VA has some law or statue that forbids disarming on duty LEOs.

I think the applicable Virginia law that persons attempting to use any force, or threat of force to disarm a police officer in the performance of his duties would be prosecuted under would be "Obstructing Justice"

§ 18.2-460. Obstructing justice.

A. If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness or any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or law-enforcement officer, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. If any person, by threats or force, knowingly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or any law-enforcement officer, lawfully engaged in his duties as such, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court, he shall be deemed to be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

C. If any person by threats of bodily harm or force knowingly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, witness, or any law-enforcement officer, lawfully engaged in the discharge of his duty, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court relating to a violation of or conspiracy to violate § 18.2-248 or subdivision (a) (3), (b) or (c) of § 18.2-248.1, or § 18.2-46.2 or § 18.2-46.3, or relating to the violation of or conspiracy to violate any violent felony offense listed in subsection C of § 17.1-805, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

D. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-310; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1976, c. 269; 1984, c. 571; 1989, c. 506; 1993, c. 747; 1996, c. 718; 1999, cc. 770, 800; 2002, cc. 527, 810, 818; 2003, cc. 111, 149; 2004, cc. 396, 435.)

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+18.2-460+503118

Hkmp5sd
March 23, 2005, 10:18 PM
For instance I can travel anywhere within the US armed. I can fly on any domestic flight armed. Can you do that legally. I can. That does not make me special - it makes my being allowed to carry at such times an exception to the rule.
It is somewhat interesting that even this ability does not apply to all LEOs, only "federal" LEOs. State and local agencies must prove a "need" for their officer to fly armed. But even this select group seems to include exceptions as a Secret Service agent (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/12/28/MN60124.DTL) found out when he was kicked off an American Airlines flight by the pilot because he didn't want the agent to fly armed.

mmike87
March 23, 2005, 10:25 PM
I have found a lot of facilities like malls have so many entrances that one of the 10 doors have in tiny print within some 500 line "code of conduct" that no weapons are allowed. Who the heck reads those things, anyway?

I go in a different entrance ... :)

I think a lot of places do that so they have covered their legal bases if a law abiding citizen suddenly "snapped" and went on a rampage. It could happen! :barf:

Federal facilities - no way. I don't carry there. It just isn's worth it. Fortunately, I do not go there all that often. But I believe in Virginia the most than can happen is that they can ask you to leave, and if you don't leave you are guilty of trespass.

Old Fuff
March 23, 2005, 10:35 PM
In southeastern Arizona I haven't encountered many signs. When I see one, usually on a private business, I don't enter for two reasons. First I respect the right of the business owner to post HIS property if he want to. Second, I don't care to risk losing my CCW license.

What I do is leave, amd take my money with me. I also make sure that the business owner (or whoever) knows what I did and why.

This won't get me into any trouble, and it has pretty well worked. :evil: :D

chris in va
March 23, 2005, 11:04 PM
The mall next to me has a No Firearms sign in the corner of the main entrance. Ironically if you enter the Target door, it shunts right into the mall...no sign.

I like how you guys put it. The sign is only there for law-abiding citizens, not the BG's. They could care less and would actually appreciate the help.

Hawkmoon
March 24, 2005, 12:00 AM
Recently I have been a lot more cognizant of this, and as I go around I now actively look for signs like this. Haven't found one yet. Barnes & Noble? No guns policy for employees, but no signs affecting customers. Home Depot? No signs. Waffle House? Haven't seen a sign on one yet. Wal-Mart? No problem.

I also have looked at two different post offices, and I see no signs. Can someone post a link to the relevent statute so I can read it for myself? I keep hearing that we can't carry in post offices, and since I don't care to lock an unattended gun in a vehicle that's high on the car thief hit parade it means I often skip the post office until I can make a special trip, with the gun locked up at home.

Sure would be nice to know what the law actually says.

pax
March 24, 2005, 12:31 AM
This whole thread reminds me of something a buddy of mine said awhile back: "Why don't they just put up signs that say no robberies allowed?"

If you've got a blissninny friend, try asking that question, and then don't say anything else. Let them try to figure it out!

pax

bratch
March 24, 2005, 01:12 AM
Werewolf

I thought the only places you got in real trouble in Oklahoma were the places specifically layed out in the SDA: state property, bars, schools, etc. Always thought that privastes business posted (7-11) could just ask you to leave.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

medmo
March 24, 2005, 03:32 AM
Yes, but I have been doing so for a long time. I have been CCW before CCW was an acronym.

peacefuljeffrey
March 24, 2005, 05:02 AM
GB wrote:...and the words you chose to write, in my opinion, reflect or at least hint at a high level of disrespect and arrogant disregard for another person's rights if indeed you actually disregard those wishes and enter such propert armed.

I think you're wrong. I think that the arrogant disregard and disrespect for a person's rights is initiated by the misguided fools in authority who enact "no guns" rules as though they will ever prevent a damned thing, violence-wise. They spit a big loogie on our right to effective self defense. To me, taking a big crap on their stupid, useless mamsy-pamsy rule is just evening the score. It's me thumbing my nose at them saying, "I'm only exercising a right that you are utterly wrong to try to infringe. If you didn't start off by trampling my right to carry for my protection, I wouldn't be disrespecting your 'property rights.' "

My guess is that you said is based on what you believe to be your rights. Your rights as granted by the Constitution of the United States apply to federal government and to state governments not to the wishes of private citizens

Glenn, is it possible that your viewpoint on this subject is what it is because of your MISTAKEN impression that we get our rights GRANTED to us by the U.S. Constitution?

I think it speaks horribly ill of you -- as a FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER -- that you admittedly believe (erroneously) that the Constitution "GRANTS" us our rights.

It makes me wonder what else you have misinterpreted, as far as the law is concerned. And it is your job to know. :rolleyes:

As for me I ask the owner if I can enter with the firearm because I am carrying it as a federal agent. Most times they allow me in.

Most of us do not enjoy the privilege of being given back, simply because of a LEO "professional courtesy," the rights that should not have been taken away from us in the first place. How wonderful for you that you are able to get consideration because you're a fed. What about the rest of us, and the trampling of our natural rights (forget about the Constitution for a second) to be armed for our own protection if we so choose? I guess if you are able to get a special dispensation, it doesn't weigh too hard on your mind that the rest of us maybe aren't so well-treated?


I have left my firearm locked away in the security office at many courthouses and also in some casinos (this was state law in the casinos and as for the courthouses it was the regulations and I was working and had to go in). I also have left it locked up in a lock box with US Customs when I went into mexico and Canada.

All you're telling me is that you smile and go right along with people who deprive you of self-protection. Some of us are disgusted by that kind of attitude. "Here, take my gun. You're right, it'd be dangerous for me to have it in your store/casino/country/etc. Who knows what I might be tempted to do with it!" :rolleyes: :banghead: It's almost as though you AGREE with them that you cannot and should not be trusted to keep your firearm on you in such places. I mean, here, The Sports Authority has a posted sign saying no firearms. Are you seriously telling me that you would:
a) leave your gun in the car despite the fact that they are unreasonable to ask you to volunteer to be defenseless
b) stand in the doorway and whistle for a manager so that you could ask him, "Pretty, pleeeeease. I'm a federal officerrrr..."
c) do without what you were going to buy there

Do you really feel that some dude way up in the executive offices of The Sports Authority is going to feel the sleight of your decision to disrespect his stupid, do-nothing, PC anti-firearms rule? You act like someone's rubbing his defiance of the rule in the face of a Mom and Pop in their store. Generally, this is not the case. Generally, the people and corporations that have enacted such rules haven't given a moment's thought or consideration to the FACT that such signs will not prevent robberies or gun violence, and may in fact make it worse. They also have not considered anything apart from their own legal liability, and what a shooting would COST them. Now, if a guy comes into The Sports Authority and shoots up the place, they can say, "B-b-but we told people not to bring guns inside the store!" In today's absurdist legal world, if they didn't have a no-guns sign, and someone came in and shot shoppers and employees, their families would sue because, "The Sports Authority did nothing to prevent gun violence on their premises." (As though a no-guns sign is "doing something." But that's how today's idiots think.)

I was stopped at a Gun Show by local police at the door and they told me I had to unload it, have it strapped with a nylon locking tie, and carry it exposed in that manner. I was also told I could put it in my car. A brief talk with their next higher superior officer got me an apology and an explanation that the officers had been acting under a mistaken assumption. I went in still armed. This was not violating rules, nor was it taking advantage of my status as a federal agent, it was me carrying under my federal authority

You had federal law-enforcement business to conduct at this gun show? If so, I believe you would have been entitled to flash your badge and enter with an MP-5 if need be. I think your explanation of this is B.S. You were seeking special dispensation because you're a fed, not because you were "carrying under [your] federal authority." If you really believed you were, you would not have asked for permission. Why ask for permission to do something you beleive or know you are perfectly entitled to do? You gonna tell me "politeness"? :rolleyes:

So again my question is: what about the rest of us? What about those of us who want to carry for our own protection, but who can't say, "Aww, come on, I'm a fed"? You seem quite ready to throw us to the wolves, leave us unable to carry, and insist that we're being nasty disrespectful people if we get indignant when others take away our rights and try to force us to be defenseless.

This does come down to righteous indignation. I am very indignant when someone implies, through their policy, that I must not be permitted to carry a self-defense handgun because I am somehow a threat to the general safety of those in the vicinity. The laughable thing is, such a policy underscores its utter ineffectiveness at protecting anyone from violent crime when one realizes that they can't even know whether people are entering still armed or not.

and, it was two cops at the door with an order and no common sense or, it was at least 2 cops without the desire to use their duly authorized and appropriate discretion.

Now you're saying that a sign that says, "No guns allowed," (not a sign that says, "Only some guns allowed") allows the police at the door "discretion" to let people in? Why is the sign worded that way, then? What is this discretion you speak of? How does it work? What are the criteria for getting a cop at the door to let you enjoy his "discretionary" permission to carry despite a very unambiguous sign that says, "NO GUNS allowed"?

If however, the sergeant had told me I was not going in armed, I would have left. If I had been carrying a personal weapon that was not also doubling as an agency approved carry weapon, I would have had it tied or would not have entered. I probably would have left. As it was I registered my complaint with the Police Depatment and with the GunShow promoter. I found out this was the doing of the Police Department in the local community and not the promoter's wish, so I stayed and enjoyed the gun show.

How nice for you that you were given the privilege of living above the rules that they impose, for no good reason and with no logical justification, on the "rest of us." :rolleyes:

-Jeffrey

Model520Fan
March 24, 2005, 05:07 AM
I don't think that it is illegal to carry concealed in a post office, at least if you are otherwise carrying legally. Chief Ron Glidden, author of a thick LE guide to MA firearms law enforcement, wrote a page or two on the subject in one of his recent updates of the guide, and the gist of it is that there are two or three federal statutes bearing on the subject, one of which, standing alone, might mislead you to think that concealed carry in a PO was illegal, while reading the entire statute makes it clear that it is not.

He's probably not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. Think what you want and do what you want.

520

Zach S
March 24, 2005, 08:16 AM
Normally I turn around and leave. Sometimes I turn around and put my gun back in the car, but thats not sign-related. Occasionally I have a brainfart and forget that I have my sidearm, and cant be legally armed in that particular building (court house, LEA, etc).

Most of the time I dont do business with a business thats posted. Arby's is the only exception that comes to mind (even then its not often), its the only place around here to get a quick decent meal and has a drive-thru. Oh, when they screw my order up, I go back through the drive-thru, its only happened once though.

Seraph
March 24, 2005, 09:11 AM
Of course I would never carry my weapon into a place where I'm not allowed to carry, but I won't be caught dead without it the other 100% of the time.

patentmike
March 24, 2005, 10:50 AM
I visited a place the other day that had two circle-with-a-line-through-it signs, one with a cigarette, one with a pistol. I wasn't carrying at the time, but if the first sign means "no smoking", doesn't the second sign just mean "no shooting"?

Hawkmoon
March 24, 2005, 11:11 AM
I visited a place the other day that had two circle-with-a-line-through-it signs, one with a cigarette, one with a pistol. I wasn't carrying at the time, but if the first sign means "no smoking", doesn't the second sign just mean "no shooting"?
:D
I believe you may be onto something there. Otherwise the first sign, to be consistent, would have to be universallly interpreted as meaning "No concealed carry of cigarette packs."

Mad Man
March 24, 2005, 11:45 AM
However, I agree that it's the store owners right to refuse service to anyone on any grounds.


Not true. The store owner can't refuse service to someone based on the color of his skin.

Before I was born, signs that said things like "No Negroes Allowed" or "Whites Only" were common in some parts of this country. I used to have a hard time imagining such stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry actually existed, until I saw similar signs (and laws) directed toward law abiding gun owners.

If the Jim Crow-era signs had been obeyed, what would the state of civil rights in this country be today?

svtruth
March 24, 2005, 02:12 PM
Is there a hidden meaning in Texas' labeling their no guns law 30-06?

MikeJ
March 24, 2005, 02:26 PM
Absolutely! I just plain don't care. I am far from being an obnoxious, confrontational or its my way or the highway kind of person, but this is an area that I just ignore. We have grocery stores, department stores, restaurants etc. that have no firearms signs posted on their doors but I just ignore them. I am not the type of person that is going to try and be a hero so my attitude is that if I were to ever pull out my gun, and I pray I never have to, it is because I am in immediate danger of dying at the hands of some bozo. Therefore I would much prefer to take care of the situation and deal with the consequences later.

Stinkyshoe
March 24, 2005, 02:37 PM
So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry? :confused: :uhoh: :scrutiny:
Ss

Werewolf
March 24, 2005, 02:58 PM
So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry? Hmmmm... Interesting take on the issue. I'd kinda like to see an answer to that question myself.

Spreadfire Arms
March 24, 2005, 03:30 PM
at the Austin (TX) Gun Show there is a 30.06 sign preventing CHL holders from carrying loaded firearms inside.

that was enacted a few months ago when a CHL holder accidentally shot a guy standing next to him in the right leg while trying to unload his pistol to try on a holster. :what: he dropped the mag out of a HK USP Compact .40 and while racking the slide back to clear the chamber it appears he also had his finger on the trigger and send a Cor-Bon .40 cal round through the upper part of another guy's right leg. through and through wound. luckily it did not hit his femoral artery. the guy didn't even scream out. he just hobbled around and fell.

however, the same signs exist at shows in Houston (Reliant Center and George R. Brown Convention Center). Not sure about Dallas. The Mesquite Show has an improperly worded sign that is not legally enforceable under 30.06 last time I was there.

50 Freak
March 24, 2005, 04:10 PM
So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?

I can only speak for myself.

I carried even when I didn't have a permit. I have had family members subjected to rape/home invasion, friends who were shot and killed, and have had guns pointed at myself. Part of the perks for being poor and having to growing up in the bad parts of LA.

When I moved out of LA, I got a CCW because I knew what a criminal record can do to your life. And since I always carried, I figured it was just a matter of time before it would get me in trouble. To me having a CCW is a cheap alternative to going to jail and having your life ruined by a record.

And I would definitely carry into places that have "no guns allowed" (with the exception of those strictly forbidden by my permit, court, airports etc). I don't see Target or Walmart coming to my rescue if some nut goes postal with a gun there. I see them writing me off as "collateral damage". In fact, does anyone here know of any court case where a person shot in a store was able to sue the store for not providing adequate protection? I don't think it happens, so until stores provide everyone who enters with an armed escort I'll still carry my CCW. Sign or not.

But side note, being in Kali, not alot of people have CCW's so its rare if a store has that sign. Only ones that consistantly do are gun stores, and a friend of mine who owns one says he has to put it up due to insurance.

MikeJ
March 24, 2005, 04:39 PM
"So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?"

That is a very thoughtful question. I got my CCW primarily because of my evening walks and felt that if I should be stopped and questioned by a LEO that I would at least be legal. Quite honestly, for the longest time I never carried my gun other than for that situation. I still want to be as legal as possible in as many situations as possible but I am not going to necessarily leave my gun in the car just because the sign on the supermarket says no firearms. I hope that helps to explain my reasoning.

pax
March 24, 2005, 11:42 PM
"So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?"
Because I believe in obeying the law whenever possible.

pax

Seraph
March 25, 2005, 12:02 AM
What pax said.

LiquidTension
March 25, 2005, 12:29 AM
I carry in places that have signs if the signs do not meet the legal requirements as set forth by the state legislature. That said, since the passage of a new law last year re: signs, I have yet to see a SINGLE legal sign. Sometimes it's good that people are dumb and lazy :)

Stevie-Ray
March 25, 2005, 12:38 AM
Quote:
"So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?"

Because it is not illegal to carry in those places. It is against the wishes of the owner to carry in those places. They have to formally charge you with trespassing, and most won't. Even if they do, it won't cost you your right to carry and land you in the slammer as getting caught carrying without a permit will.

medmo
March 25, 2005, 01:00 AM
"So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?"

Because I can. The same reason I carry when there might be a sign suggesting that I do otherwise. I don't CCW to accessorize an outfit. I am armed for a reason and that reason does not diminish because I proceeded past a sign. If anything the reason is more important because some half baked animal might think that all folks obey all signs.

I guess you never do 65mph in a posted 55pmh zone either? Guess I should turn in my drivers license in also....

peacefuljeffrey
March 25, 2005, 05:14 AM
Stinkyshoe wrote: So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?
Ss


Maybe I'm just the hypersensitive guy in this bunch, but I take a little indignation from your question. It seems to me as though you are impugning us as lawbreakers or scofflaws or something. Perhaps your question was asked innocently, but as it appears on page three of the thread, I can't imagine that there has not been adequate clarification of the position many of us have taken: that of not honoring idiotic self-disarmament signs.

I got a permit to make it legal for me to carry my firearm. The state of Florida has said that I am okay to do so. It is an insult to me for a store like The Sports Authority to bar me from entering while armed, as though that is going to save anyone from me if I were inclined to go berserk. No, such signs save no one from anything and we all know it. They're PC crapheadedness at its worst.

What is there to be confused about, Ss? If I went carrying in T.S.A. and got "made," the worst that can happen is they ask me to leave, and I do, after informing them that I will never shop there again. If I didn't have the CCW permit, I'd be looking at jail time in Florida for armed trespass and unlawful carry of a concealed weapon. Just because I don't want to be told that I'm some kind of danger if I enter a retail store with a concealed handgun doesn't mean I want to be committing a crime just by carrying the gun!

I think that your attitude (and that of some others here) indicates an unhealthy lack of indignation at the kinds of retailers who would post such policies.

They are demanding that we voluntarily disarm, all the while we and they know that criminals won't obey the signs. The doublethink involved in believing that this accomplishes any crimefighting benefit is staggering. There needs to be a word stronger than "doublethink" for this one.

Some here imply that we are being disrespectful because we are not willing to accede the the "property rights" wishes of these proprietors. I offer that they are not worthy of that respect, because their attempt to get us to disarm for the criminals puts us in danger.

To be on the side of their "rules" seems to me similar to chastising any Jew who refused to surrender guns to the Nazis when the anti-gun laws were passed in Germany. "Oooh, what's wrong with you -- why won't you comply with the law? You're such a bad person. What makes you think you're above the rules?"

Who today would blame a Jew who had chosen to disobey those laws at the time?

Would you respect a person who had left his gun in his car to go into The Sports Authority, if the place got held up and a cashier was murdered, when he might have been able to prevent the killing had he brought his gun with him?

What if the guy drew and fired on the robber, stopping the attack, because he had not obeyed the posted rule? Would you thank him for saving the life of the cashier and then chastise him for being so naughty as to disobey the rule?

That would be rather Chicagoan of you.

-Jeffrey

50 Freak
March 25, 2005, 05:49 AM
Bravo PeacefulJeffrey.

I'll say this again. If I ignore the "no guns allowed" signs two bad things can happen:

1: I get made and the store asks me to leave = No problem, I'll take my money elsewhere.

2: I leave my gun in the car and some nutjob decides to release some steam by taking out half the store = I get carried out in a bodybag and my wife is either carried out with me or made a widow.

Not a tough choice here.

pax
March 25, 2005, 09:10 AM
Just a passing thought:

Does anyone else know why it was against the law for peasants to be armed in feudal societies?

'Twas because the land itself belonged to the gentry and nobility. Peasants couldn't be armed because they were never on their own property. The land-lord had taken the responsibility of protecting them, so they had no justification to carry weaponry themselves, and he didn't want them to.

Think about that for awhile.

pax

Zach S
March 25, 2005, 10:54 AM
Establishment where Alcoholic Beverages are sold... for consumption...

tyme
March 25, 2005, 11:11 AM
So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?
Think about when people are most likely to get stopped and searched, no matter how polite you are and no matter how well concealed your gun is: traffic stops, mainly, as well as street corner or parking lot terry stops if you're on foot.

A license provides a probabilistic reduction in the risk of going to jail overall, by reducing the risk in those common situations to zero.

Many people carried illegally before ccw, some for decades, without getting caught. That suggests that staying out of jail depends more on adequate concealment and politeness if/when confronted by LE or private citizens, rather than one's willingness to observe no-firearm signs and statutory unarmed victim zones.

Again, no matter how polite you are, there's a chance that officer unfriendly will, on a routine traffic stop or terry stop, do a cursory pat-down for weapons. Many of the people who carried for years without a license didn't have to contend with the modern-day hysteria over drugs and weapons. If weapon checks during terry stops and routine traffic stops had been as common as they are now, some of those who got away with it back in the day would undoubtedly be felons to-day.

Ktulu
March 25, 2005, 11:42 AM
However, I agree that it's the store owners right to refuse service to anyone on any grounds.

Not true. The store owner can't refuse service to someone based on the color of his skin.

You have no right to not be discriminated against by people. On the other hand, I do have the right to think of you in whatever way I wish. If I want to hate you because your skin is blue, that's fine and you have no right to protection form my ire. Short of convincing me that hating you just because you are blue is wrong, you cant do anything about it. I don't have to look at you, speak to you, listen to you, give you access to my private property, or even acknowledge your existence. I have the right to think as I wish and form my own opinions.

You do not have the right to access my personal property, but I do have the right to refuse anyone access to my personal property for any reason. This is true whether my property is hunting land, my home, or my business. The government has the power to enforce a policy of non-discrimination on itself but it has no authority to trample my rights and force its idea of morality on me. Laws that supercede one man’s rights for the greater good are not only oppressive but also inherently evil.

I do not discriminate against people because of the color of their skin but I do not force my morality on others. Just as I don't want others forcing theirs on me. If you want to have a store that sells ice hockey equipment to only black people, good luck. I disagree not only with your business model but your bigoted practices. However, I fully support your right to cater to whomever you please on your OWN PRIVATE PORPERTY. The same goes for guns.

If you wish to discriminate against me because I carry a gun, fine. I applaud the fact that you have such strong convictions, albeit misguided, that you are willing to loose some money by not allowing me into your establishment. I completely disagree with any crazy reasoning that you might come up with that justifies your policy, but as a free man, who expects the same consideration in return, I support your right to do so.

Taurus 66
March 25, 2005, 11:49 AM
I'll carry just about anywhere. Malls or stores with "No Weapons Allowed" so long as the signs are not attached to a state or federal law, just a store policy. if I defy their no weapons signs and get caught, the worst that could happen is get kicked off the property.

Stinkyshoe
March 25, 2005, 02:53 PM
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses to my question/statement. My intention was to make several points, although I should have been more specific with my intent.

First off, I believe individuals have the right to protect themselves and their property whether or not the state says it's okay or not (underscoring that all situations are NOT resolved by pulling out your piece) Like a few of you eluded, the CC permit is only useful in that in the event that you get stopped and searched in our very paranoid society. In some ways the CC permit is a good thing, and in someways bad. I don't like the fact that in order to have the means to protect (i.e. carry a weapon) myself, I have to ask my gov't for permission to. Criminals carry anyway(duh). I think there are some individuals who should not carry right away(perhaps myself included...I don't have a ccp). I know guys who talk about wanting to carry, but maybe don't realize what it entails. Without a CC permit process, there might be individuals carrying who don't understand the use of just force, and the kind of responsbility involved. There may be a tendency to carry because "it's cool" (well it is cool...but) instead of realizing it's true purpose. Although I hate to assume anything, I generally consider individuals coming from the other direction on the highway incompetent, and fellow shooters at the range equally incompetent until proven otherwise. So the CC permit may be(maybe) a way to ensure those civilians carrying weapons are capable of handling the responsibility. I am confident that most CCP holders are very capable...especially all Highroaders!

My intention was to reach an understanding of the difference between a law that says "no weapons" and an ordinance that says so. If an individual was serious about protecting their family and themself, wouldn't they carry even if the law didn't allow CCP? At what level do you disregard "authority". Maybe when gov't gets so big that it decides what's good for you?

Havegunjoe
March 25, 2005, 03:25 PM
I disreguard them. If someone were to see my gun even though concealed and asked me to leave I would and take my money elswhere. :neener:

Mad Man
March 25, 2005, 03:28 PM
So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?
Ss


Maybe I'm just the hypersensitive guy in this bunch, but I take a little indignation from your question.


Yeah!!! How dare anyone disturb the echo chamber by asking a question that makes us think, instead of groupthink. Get with the program!

I now return you to the usual "We're better than them," "Gun controllers = Hitler," ".45 vs 9mm," and "SHTFantasy" threads.

PS - Self-righteous indignation may be fun, but it's not going to win any converts.

Tom Servo
March 25, 2005, 04:57 PM
So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?
So as not to get in trouble the other 99.998% of the time I carry. If I can avoid a place, I will. But sometimes I can't. In that case, I'm just very discreet.

Simple fact is, that "No Guns" sign is an invitation to violence. Such a place is much more likely to be targeted for violent crime. If I have to be there, I at least want the option of getting out alive under my own speed. I find it ironic that none of the places with those signs provide any sort of security on their own.

I'm not doing it to make a point, as I feel that that's the worst possible way to do it, and the last thing I want is the management going into hysterics and calling the police on "the guy with the gun." They'll either learn or not. Still, I'm not going unprotected.

Now, if I'm in my bank, for example, and someone "makes" me, okay, the worst I get is a lecture (and not a very sincere one) from the local police. If I didn't have a CCW, it'd be a trip to jail for me.

What they don't know won't hurt them, and it might just save me.

GRB
March 25, 2005, 05:54 PM
Perhaps your question was asked innocently, but as it appears on page three of the thread, I can't imagine that there has not been adequate clarification of the position many of us have taken: that of not honoring idiotic self-disarmament signs.You and others have some nerve (niot necessarily a bad thing, but not necessarily a good one either) to classify yourself as feeling indignant at another's remarks when you also classify the wishes of a property owner on whose property you set foot as idiotic! You enter their property with a concealed firearm - in opposition to the property owners wishes - then you say disrespectful stuff like the following:Perhaps your question was asked innocently, but as it appears on page three of the thread, I can't imagine that there has not been adequate clarification of the position many of us have taken: that of not honoring idiotic self-disarmament signs.So I take it the property owners who legitimately choose to do as they please upon their own property, such as not allowing firearms, are idiots because as you said the signs are "idiotic"! What, in my opinion, shameless self rigtheousness you seemingly exhibit while apparently violating rights, wishes and possibly laws that another chooses to honor or uphold. It amazes me that any of you who choose to do so even bothered to get a permit in the first place. Maybe I am missing something, but if it is not your property and if state or local law does not give you authority to over ride the wishes of a property owner, then who in Hades are you walk onto someone else's property with a firearm when they prohibit it?

Hypothetically speaking: If I were so inclined so as to prohibit firearms on my property, well then here is what I might do once I discovered you therein with a firearm: I may detain you at gunpoint (my property so sure I can have a firearm and so can my security people). I would call the police if it were my property you entered while armed when I declared I prohibited such. Then I would contact whatever authority issued you carry permit with a complaint. I would also make darned sure to attempt to obtain a court order barring you from entering my property again. I would also contact the news media with your photo and a screaming lib story line about the whacko gun nut - namely whoever you are. Then I would contact my elected officials and file a formal complaint against you. Then I would contact a very expensive and very greedy lawyer and file a civil complaint against you. Why file a civil lawsuit: because of how I felt terrorized by your armed presence when I had expressly forbidden such on my property, and because how scared to death were my wife and children and whomever else was there. Getting the point, if someone who really was an antigun nut found out you were armed on their property they could make things very miserable for you.

Of course me in a more real yet hypothetical life, if I were inclined to prohibit firearms on my property, would probably draw down on you from behind cover, demand that you do not move, have you assume a position of compliance, handcuff you, disarm you, and wait for the police to lock you up. You were a threat by trespassing on my property while armed.

Then again, I probably would not, in real life, prohibit you from entering my property with a firerarm in the first place, unless you were going to be boozing it up. Still, you guys had ought to be real careful of whomever it is you decide to tee off by entering their property with a gun when they say you are not welcome with one. Some folks might just shoot you, no questions asked.

Taurus 66
March 25, 2005, 08:32 PM
So I take it the property owners who legitimately choose to do as they please upon their own property, such as not allowing firearms, are idiots because as you said the signs are "idiotic"! What, in my opinion, shameless self rigtheousness you seemingly exhibit while apparently violating rights, wishes and possibly laws that another chooses to honor or uphold.

I don't know exactly what brought about this response (and I'm not about to go back through 4 pages). The signs are idiotic ... the person who placed it there is most likely not an idiot. We all can make stupid decisions from time to time, but this does necessarily give us a permanent label of "Stupid".

The sign on my property would read as such:

"RED X ZONE.

Make certain your weapon is loaded, at the ready, and with safety off.

Remain alert and be prepared at all times."

Just like the old west, only, you'd be surprised how extremely rare the number of incidents with a stunning sign like this. Putting a "No Weapons Allowed" sign is inviting trouble because the majority of good hearted, law abiding citizens will be the only actors under compliance. They could end up victims because of their obedience.

Hawkmoon
March 25, 2005, 08:57 PM
My intention was to reach an understanding of the difference between a law that says "no weapons" and an ordinance that says so.
You failed.

An ordinance is a law. A sign posted by a business owner on the front door to the shop is not an ordinance -- it's a sign.

longtooth
March 26, 2005, 04:19 AM
If it is a legal 30.06 sign I decide whether I "Have to have or do what I went there for" If not they don't get my money. If it is a generic sign & not worth the paper it is on I go do what I need to & don't let anyone know.

peacefuljeffrey
March 26, 2005, 06:53 AM
So I take it the property owners who legitimately choose to do as they please upon their own property, such as not allowing firearms, are idiots because as you said the signs are "idiotic"! What, in my opinion, shameless self rigtheousness you seemingly exhibit while apparently violating rights, wishes and possibly laws that another chooses to honor or uphold. It amazes me that any of you who choose to do so even bothered to get a permit in the first place. Maybe I am missing something, but if it is not your property and if state or local law does not give you authority to over ride the wishes of a property owner, then who in Hades are you walk onto someone else's property with a firearm when they prohibit it?

Anyone who posts such a sign and then attempts to argue that it can in any way serve the purpose of hindering the commission of violent crime is -- absolutely -- either an IDIOT who believes it or a LIAR who claims he does when he does not.

We are not talking about what a person does when he enters the private residence of another. We are talking about businesses. Stores and whatnot. I draw a significant distinction between them, as I am confident many posters here do as well. I would not show the disrespect to a personal friend that I would show to an idiot shopowner who posts a no-firearms sign as though he thinks it will protect him, his employees or his patrons from miscreants who bring in a gun with the intent to use it in criminal violence. If I had a friend who knew I carry a gun who asked me to not bring it into his house, I would simply stop visiting. If the person never voiced opposition to that practice of mine, I would simply engage in it but never mention it. No harm no foul. But a shopowner is, in my opinion, beyond his rights when he seeks to dictate to me that in order to shop in his store, I must let down my guard and render myself vulnerable in a way that I prefer never to be. HE is not offering to protect me! His SIGN does not in any way protect me, should I obey it. CRIMINALS STILL will come in to rob the place if they so desire, and if I am in compliance with the sign, I am helpless.

I understand your claim that as a property owner he has a right to make the rules. I just don't understand why you are not able to separate his right to make the rules from the idea that his rule is misguided and idiotic given that it can't possibly work.

You say that I am "violating rights." The ONLY right of his that I am violating is his right to usurp MY rights. This becomes a childish game of "he did it first"; but in this case, playing that game is entirely justified. Before I violated his right to bar me from having a gun on the premises, he violated my right to have a gun on the premises. And he can offer no sound, logical reason for doing so. Nothing about obtaining my voluntary individual disarmament prevents violence from befalling anyone in his store. If I were inclined to violence, I'd simply come in and do it, wouldn't I? So if I do comply with his rule, that just proves that I never was one of the ones he had to worry about. The ones he does have to worry about, well, they'll make themselves known when the time comes. They'll be the ones who not only disobey the sign, but also disobey the laws against robbery and murder.

Hypothetically speaking: If I were so inclined so as to prohibit firearms on my property, well then here is what I might do once I discovered you therein with a firearm: I may detain you at gunpoint (my property so sure I can have a firearm and so can my security people). I would call the police if it were my property you entered while armed when I declared I prohibited such. Then I would contact whatever authority issued you carry permit with a complaint.

I believe that even if I were on your property, if I were legally carrying that firearm, if you drew on me because of my simply carrying it (not using it, holding it, brandishing it...) it is YOU who would be breaking the law.

Someone back me up on this, please, if you know the law.

I come into Glenn's store (I assume we are not talking about me coming into your house, yes?). I am carrying a gun and I have a CCW license. He detects that I have the gun (maybe it's just a hunch, or maybe it prints: in my hypothetical scenario I have not, say, dropped the gun, or exposed the butt or something). He DRAWS A GUN ON ME THOUGH I HAVE COMMITTED NO OVERT ACT OF VIOLENCE OR OTHER CRIME. He claims that he is holding me for the police because I have broken his rule (NOT the LAW) by carrying a gun on his property.

This is justified? Could I not have him arrested for assault with a firearm?

I would also make darned sure to attempt to obtain a court order barring you from entering my property again. I would also contact the news media with your photo and a screaming lib story line about the whacko gun nut - namely whoever you are.

LOL! Like I would be itching to go back to your store! :rolleyes:

Then I would contact my elected officials and file a formal complaint against you. Then I would contact a very expensive and very greedy lawyer and file a civil complaint against you. Why file a civil lawsuit: because of how I felt terrorized by your armed presence when I had expressly forbidden such on my property, and because how scared to death were my wife and children and whomever else was there. Getting the point, if someone who really was an antigun nut found out you were armed on their property they could make things very miserable for you.

Your elected officials wouldn't give two poops. They'd probably already have been informed that I had not broken any laws. You are postulating all of this as though I refused to leave your premises once I was told to. That would not have transpired. If I knew that you had rightly detected my armedness, and ordered me to leave, I would probably spit on your floor, call you a moron, and promise to NEVER give you my money again.

As far as filing a baseless, frivolous lawsuit is concerned... Glenn, why is it that you seem to find it so easy to think like a libsheep? How far do you think a claim that I had "terrorized" you by having a gun in a fanny pack holstered and untouched would go, given that YOU DREW A GUN AND POINTED IT AT ME? That would kinda take the wind out of your sales, donchathink? Who would believe that a guy who draws a gun on another fellow carrying a gun is the kind who is terrorized by a run-of-the-mill shopper who has a non-deployed gun in a holster in a bag? (or inside the waistband or whatever)

Of course me in a more real yet hypothetical life, if I were inclined to prohibit firearms on my property, would probably draw down on you from behind cover, demand that you do not move, have you assume a position of compliance, handcuff you, disarm you, and wait for the police to lock you up. You were a threat by trespassing on my property while armed.

This gets funnier the further you take it.

I was not trespassing if you had not informed me that I was. For that to be so, you would have had to have informed me that I was no longer welcome (having a store that is open to the public counts as welcome until it is revoked explicitly). Then for it to be trespassing, I'd have had to be ordered to leave. And chances are, for a charge to stick, I'd have had to have refused in the presence of a police officer.


Then again, I probably would not, in real life, prohibit you from entering my property with a firerarm in the first place, unless you were going to be boozing it up. Still, you guys had ought to be real careful of whomever it is you decide to tee off by entering their property with a gun when they say you are not welcome with one. Some folks might just shoot you, no questions asked.

The manager of a Sports Authority might shoot me even though I committed no aggressive act, just on the basis that I was carrying a firearm I am licensed to carry and flouting their rule prohibiting such??!

Come on, Glenn. :rolleyes:

-Jeffrey

Old Fuff
March 26, 2005, 09:40 AM
I can only speak for Arizona, where I am licensed:

The state of Arizona issues a Concealed Weapons License to those that meet its qualifications and conditions. However the permit is conditional, in that it specifies where the holder can or cannot carry a concealed weapon. One exception of several provides that a property owner can post they're private property (not necessarily a residence) against someone bringing weapons onto that property. This prohibition may be a blanket one, or it may specify who may or may not have a weapon. One obvious exception is that they can’t prohibit a sworn law enforcement officer from carrying any service-related weapons.

If a license-holder intentionally carries a concealed weapon on to posted property they’re license no longer protects them from any consequences because he or she is no longer operating under provisions of the law and they may be arrested and prosecuted. Usually their license will be confiscated and revoked as well.

We had a long, difficult time getting a “shall issue” concealed weapons licensing statute into place. Those licensees who violate its restrictions are not only placing themselves at risk, they are giving the “anti’s” ammunition in they’re fight to make the statute more restrictive and/or to revoke it altogether.

Mad Man
March 26, 2005, 11:45 AM
I would also make darned sure to attempt to obtain a court order barring you from entering my property again. I would also contact the news media with your photo and a screaming lib story line about the whacko gun nut - namely whoever you are.


LOL! Like I would be itching to go back to your store! :rolleyes:


You may be cavalier about whether or not you can enter the store again. But do I really need to explain what happens to you, as a gun owner, if you have a restraining order against you?


As far as filing a baseless, frivolous lawsuit is concerned... Glenn, why is it that you seem to find it so easy to think like a libsheep?


Yes, how dare somebody here be able to think like anything other than a good self-righteous gun owner!!!

Does the phrase "know thy enemy" come to mind?

Do you consider the tacti-cool situtations where you may be called upon to use your gun? If so, why are you able to think like the criminal scumbag you may have to shoot?


I was not trespassing if you had not informed me that I was.


I am not a lawyer, but this might vary from state to state.

Mad Man
March 26, 2005, 11:50 AM
deleted

Mad Man
March 26, 2005, 11:55 AM
We had a long, difficult time getting a “shall issue” concealed weapons licensing statute into place. Those licensees who violate its restrictions are not only placing themselves at risk, they are giving the “anti’s” ammunition in they’re fight to make the statute more restrictive and/or to revoke it altogether.


Just like the civil rights activists who set back the movement when they entered an establishment that had a "No Negroes Allowed" sign posted.

Zach S
March 26, 2005, 12:21 PM
An ordinance is a law. A sign posted by a business owner on the front door to the shop is not an ordinance -- it's a sign. Well, here in NC that little sign makes it illegal to carry into that establishment.

pax
March 26, 2005, 01:22 PM
Well, here in NC that little sign makes it illegal to carry into that establishment.
And there's the lesson: laws vary from state to state.

Ignoring the sign isn't illegal here, nor in many other places. But a responsible gunowner knows the law where he lives, and obeys it as best he can.

pax

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- Robert A. Heinlein

GRB
March 26, 2005, 02:32 PM
peacefuljeffery,

You seemingly are ill informed, on at least a few points:
I was not trespassing if you had not informed me that I was. For that to be so, you would have had to have informed me that I was no longer welcome (having a store that is open to the public counts as welcome until it is revoked explicitly). Whom are you trying to kid. You were plainly informed that you were not welcome on the property if armed and you in sheer disregard of that sign entered the property. Don't say now - oh I did not see the sign - you already premised this by saying you disregarded what it said and went in or, would disregard it and go in anyhow.

You would under the law of most states, if not all, be trespassing if you were there on the owner's property against his will. If his will, clearly stated in any type of sign state: No entry while carrying firearms and then you enter his property carrying a firearm, you would be guilty of trespassing in almost any court of law. Again your apparent disregard of the rights and privileges of others is seemingly unabashed. Unless specifically stated in the law, you have no right granted to you by any authority to carry a weapon onto private property of another who forbids it.

I believe that even if I were on your property, if I were legally carrying that firearm, if you drew on me because of my simply carrying it (not using it, holding it, brandishing it...) it is YOU who would be breaking the law.I tell you what, just keep disregarding those no entry to armed people signs, see what happens sooner or later. In many states, when you find a trespasser on your property who would be trespassing because you prohibit armed individuals on the property, that would be more than enough to hold him for police. If the store owner feels threatened enough, by saying something like: When I said hey mister you with the gun don't move, and you moved even one iota, that could be seen as a grave threat and upheld in any court especially if the store had ever been robbed in the past. Even without that the store owner would probably be found to be within his rights as you were the ARMED trespasser. Do it in some states, you are not only trespassing but are in violation of the carry statutes applying to when you can carry. How many laws would you like to break? Sure it will not EVER happen, but I guess you are into this so heavily that you could not see the hypothetical if I were inclined to do this waiver in my statement. In other words it was more tongue in cheek than anything - but it certainly could happen, and while the person who drew on you may get in some hot water you can be assured you would too. To boot you would likely loose your permit and be sued quite successfully.

Anyone who posts such a sign and then attempts to argue that it can in any way serve the purpose of hindering the commission of violent crime is -- absolutely -- either an IDIOT who believes it or a LIAR who claims he does when he does not. and I understand your claim that as a property owner he has a right to make the rules. I just don't understand why you are not able to separate his right to make the rules from the idea that his rule is misguided and idiotic given that it can't possibly work.The person who posts a sign, prohibiting firearms on his/her property need not give you (unless required by law) any reason for not permitting firearms on the property. You again show a seemingly arrogant, less than respectful attitude by believing that they have the same reason you believe them to have. They do not need to have any reason at all other than that is the way they want it. This is not stupid in any fashion. Being disrespectful of another's wishes concerning that other person's property while you are carrying concealed is the, in y opinion, stupid thing. It will sooner or later lead to more bad press and more rules against gun ownership. Keep on screwing us all by breaking the rules whether they be those of the law or of private citizens concerning when you ARE INVITED or DENIED ENTRY onto their property.

The ONLY right of his that I am violating is his right to usurp MY rights.He is usurping no rights of yours, you are on the other hand making armed intrusion onto his property. You can go wherever you want, wherein it is legal to carry, except his property. How is that usurping your rights? You are going into his property with the intention of violating his rules for his property. You DO NOT NEED TO ENTER HIS PROPERTY AT ALL, LET ALONE UNDER ARMS! So why not just stay off of his property? Is your self image that small that you have to disregard the wishes of others even on their own property; do you have to lift your leg and leave your mark so to speak to show who really is top dog?

Why not go to a big amusement park armed someday, one that refuses entry to armed people, and sneak in armed. Then let someone see you are armed. See what happens. Or better yet, why not enter a grammar school that forbids armed individuals on the property, let them know you are armed, and see what happens. I do not advocate doing it, and I know I would not unless in the course of my duties. If you do it, I will be watching on Fox news as you are arrested.

LOL! Like I would be itching to go back to your storeWell isn't it obvious that you were itching enough to enter it in the first place despite the signs telling you not too. You had the gun on yet you, under the circumstances, say you would enter anyway! What kind of guy does this make you? First you have to enter - then you imply you would not want to enter again! Are you just looking to cause that trouble, then after you do it, you do not go back to that store to spite yourself? Why go inside in the first place, just to see if you can get away with it? Is it just to make trouble? Are you an anti gun person who got a permit and now is trying to ruin it for the rest of us by giving permit holders a bad name? Are you the enemy within our own ranks? I am wondering!

The manager of a Sports Authority might shoot me even though I committed no aggressive act, just on the basis that I was carrying a firearm I am licensed to carry and flouting their rule prohibiting such??! Maybe the owner of a Sports Authority store just got robbed yesterday, or a week or a month ago, and an employee got shot. Could have been by a guy who came in just like you, dressed like you, who maybe even looked like you even just a little bit. Any move you make to adjust your carry rig could be seen a s a threat. Even if you do not make a move you could easily be seen as a threat. You do not know what is going on in the mind of the store owner or manager or security guard when they see you are armed. Here is the kicker - you seem to think that even though you can violate the prohibition against carrying into the property, they cannot violate the prohibition against shooting you before you make some overt threat! You seem to think you are the special one who is allowed to break the rules set by others - whic by the way is a very liberal frame of mind. What makes them so different than you, and why are you so high and mighty as to be able to violate the rules and at the same time think others cannot violate the rules? You can chance it all you want. Then again, why not enter onto some ultra extremists property with a gun, property that was posted no entry by armed individuals all others welcome. See what happens. if it be a truly ultra leftist or truly ultra rightist you may get shot because he or she is simply a nut and because you have a gun. What do they care if it was legally justified, and now that you maybe are dead and buried in the swamps somewhere, who cares. No that could not happen because I forgot, you or people like you are the only ones who can brea the rules and have it go your way!

As for this: As far as filing a baseless, frivolous lawsuit is concerned... Glenn, why is it that you seem to find it so easy to think like a libsheep? I will address both issues in this quote, the frivolous law suit statement and the libsheep thing:

As for the frivolous law suits you mentioned - I guess you do not watch the news too much. Frivolous law suits are bit by bit destroying our right to keep and bear arms. Sooner or later one of the many so called frivolous law suits is deemed good enough to go to court. It then cost a lot of money to defend. It can lead to a victory for the anti gunners too. So just keep pushing the issue by entering places that prohibit your entry.

As Mad Man pointed out:You may be cavalier about whether or not you can enter the store again. But do I really need to explain what happens to you, as a gun owner, if you have a restraining order against you?You do not even need a restraining order against you to lose your permit to carry in some states. Enough founded allegations will do you in whether or not a court issues a restraining order. Just keep doing whatever it is you want to do on another's property, sooner or later you will wind up in hot water because of it.

As for that libsheep question:
Are you saying what I think you are saying or implying? If we do not agree with you and think like you, then we are not right nor are we good but we are rather libsheep. Come now the implication is quite the weak one. I can think like whomever I care to think, or however I care to think but, I certainly am not thinking like a libsheep. The thing here is that I do choose to think. I do not just push my own agenda. I look at it from various angles. I present a few of those angles and all of a sudden you wonder how I think like a libsheep. You do not, in my opinion, know the first thing about how a libsheep thinks or what are the tenets of liberalism.

I believe in the sanctity of private property and private property ownership and the owner's property rights. You are the one who would violate these things. Hmm, whom else did that throughout history? Mostly the libs who tried to overthrow conservative governments come to mind. Sounds very Communistic to me, anyone can enter on anyone else's property in total disregard of the property owner's wishes! How does that sound to you - because in essence it is what you are saying. Again, you do not have to give up your right to carry a gun - just do not enter that person's property! Then give that person hell for having such a rule - but don't do something that is not right to promote your own self indulgence. It is the libs in our society who try to knock down privatization of things, who want to screw the private property rights, who want to screw us all regarding gun rights and so on. The libs are those who believe anyone should be allowed to go anywhere. Goodness that is one of the most liberal ways of thinking that has ever been and, you not realizing such seems to indicate you are either confused or are a lib in right winger's clothing. Are you so stuck up on what YOU want (relative to being on someone else's private property) that you cannot see this.

As for the implication that I may be a lib or even just the question as to why I can think like them, all I can say is that I am rather well versed in thinking before I write. I try to view other sides of the argument before I present my own. I have dealt with libsheep as you call them for many years. I lived in NYC for most of my life and in NYS for most of the remainder of it. I see lib kooks all the time. I try to convert them to becoming humans. I have also arrested enough criminals and dealt with enough defense attorneys to know how they operate and to understand issues they would raise. I have attended enough Republican Conventions where I have seen the liberal protesting and ranting and raving. I have also attended many political rallies on both sides (in capacity as a federal agent and privately). I see their rants all of the time. I read the papers and watch the news, most of which espouses the lib viewpoints. I also listen to Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levine, and the babe whose name I can never recall. I listen to both sides or more sides of an issue. Then I call a spade a spade as I see it, but not until I know more than one side. You seemingly choose to simply assume the other person is doing something for whatever reason you deem fit to assume without asking the why such is the case. Then you call them stupid. How wonderful a way to go about things!

In all honesty the way you go on sort of reminds me of them, the really leftist liberals, as they too always want to trample someone else's rights to promote their own agenda and they do so by incessant ranting about how the other side is absolutely stupid and wrong. I am not saying you are liberal, but your argument surely sounds like the one a liberal would make to trod on another person's rights. As a conservative, on the majority of issues, I choose to uphold the wishes of others in such regards, and if I think their wishes stink then I try to go about changing their minds or changing the rules in a legal manner without violating their rights. This is why I vote, why I join and donate to organizations that promote things in which I believe, why I write to politicians and private citizens expressing my thoughts, and so on. I even write to the ultra left libs such as Schumer and Clinton to express my pro gun ideas, and other pro conservative ideas, in the hopes of changing their agenda here in NY. I have voted in a few presidential elections in my time. I voted for Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush and so on. I have never voted for a democrat though I do not fault people who do and, if I thought one to best represent my views then I would not hesitate. The thing is they have not done that yet, so they do not get my vote. Does this make me better able to understand those libsheep – I don’t know. I do know that I do not call them stupid for wanting no guns on their property but; I do try to change their views and get them to be pro gun ownership for all citizens. This will not be accomplished by trampling their rights as property owners but, it may come about by showing and teaching them that law abiding gun owners are respectful of others and of the law. I try not to pigeon hole myself or others into a stereotype. Nor do I do such with my viewpoints - that would be a sign of a less than intelligent person and I choose to do things at least a bit more intelligently than that. I also try to be respectful of the rights and privileges of others under the law, at least until the law can be changed.

nordaim
March 26, 2005, 03:48 PM
There are only a few places I do not carry concealed with regularity:

1. The local mall. About a year ago they posted signs that said no weapons. I tend to follow this, just because I do not want to deal with a big stink of carrying there and someone having a fit over it. From conversations with the constables there, even though it is private property, the worst they can do is ask me to leave and not come back.

2. The local post office. I've slipped on this one a few times, I am there so often, but really do not want to go through the legal ramifications.

Otherwise, I carry pretty much everywhere, as the above cited mall is the only place that I know of that has any signs. I've looked for others, but have not seen them.

nordaim
March 26, 2005, 03:52 PM
Ignoring the sign isn't illegal here, nor in many other places.

That is the case here in PA as I understand it.

Regretfully, not being a lawyer, it is hard to get clear information on many of the laws, even from professionals in the field.

Most of my knowledge on where to carry and where not to comes from reading PA laws and from local Constables. Is it 100% accurate? I would be kidding myself if I thought it was. Is it 99% accurate, to the best of my knowledge with the information available? Yes.

El Rojo
March 26, 2005, 08:48 PM
Wow this thread is so much fun! Lets see, where to start?

First, peacefuljeffery you started out ok when you were talking about Glenn and his using his position as a federal employee for personal use when he would ask to enter facilities with a weapon when the common man couldn't. This is a good point that I think Glenn should consider. It is quite similar to using your position to get discounts or other special favor.

Now, depending on what type of work Glenn does, he might need to be armed all the time because there might be people out there that would actively want to bring him harm because of his position. I used to work in corrections and I had to regulate on a guy here or there, but I don't envision them wanting to bring me personal harm if they saw me on site. However, that doesn't mean Glenn doesn't put away more dangerous people who would like to kill him the first chance they get. I think that is a extenuating circumstance that would require him to be armed at all times. However, if the federal law states that he can be armed at all times, then so be it. If it doesn't and he has to ask to go somewhere armed and using his position as a federal officer to influence other people's decisions, that is a very interesting ethical question I would like to hear Glenn explain.

Does that mean I am going to get upset at Glenn for asking? No. I am free to ask people the same question. "I have my CCW permit, can I enter your establishment armed?" Really, Glenn doesn't have a CCW, he has his federal badge, so in a sense it is establishing his credentials much like I would have to establish mine. With the exception of two states, everyone needs a permit otherwise it isn't lawful to carry concealed. So I sort of answered Glenn's question for him. He isn't using his position to get special treatment per se, he is just establishing his credentials that permit him to wander about the world armed. I am free to do the same thing as a CCW holder. So is everyone else. It appears that some people here are just too scared to ask and bottle that up as anger at a law enforcement officer who isn't too scared to ask. Interesting.

Now peacefuljeffery you are getting close to falling off the deep end now. As has been pointed out, no one stated the reason they were prohibiting armed persons from entering their establishment or property. They don't have to give a reason and you don't have to like it. It is their property and they can do as they please. You have a choice to make. Now if I posted signs that said no guns allowed and suddenly you show up, read the sign, and continued anyway, I would have to wonder why you disregarded my sign and entered anyway. I would figure you must either be stupid or that you are not stupid, but out to do me harm. I would see it as being very logicial and reasonable for me to hold you at gun point with the assumption that you are up to no good because you disregarded my rights as a property owner and you are passively threatening me with your armed presense. Sorry, but there is no excuse for entering someone else's private property armed directly against their wishes. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GO THERE!

What amazes me most about this new found disobediance is that the laws we are discussing are CONCEALED carry laws. If you do chose to violate the property owners wishes, they should never know. So really peacefuljeffery is just arguing for arguing's sake, but he is doing a poor job of it. There should never be a case of you carrying onto someone else's property and them ever figuring you out. If they do find out, it should only be because you used your firearm in a case of lawful self-defense. Otherwise, you are doing a piss poor job of concealing your concealed weapon.

As far as the question of if I have a permit why do I still carry places I am not supposed to, that is a good one. I liked the speed limit justification best. Just because the speed limit is 55 MPH, that doesn't mean I always drive 55 MPH. There is a risk involved in driving faster than the speed limit and I could get caught. However, it is just like driving faster with my driver's license and driving faster without my driver's license. With my license, I can slow down and still be lawfully driving if I am pulled over for some reason. Same with the CCW permit. Most places I drive the speed limit, AKA carry lawfully. Sometimes it is necessary for me to speed up or carry where maybe I am "not supposed to". Just like speeding, I do this with care and caution with the intent of not getting caught or endangering anyone's life. I fully understand the consequences of getting caught, but I feel the risk is necessary.

And as has been mentioned, I too used to carry illegally for a time. It isn't fun. You are always worried about getting caught. With that permit, the worry level is minimal and now I can focus more on paying attention to my surroundings than getting arrested.

q102josh
March 26, 2005, 08:57 PM
the worst they can do to you is ask you to leave and if you refuse they could have you charged with trespassing... but thats as bad as it gets

Mark13
March 26, 2005, 09:24 PM
Yes

BJPARKER
March 27, 2005, 02:22 AM
I do not carry in a federal building, school, bar,any place specified according to the laws governing my CCW issue, strictly a no-no. Any other place doesn't get my business, except for the Dr's office.

peacefuljeffrey
March 27, 2005, 06:31 AM
I tell you what, just keep disregarding those no entry to armed people signs, see what happens sooner or later.

Sooner or later? I have been carrying into stores for the better part of 12 years. Some have rules against it, some don't. I really don't pay attention to which. (As I recall, the only ones I remember seeing signs on were The Sports Authority, which is why I used it as an example.)

I am not a troublemaker. I don't arouse much attention when I'm out (other than the fact that most of the time I'm barefoot, as a choice, and people find that odd.) My means of carry may vary now and then, but I make sure never to allow my firearm to be detected. Some people may wonder "what's in the bag?" but that does not mean they know there's a gun in there. They are free to wonder all they want. Even if they prohibit the carry of firearms on their premises, they will likely never come to know I was carrying one. So what are you saying about "sooner or later"? Yeah, sooner or later, I may have to use my firearm defensively in a store, and that store may or may not have a policy against CCW. So? I'm gonna care that I violated their policy, when doing so just saved my life and possibly the lives of others?!

You seem to gloss over the fact that their policy barring firearms from the store, should I obey it, also effectively renders me unarmed while exiting and entering my vehicle, as well as while traversing the parking lot. I will not capitulate to this. If I want to shop there bad enough, I'll carry. Only if the store really got on my nerves would I boycott it; I realize that the superficiality of this kind of policy never really will reach a point of causing me a hassle. It's a formality that is not enforced. If they started to post metal detectors and frisk people before they can enter The Sports Authority, though, you bet your ass I will no longer be shopping there.

I still maintain that any claim that a person is trespassing and is subject to arrest for it must be made after the subject has been informed that he must leave the premises. This is NOT the same as, say, me hunting on posted "no trespassing" land. Why? Because a STORE maintains, during its business hours, an open invitation to the public to be there. That is a HUGE difference. I have a presumption that I am within my rights to freely enter a store. NOT SO your hunting lands or private residence. I think it is disingenuous of you to pretend you don't recognize this.

In many states, when you find a trespasser on your property who would be trespassing because you prohibit armed individuals on the property, that would be more than enough to hold him for police. If the store owner feels threatened enough, by saying something like: When I said hey mister you with the gun don't move, and you moved even one iota, that could be seen as a grave threat and upheld in any court especially if the store had ever been robbed in the past.

You are egregiously pretending to not know that people's actions in such a case are still subject to the "reasonable perception" test. Was it REASONABLE for a REASONABLE PERSON to feel "threatened" by my "moving one iota"? No. If I have not even made a move toward clearing leather, that claim would fall flat on its face and if you are so informed as you claim, Glenn, you know this. That is why I question your sincerity when offering these arguments.

A store owner who has a posted "no guns" sign would NOT, in my view/understanding, be justified in holding the trespasser at gunpoint. He is neither judge, jury, nor policeman. If trespassing is what I was doing, the point is he should want me OUT, not kept there. The fact is, I would have been doing nothing that could be construed as remotely threatening. I also know that I NEVER allow anyone a glimpse of my concealed carry firearm (that's because it's "concealed). So this hypothetical of yours would never even come to pass. Are you suggesting that on the suspicion that in my shoulder satchel there is a handgun, this guy would be justified in drawing down on me and holding me for police?!


-Jeffrey

peacefuljeffrey
March 27, 2005, 06:46 AM
Now peacefuljeffery you are getting close to falling off the deep end now. As has been pointed out, no one stated the reason they were prohibiting armed persons from entering their establishment or property. They don't have to give a reason and you don't have to like it. It is their property and they can do as they please. You have a choice to make. Now if I posted signs that said no guns allowed and suddenly you show up, read the sign, and continued anyway, I would have to wonder why you disregarded my sign and entered anyway. I would figure you must either be stupid or that you are not stupid, but out to do me harm. I would see it as being very logicial and reasonable for me to hold you at gun point with the assumption that you are up to no good because you disregarded my rights as a property owner and you are passively threatening me with your armed presense. Sorry, but there is no excuse for entering someone else's private property armed directly against their wishes. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GO THERE!
LOL! There is no room in your hypothetical understanding of my motivation for carrying a gun in your store for, maybe, the idea that I'm a concerned honest citizen who is duly licensed to safely carry a firearm for defense?

How can you say, with a straight face, that the only things that might occur to someone if he saw me disobeying a no guns sign would be "stupid" or "dangerous criminal"? No possibility that I'm just an average, licensed gun owner who feels it's abjectly stupid to go unarmed into a criminal-protection zone?

What amazes me most about this new found disobediance is that the laws we are discussing are CONCEALED carry laws. If you do chose to violate the property owners wishes, they should never know. So really peacefuljeffery is just arguing for arguing's sake, but he is doing a poor job of it. There should never be a case of you carrying onto someone else's property and them ever figuring you out. If they do find out, it should only be because you used your firearm in a case of lawful self-defense. Otherwise, you are doing a piss poor job of concealing your concealed weapon.
LOL! You figure that refusal to disarm where so ordered is a "newfound disobedience"?! That really did give me a chuckle.

This kind of thing has been going on since feudal lords in Japan banned the bearing of swords, and probably before that. In fact, almost definitely before that. "Newfound"? Surely you jest.

The rest of your statement, well, that's been my point from the beginning, and it strikes at the heart of why these stores even bother to enact the no-carry rules. When done properly, concealed carry will never even reveal itself to them.

I am not doing a poor job of arguing my points, I'm just not getting due recognition of points made, is all. That kind of refusal is something that antis do, and frankly, seeing it done here dismays me. My point is, I don't obey the stupid-ass signs because they endanger me and others; they do not accomplish a crime-control goal; they are enacted by people who do not provide protection to me to replace that afforded me by my gun; and refusal to comply, in general, cannot even be detected.

Apart from "it's the proprietor's right to set the rules of the house," NO SANE AND RATIONAL ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE IN FAVOR OF ENFORCING/COMPLYING WITH SUCH A RULE. SUCH RULES ARE INANE, POINTLESS, AND EVEN DANGEROUS. They instill a false sense of security in anyone who is not willing to think the situation through. Anyone with >.5oz. of brains will realize, "Duhhh, why would a criminal intent on shooting people in here be repelled by this posted policy?" and then they will realize that ther is no point in being the honest person in the store without a gun should a criminal come in and flout the policy.

I won't capitulate to stupidity that parades around in the guise of making the public safer. That's one of the reasons I don't limit my highway speed to 55, as a matter of fact. If I felt that my carrying a gun, or my going 70, were truly dangerous, of course I would not do either. But I know that neither one is an inordinate risk to the safety of anyone, so I do them.

Please spell my name correctly, as a sign of respect and courtesy. It's been right in front of you all this time.

-Jeffrey

GRB
March 27, 2005, 10:02 AM
Jeffery,

A store owner who has a posted "no guns" sign would NOT, in my view/understanding, be justified in holding the trespasser at gunpoint. He is neither judge, jury, nor policeman. You just don't get it do you. Neither are you judge, jury, policeman NOR LAWMAKER. For you to enter his property you have already committed a violation of the property owner's wishes, you have violated store policy and, you are trespassing while armed. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY THE RULES - WHAT MAKES YOU THINK A PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO OBEY THE RULES JUST BECAUSE YOU ASSUME HE WILL DO SO. The property owner can be as pig headed and unabashedly disrespectful of the law just like anyone else can be, or just like the person who just enbered his property while armed and; yes he may decide to hold you at gin point or even to shoot you. Has this never happened before - you ought to read the news papers more, watch the television news more, read something like the column The Armed Citizen in any of the monthly NRA publications.


I will not argue with you anymore, I have had my say on this and don't want this to become just a personal headbanging contest.

All the best,
Glenn B

**********************************************************
El Rojo,

Yes it has been a lively and interesting and fun discussion of the issue.

I thought I already addressed why I ask if I can enter a store or other property, that forbids entry by armed people, as an armed federal agent and I know you answered your own question but here again is my explanation.

I do not tell them I am a federal agent to get a special benefit such as to get a reduced price. (Which by the way, I have never done and will never do but, which is not always unethical. If you want an explanation then I'll give it when you ask.) As for inquiring about entering a property as an armed federal agent, as opposed to an armed non law enforcement person, I do so because my job requires me to be on call 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. I am not too worried about running into heinous criminals I have locked up in my 26 year career, although there are quite a few who are known to be extremely dangerous. Chances are I will not see them and, if I do I would avoid tem. If they are out looking for me - well chances are it would be an ambush. In a chance encounter it is not likely anything would happen but if it does I am confident as to who would prevail or at least who would run away faster if I was outgunned.

Being on call 24/7 does not require me to be armed at all times; however I am assigned to and have for the greater part of my career been assigned to positions in which I can expect to be called in on a moment's notice. (This has happened to me many times over my years as an agent; and I am the type to answer the beeper call or the cell phone call from work.) Therefore I choose to be armed at virtually all times. When it comes to entering a property armed and, I am off duty and, that property is signed no firearms, I ask if this rule applies to armed LEOs. I have absolutely no ethical dilemma with this, I am not trying to tin my way into a movie theater or ball park, I am not trying to get a special discount by way of my employment that is not usually given to all LEO's (which is quite legal and ethical as I understand), and I am not even asking if they have a discount for all LEOs even though such is ethical.

I am not seeking a special exception for me. I am asking if the store already has such a special exception in place for armed law enforcement officers. Many of them have this exception. It is the choice of the store owner and they do not have to post it on the sign; in fact most choose not to so as not to get into arguments with customers who would say this is some sort of unfair discrimination. It is actually discrimination because it is choosing among different groups or choices; yet it is not unfair or illegal or unethical discrimination. If the property owner does not have such an exception, then I usually do not enter. I say usually because sometimes I will store my firearm but, I will only in the rare circumstance store a firearm in my car. I think that is asking for trouble unless it is secured in a strong lock box or by a chain of some sort. If I choose to enter a property, I try to store it with security; for instance in Casinos I have done this many times. (For some reason those Indian reservation casinos just don't like feds with guns on their property - lol and ok by me.) They put it into a lock box and give me the key. I often do the same in court houses, dependent upon their rules. I regularly walk into post offices armed but, then again I am authorized by federal law to carry at all times and that includes on federal property. I enter military bases armed; then I ask to see the Provost Marshal to report I have a firearm. I have never, get that never, been asked to remove it on a military base or before entering a base. Why - because they make an exception for armed LEO (at least federal LEOs). Sure they can tell me to lock it up somewhere, but they never have done so. Is there something wrong with me identifying myself and asking, no there is not, this is what my job says I must do.

When it comes to a store I usually will not enter if they do not allow firearms and have signs posted to that effect. I say usually because sometimes you need what they have and cannot get it elsewhere. So then I ask, if they say no, I go away. In that case I will only enter the next time I come by without my firearm unless I have found somewhere else that has what I need or unless I determine I did not need it that badly. Again, remember that I ask because many properties not allowing firearms do allow armed law enforcement officers to carry on the premises. As to gun stores not allowing firearms inside, well if it is the law that is one thing, but if that is the choice of the gun store owner then my choice is to shop elsewhere if at all possible. This is based on the principle that the owner should not be banning the thing he sells to make a living. Imagine taking such a rule to the extreme. NO ARMED INDIVIDUALS ALLOWED IN THGIS GUN STORE. Then when I buy a gun, I guess I have to drive up to the take out window to accept it. How silly.

Also as you said, anyone can ask permission of a property owner to enter their property while armed. The property owner can make individual exceptions, or may make blanket exceptions for CCW holders. The thing is though if anyone enters that property, as you seem to well understand, while armed and after reading that sign, then they are there against the will of the property owner and are, at the very least, likely to be trespassing. I will never see a reason to violate the wishes of the store owner in such a case, nor to trespass in that manner. So, instead of doing that, I either leave or ask permission. Under my circumstances, asking permission is the ethical thing to do. Then if is not granted leaving is the ethical thing to do.

Now note one thing that is absent from what I have written. I did not say that I whip out my badge, shove it into a security guard’s face, quip that I am a fed and say something to the effect: “That makes me exempt from that RIGHT!” (while pointing to the sign). Rather, what I do is politely ask if the sign applies to armed law enforcement officers. Then dependent on how the conversation goes I either show them my ID or not. If they tell me no exceptions at all, the credentials do not have to leave my pocket. If they say, well we allow state police, and federal agents but not sheriffs or local PD, then I show them my ID. Again this would be the exception because I usually would not enter a store with a rule like that unless it was enforced because of a law requiring such. If I am working, it is another matter all together and I enter properties as applicable in accordance with my duties and the law not always necessarily mindful of the wishes of the property owner.

What amazes me most about this new found disobediance is that the laws we are discussing are CONCEALED carry laws. If you do chose to violate the property owners wishes, they should never know.

Yes we are talking about concealed guns and, concealed guns should remain concealed unless in use. This is not always the case though. There are plenty of times I have seen the bottom of a holster, or the outline of a concealed gun on a person. I have also seen quite a few guns where a sweater or shirt had ridden up and the guy wearing both did not realize it. Another thing I have seen is someone trying on sports jackets while wearing a gun that had been concealed up until the point where he took off his own coat or jacket to try on the new one. Ankle holsters are another dead give away. I have also seen at least one gun fall out of a guy's pants. There are many ways that your pistol or revolver could become exposed. Heck I have had one or two police officers question me, and one tell me my girdle was showing! It happens.

I know you already answered your questions to me and, that they were rhetorical but; I just figured I’d give it one more shot for anyone who may have wanted to hear answers, to those issues you raised, first hand from me.

All the best,
Glenn B

El Rojo
March 27, 2005, 10:34 AM
I am not doing a poor job of arguing my points, I'm just not getting due recognition of points made, is all. That kind of refusal is something that antis do, and frankly, seeing it done here dismays me.The same kind of refusal you are displaying here? I said this, As has been pointed out, no one stated the reason they were prohibiting armed persons from entering their establishment or property. They don't have to give a reason and you don't have to like it.The reason why people want to prohibit armed carry has nothing to do with whether it is a good idea or not. We all agree with you that prohibiting armed carry is stupid due to the fact that the only people it disarms are law abiding citizens. No one ever argued that here. However, as you said yourself, you don't want to recognize that we have acknowledged your little tirad about whether it is right and wrong and you use the same process you claim that liberals do by continuing to ignore the other points and rant on about whether...well lets look again shall we?NO SANE AND RATIONAL ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE IN FAVOR OF ENFORCING/COMPLYING WITH SUCH A RULE. SUCH RULES ARE INANE, POINTLESS, AND EVEN DANGEROUS. They instill a false sense of security in anyone who is not willing to think the situation through. Anyone with >.5oz. of brains will realize, "Duhhh, why would a criminal intent on shooting people in here be repelled by this posted policy?" and then they will realize that ther is no point in being the honest person in the store without a gun should a criminal come in and flout the policy.You are preaching to the choir buddy. We get it.

How can you say, with a straight face, that the only things that might occur to someone if he saw me disobeying a no guns sign would be "stupid" or "dangerous criminal"? No possibility that I'm just an average, licensed gun owner who feels it's abjectly stupid to go unarmed into a criminal-protection zone?I say with a straight face, if you see the posted signs and come onto my property anyway in direct disobedience, I will hold you at gun point. How can I get away with this? It is a hypothetical. I can stick to my story until the end of time and you won't be able to change my "what if". That is the thing, this is all one big "what if" and pointless. The point here is that the land owner is king and you should obide by his rules. If you are not going to abide by his rules, keep your gun concealed. If he finds out you are breaking his rules, be prepared to suffer the consequences. Will he shoot you? Probably not. Will he ask you to leave, probably. The point is you have no right to carry onto private property. Sorry. Of course you will come back with the already beaten to death, "NO SANE AND RATIONAL ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE IN FAVOR OF ENFORCING/COMPLYING WITH SUCH A RULE. SUCH RULES ARE INANE, POINTLESS, AND EVEN DANGEROUS." Yes the sane and rational argument is that it is the property owners right to limit what you do on their property. Your right to self-defense by gun does not apply on private property. If you chose to go there, you chose to go unarmed or to violate someone else's rights. In that case you are in the wrong.

Before you go off the deep end again, understand I agree with you. I have been in the wrong and gone where people don't want me to carry. The key here as we have both pointed out is "concealed"! In all of your hypotheticals somehow the concealed person gets found out. In real life, neither one of us has been made while doing this. So my statement "newfound disobedience" applies here. What has changed to where you suddenly have the right to flaunt your concealed weapon on private property where they don't want you to carry? Nothing other than you want to continue to make this losing argument that a property owner is not king of his domain.

This is a free country made up of free citizens. If someone wants to have the stupidest rule ever and prohibit armed people from entering their property, they can. It does not matter their reationale or reasoning. It is their right. If you chose to violate that right, you could face criminal charges. You are in the wrong. Acknowledge it and accept it.

Please spell my name correctly, as a sign of respect and courtesy. It's been right in front of you all this time.Anyone who has to ask for respect doesn't deserve it in my opinion. But then again, if you didn't bring this up, you wouldn't have had another "due recognition of points made" would you? Stick to the argument Jeffrey, otherwise you look like an anti and frankly that is disappointing to see here. :evil:

Oh sorry. Did I spell it wrong again? Look at my profile, I can't even spell ********** right. Don't take any offense.

peacefuljeffrey
March 27, 2005, 07:49 PM
El Rojo,
I was not so much "asking for respect" as I was pointing out that mispelling my name seems disrespectful, to me; particularly so because as I pointed out, my name is correctly spelled before you every time you read my posts.


-Jeffrey

peacefuljeffrey
March 27, 2005, 07:58 PM
Several of you have said that we should be obeying these stupid no-guns rules simply because "they are the rules," and what I think you are all neglecting is the fact that our founding fathers exhorted us to BREAK rules that we find unjust or onerous, and that it is our responsibility to do so. Someone brought up the example of blacks not riding in the back of the bus even though "that was the rule," or not eating at a "white" luncheonette counter. That was the rule, too. Obey a rule that is wrong and you are party to its existence. I fully realize that disobeying certain rules may bring down upon one the weight of consequence.

On that subject, I disagree with some of you drastically. Particularly with regard to what will happen if I get "made" in a store that has a no-guns sign. As I am informed of it, I cannot be arrested for trespass (breaking the owner's no-guns rule while being on his property) until and unless a police officer arrives and in his presence I continue to refuse to leave. I can think of several reasons for this. Number one is, until the policeman arrives, how does he know that I was ever told to leave in the first place? Remove the gun from the example. Let's say the store owner calls the police because I made a rude remark to his female employee and he said, "Jeff, you must leave now." I say go to hell. He calls the cops. That cop arrives and cannot verify that I was ever told to leave. He has to see me refuse an order to leave given by the property owner in order to know that I ever broke the "trespassing law."

By the same token, what if when the officer arrives, I claim that, "Hey, I asked this proprietor if it was okay to carry in his store despite his posted sign, and he said okay!" Now it's he said/he said. How can my claim be disproved? The cop can't say for sure that either I or the store owner is lying. Just like he can't ticket me because you said I blew a stop sign, he can't say I am guilty of trespass -- which obviously can come down to something as subjective as the owner said "It's okay" -- until he has seen me actually "trespass," which involves staying on the property when he has knowledge that I have been barred.

-Jeffrey

Marnoot
March 27, 2005, 08:26 PM
Here's what the relevant authority in Utah (http://bci.utah.gov) has to say on the subject:

"Q. What about private businesses? Can they post signs prohibiting someone from carrying a gun into their business, even though the person has a concealed firearms permit?

A. Naturally, private property owners may apply whatever restrictions they want. Whether or not these restrictions violate one's constitutional rights is for the civil courts to decide. But the only statutory restrictions on a permit holder are secured areas such as airports and federal buildings."

I generally avoid any businesses that are posted, though I do from time to time ignore the signs; as there is no criminal restriction on so doing.

Old Fuff
March 27, 2005, 08:35 PM
Well where I live (Arizona) if you enter a store or whatever that's posted, and someone calls the cops what will happen is this:

1. They (expect more then one officer) will disarm you. If you choose to resist I don't even want to think about what will happen. Since you were breaking the law you may or may not get your gun back.

2. They will confiscate your CCW license on the spot, and you won't get it back. It will also go on your record so you don't get another one. And if you try to purchase another gun from an FFL the background check will stall you for three days while they double check your record.

3. The officers will ask the shopkeeper if he wants to file charges - and give him or her a long list of possibilities to choose from.

4. If the shopkeeper (or whoever) gets a restraining order the judge will likely tell you to divest yourself of any firearms you still have. And if you get caught with something you'll be sent straight to the slammer.

Now go ahead and do whatever ya' got'ta do ...

peacefuljeffrey
March 27, 2005, 09:48 PM
Well, Fuff, I guess you're saying that you KNOW that in AZ, it is against the LAW to carry where a proprietor has posted no carry?

Because that is not the rule. It may or may not be common, but that is not how the law goes in many places. You need to be accused of trespassing (for whatever reason you might be said to be doing so) in front of a cop who arrives per request of the shop owner.

IS IT ESTABLISHED IN THE CCW LAW in AZ that you are breaking a LAW by not obeying "the sign"? Because proprietors' signs generally do not have the force of law, as I understand it. The only law that applies is that of trespassing, and that has its own standards to be met before one will be arrested/charged/convicted for it.

Need I mention that I think it would be asinine to arrest someone, and spend the courts' and the people's money, to prosecute a CCW holder MERELY for CARRYING in a "prohibited place" like a "no-guns restaurant" for example, when no other crime was committed, and no other aggressive action taken.

We have discussed endlessly the notion that OWNING/HAVING a gun should never be a crime, because all that should really matter is what one DOES with it.

That's the heart of my objection to these stupid stupid rules against CCW in stores. They are pandering to the weak-hearted antis who are able to doublethink themselves into believing that such "gun controls" result in safety.

The whole concept is quite puke-worthy.

-Jeffrey

Stand_Watie
March 27, 2005, 10:22 PM
Well, Fuff, I guess you're saying that you KNOW that in AZ, it is against the LAW to carry where a proprietor has posted no carry?

It's not against the law in Texas unless the sign is worded and posted exactly as I referenced above, and the vast majority of them are not. And of those that are, the vast majority are places that are illegal to carry anyway.

GRB
March 27, 2005, 11:48 PM
Jeffrey,

Sorry about misspelling your name, but yours is a name I have misspelled for the last 40 years of so, just bad habit on my part and a spell check that does not correct capitalized words. I do not think terribly ill of you for mentioning it. I do think though that your use of the word grant is less than well informed.

I think it speaks horribly ill of you -- as a FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER -- that you admittedly believe (erroneously) that the Constitution "GRANTS" us our rights. You know I wasn’t going to remark on this but now I think I will because it just gets under my skin each time you become more extreme. The quote goes to show how unaware people are of certain things because of the hype they like to believe or because of the radical one mindedness they choose to bestow upon their way of thinking. Hype or radical mindedness often make one see certain things one way, and that way alone – they make you narrow minded. This seems to be the case with your idea of the definition of the word grant as it applies to how I used the word. Most assuredly there is more than one proper use of the word grant, and my use fits in precisely with some of those definitions. Your way of using it is not the only way.

The English language allows for many definitions of a single word and is not narrow minded at all. You ought to look up the word 'grant' (as a transitive verb) in a fairly decent dictionary. Check the meaning and see whether or not the Constitution GRANTS us such rights, because it certainly does. It did not create those rights, nor did it necessarily give those rights to us. While the founding fathers actually created some of them, as they were nowhere in the law prior to them thinking them up, others were created long before. Yet, the Constitution does not simply enumerate many of our rights; it certainly grants them to us also. It does so in the following contexts (bold face refers to the definition of grant being used in the examples given):

1) as an admission of the government that it assumes to be true those rights

2) as an assurance to the people that the government will permit as a right, privilege those things so enumerated.

While our founding fathers believed we had many of these rights through no creativity of their own, they felt it important to let the people know they would allow us to enjoy our rights. This would be as opposed to what other governments would have done to restrict them. They did this because "extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..." Hmm, I wonder where that quote comes from!

So yes, my statement that the Constitution of the United States granted us certain rights is absolutely correct in the context that I meant it and that I used it. If you had politely asked me what I meant by my statement, I would have thought: Jeffrey here is an intelligent, respectful man open to discussing ideas with the intent of discussing them and possibly learning from the discussion. What I got instead was the typical narrow minded reply I would expect from a belligerent person on the extreme left or the extreme right; the person who knows it all and it all must be his way. Funny thing is when you go out to those far reaching extremes you have come almost full circle and it becomes quite difficult to determine which side you are on.

I am all for few if any restrictions on the ownership of arms (not just firearms either as I believe the people should be allowed to equip themselves with the arms necessary to form a well regulated militia), carrying, purchase, manufacture of arms, use for hunting, use for self defense, use for enjoyment and so on. In fact I believe the true essence of the Second Amendment, was that we have the rights to form Militias (which the main proven purpose of was to protect the people from tyrants and to assist in the overthrow of oppressive government at that time). I also believe that said essence dealt with granting that our right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED, in order to protect the right to form Militias. I do not believe that it was written to grant that we have the right to bear arms because such was inherently already our right and the Founding Fathers knew and believed this whole heartedly. Read it carefully. The right to bear arms was absolutely already understood as a right; so they assured that we would be able to have a well regulated Militia - so they decided a right we already had – the one to keep and bear arms - would not be infringed. If you read their documented intent, documented concurrently with their writing the Bill of Rights, you can find this info as provided by some of the Founding Fathers first hand. In fact some argued against placing the Second Amendment, as we know it, into the Bill of Rights because they thought the right to keep and bear arms to be so basic as to need no mention. They also thought that by making mention of so basic a right, other rights which were not enumerated in the Constitution would possibly be overlooked or denied us as rights. They tried to take care of that scenario too with yet another amendment. I do not remember who argued for what, this info was sent to me about a year or two ago in the form of a link to papers written by the Founding Fathers on this exact subject. It was quite interesting reading.

Maybe now you can GRANT that a certain FEDRAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER has a bit more of a grip on the word GRANT than you may have realized before. I doubt though that you will ever realize that you should grant respect to a property owner while on his property if such respect is at any cost to you.

Best regards,
Glenn B

Jay Kominek
March 28, 2005, 12:12 AM
I don't think I've ever seen one of those signs here in Colorado.
The RMGO maintains a list of places with signs in Colorado: http://www.rmgo.org/Merchant/merchantlisting.html

Looking at it, I realize I walked past a place in Fort Collins with a sign a month or three ago, and it isn't on the list. Hrm. I'll have to keep a close eye out whenever I go back. It was some stupid little 6" tall sign reading something like "This is a gun free establishment!" with a red slashed out handgun on it, in the bottom corner of the store front windows. I'm amazed I even noticed it.

I happen to know that a local mall has "no weapons" in its policy, which is printed in a 12 point font on a sign near most of the entrances. AFAIK the worst they can do in Colorado is ask you to leave and get you for trespassing if you don't. The mall would probably tell me I'm banned for some very long period of time, but, it isn't like the security kids would notice I was armed unless I started dancing around the food court wearing nothing but a belt and holster.

El Rojo
March 28, 2005, 01:27 AM
Jeff, what is your point now? What possible good are you trying to accomplish in your hypothetical disobedience situation? Getting into an argument with a private property owner over your carrying a gun against his wishes on his property? Seriously, what is your point now?

Several of you have said that we should be obeying these stupid no-guns rules simply because "they are the rules," and what I think you are all neglecting is the fact that our founding fathers exhorted us to BREAK rules that we find unjust or onerous, and that it is our responsibility to do so.Go ahead and quote where "several" people said you should be obeying these rules? You might find two in this thread, three if you are lucky. Everyone else has stated that they go ahead and carry where they need to. I also think you are stretching it a bit to bring the Founding Fathers in on your decision to violate the lawful rights of people to regulate their private property as they see fit. You have no public right to go on someone else's property. When will you understand that? They can ask you to leave and regulate your passing at any time. Carrying a gun onto someone else's property against their wishes is wrong. Plain and simple. You do not have to go there. So is speeding. That doesn't mean we don't do it. However, one should accept that it is wrong and be willing to suffer the consequences if they are caught. In your case, you are willing to lie and make false statements in order to avoid those consequences. What a noble and honorable person you are. You are most certainly worthy of respect Jeffrey. The Founding Fathers would be proud of your standing up for the collective rights of the proletariat.

Sure you can go ahead and lie to the cops when they report to the scene and you can hope they don't have a video camera with audio set up. You can go ahead and jeopardize your right to carry by getting into a legal battle over this private person's right to regulate what happens on their property. You can give the local media an outlet to show how stupid gun owners are and how CCW is a bad idea as they cover your little criminal and civil case. That is all in your purview. Go for it! Get some! In the end you will come away with a huge victory. All of America will thank you for eroding private property rights in favor of the greater good. Comrade Stalin will be proud!

But hey, don't bother replying to our continued responses to your theory on private property rights. You are in a no win situation and that is obvious because you continue to bring up the now classic, That's the heart of my objection to these stupid stupid rules against CCW in stores. They are pandering to the weak-hearted antis who are able to doublethink themselves into believing that such "gun controls" result in safety.Congratulations. You have said that a dozen times now and we agree with you. Go ahead and say it again just to get the horse good and dead.

I liked the hypothetical that Glenn put out best. If you are so willing to lie and cheat your way out of the situation, with no regard to the private property owner's rights, what is to keep the private property owner from just shooting you? After all, you are willing to lie and provide false testimony against them; it would be easy for them to do the same. Dead men can't talk. So they shoot you and claim, "He had a gun and I thought he was going to rob the place!" Sure enough, you have a gun and there is a sign that says, "No guns allowed." It doesn't make it right and that would be a shame, but hey, if you can disregard the law and other people's rights, why can't they do the same for you? It is only fair right?

For the last time! It is true that prohibiting mostly law abiding CCW holders from carrying into a place of business is illogical and irrational. Nobody that is really concerned with true security would do such a thing. However, as a private property owner, they do have that right. You don't have to like it, I don't have to like it; however it is their right to do as they wish on their property. You have yet to provide proof that your right to carry a firearm usurps their right to control of their private property. Nor will you ever. You have no right to tresspass on their property. If you do so, it is wrong. That doesn't mean we don't do it from time to time. We are in the wrong. Accept it. Or continue to errode your credibility by stating you would lie and turn the situation around against them because you chose to violate their rights. And while you are at it use the blood and tears of the civil rights era and the Founding Fathers as a weak basis of support for your campaign against property rights and your own self satisfaction. :barf:

peacefuljeffrey
March 28, 2005, 02:38 AM
No, Rojo, what I won't do is reply in kind to your utterly condescending and insulting post.

Have a good one.

-Jeffrey

peacefuljeffrey
March 28, 2005, 02:52 AM
Or continue to errode your credibility by stating you would lie and turn the situation around against them because you chose to violate their rights

Kindly quote where I said I would lie. If I recall correctly, I said that if I were accused of "trespassing" by the store owner, because I was carrying a gun (legally, per my CCL), I would leave in a contemptuous manner and never do business there again. There would never be a time when I was told, "Hey, you're carrying a gun, so get your ass out of my store, can't you read the sign?!" and I stayed around saying No, I'm not leaving, and wait for the cops to arrive.

Instead, I carry undetectably, and discreetly, and conscientiously. I know I am no danger to the public, so I feel there is no problem with my carrying even where smug "property owners" feel they should tell me I should not. I feel that I have no reason to feel guilt about it.

I don't care what their "stated reason" for posting the rule is. I don't care whether it's because they fall into the specious belief that it will create a true gun-free zone, or if it's their insurance company dictating their business practices. All I care about is the result: a criminal-protection zone is created -- unless some of us continue to carry despite the rule.

I don't know why you so willingly walk right into the hypocritical double standard of admitting that you break the speed limit in spite of knowing it's "wrong."

I think it is more likely that you don't think it's wrong. You do it because you think it is wrong that the law says it's wrong. Every day you safely drive 75mph on I-95, you realize again that they are being stupid and obstinate by keeping the limit at 55 or 65 or whatever. Even 70.

If you admit that you go armed into a no-guns store sometimes, you are the one losing credibility. I admit that I do, but I am not the one championing the bozo's "right" to make such a pointless, asinine, dangerous rule! YOU are! You are on the one hand defending his right to make the rule and on the other hand admitting that the rule IS stupid. Make a damned choice already.

There are all kinds of rules that store owners can set for conduct in their stores. Dress codes, etc. Fine. But I draw the line on stuff that has a real-life impact on personal safety. The no-guns rule crosses that line.

I believe that if the state has decreed that I have the right to carry a gun in PUBLIC (as it has), that particular right should not be subject to the individual whimsy of petty store owners with a grudge against guns. I'm good enough to carry in public parks, on the sidewalk, in various other venues, but not in your store?? Ridiculous. Why is your store hallowed ground? I have the sanction of the state government, which has said, "This guy checks out."

When the state has recognized that I may carry a weapon, that recognition should trump any objection by anyone anywhere I might go that is accessible to the public, and yes, that includes "private" stores. Not clubs, mind you, which are not open to the public, but by invitation or membership.

-Jeffrey

medmo
March 28, 2005, 04:24 AM
"So I take it the property owners who legitimately choose to do as they please upon their own property, such as not allowing firearms, are idiots because as you said the signs are "idiot".

So, I guess bringing back two sets of drinking fountains would be okay? One drinking fountain for some patrons and another for "other" folk? Discrimination isn't okay at any level.

Here are the questions of the day:

How many people have you heard about were convicted of some kind of legal violation due to travelling past some posted sign when CCW?

How many people have you heard about are dead or seriously wounded because they were not CCW when a bad situation confronted them?

Make your own choices.

Shootcraps
March 28, 2005, 07:19 AM
Sign??? What sign? :evil:

El Rojo
March 28, 2005, 10:06 AM
Kindly quote where I said I would lie. If I recall correctly, I said that if I were accused of "trespassing" by the store owner, because I was carrying a gun (legally, per my CCL), I would leave in a contemptuous manner and never do business there again.Not a problem. Here is exactly what you said.
By the same token, what if when the officer arrives, I claim that, "Hey, I asked this proprietor if it was okay to carry in his store despite his posted sign, and he said okay!" Now it's he said/he said. How can my claim be disproved?It seems you didn't leave in a contemptuous manner, you stuck around and gave a false account of what happened. Your words not mine.If you admit that you go armed into a no-guns store sometimes, you are the one losing credibility. I admit that I do, but I am not the one championing the bozo's "right" to make such a pointless, asinine, dangerous rule! YOU are! You are on the one hand defending his right to make the rule and on the other hand admitting that the rule IS stupid. Make a damned choice already.I made my choice, you just don't like it and don't want to acknowledge it. The property owner has complete control over their property. You obviously are not a strong defender of private property rights and that is fine. According to your text, you seem to think that your rights trumpet everyone else's rights. I do not agree with you. I am not being hypocritical in saying that I knowingly am wrong when I carry onto private property that the owner has posted a sign on. I accept the responsibility if I get caught and I know that it is their property and I have no right to be there. I would be hypocritical if I said you shouldn't do it and then I do it. Note I have never said don't do it. I just said it is wrong to violate their rights. However, if I must, I will do it for my own safety. If I can avoid their place of business, I will as I don't agree with their policies and I don't want to support their business or attitudes.

I think that is where our opinions differ. You seem to think you have a right to go to every store and that they must cater to your every need. I disagree. Would a smart business make their environment friendly towards you and make you as comfortable as possible? Yes they would. However, people don't have to be smart. People don't have to allow you to do whatever you want. They can make bad decisions and they can ask you not to enter. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." The consequence is they will go out of business and that is fine. They have a right to fail too.When the state has recognized that I may carry a weapon, that recognition should trump any objection by anyone anywhere I might go that is accessible to the public, and yes, that includes "private" stores. Not clubs, mind you, which are not open to the public, but by invitation or membership.I don't understand why a club would be any different than a private store. If you can dictate your will upon a private store, why not a private club? Why should business owners or private individuals have any rights other than what is for the "public good" or even for the class of CCW holders? You see, the main objection I have here is you are willing to destroy the choice and rights of private property owners all in order to have your rights imposed upon them. The key here that I think you miss is that you do not have to go to their store. If we were arguing about public parks or roadways, I would be with you 100 percent. However, we are talking about someone else's property. They shouldn't have to do anything they don't want to do on that property. If they want to limit red heads from eating at their store, they should be able to. Women over 25? Yeah keep them out too. They should be able to serve and cater to whoever they want. If they have a bunch of liberals who frequent their store and they want to provide them with a "gun free zone" and their patrons enjoy that, they should have every right to do that. Should we ever shop there? Of course not! You can't force your will upon others Jeffrey, so stop trying. They have a right to be "idiots" and to ruin their business if they choose.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you carry into places where they post signs telling you not to?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!