no CCW in my public library


PDA






gunsmith
December 1, 2005, 11:29 PM
Here in Reno NV there is a sign about no weapons , I found out about it when I was open carrying b4 I got my ccw.
The un armed security guard asked me real politely to not bring it in and pointed to a little sign.
I left but as I left I asked him if it was legal for registered sex offenders to enter and he said "I guess they are, you have a good point there"
I know the VCDL has gotten that rule changed in VA but I've talked to gun owners here and they feel pretty complacent.
Having just ecscaped from a communist occupied san fran sicko I am still fired up to change things for the better.
I say let the gun owners in and keep the child molesters out.
any suggestions?
am I to radical?

If you enjoyed reading about "no CCW in my public library" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Carlos
December 1, 2005, 11:45 PM
well, you've heard the saying "concealed is concealed." Keep it that way, and I see no problems. Personally, I'd carry in there any time.

You make an excellent point about sex offenders. I can see that happening easily enough, considering the times.

gunsmith
December 1, 2005, 11:52 PM
concealed is concealed and I still visit the library:D
but still VA's VCDL was able to change their law, I would like the anti's to have to concentrate on battles like this then pass new gun laws.
They have encroahed way to much on our freedom and I can see no reason that a sex offender can enjoy the library and a legal background checked gun owner can't.

Standing Wolf
December 2, 2005, 12:53 AM
The contrast between convicted sex offenders and law-abiding Americans who exercise our Second Amendment civil rights is interesting.

It's a contrast that could prove valuable to those who live in states with lots of CCW restrictions.

deanf
December 2, 2005, 01:13 AM
The question is, does that sign have any legal standing? Since you're in Nevada, why don't you do the research and let us know?

Biker
December 2, 2005, 01:18 AM
I bet the guard wouldn't have cared if you'd equipped your shooter with a suppressor. Ya gotta be *quiet* in the library!:evil:
Biker

S_O_Laban
December 2, 2005, 02:01 AM
concealed is concealed and I still visit the library


;) +1

chuck burnett
December 2, 2005, 03:17 AM
The question is, does that sign have any legal standing? Since you're in Nevada, why don't you do the research and let us know?
In NV, a CCW holder may carry in any public building (e.g. a public library) unless there is a metal detector at each public entrance or a sign posted at each public entrance stating that no guns are allowed.

Chuck

Henry Bowman
December 2, 2005, 10:47 AM
The "no guns" signs bother me more from the aspect that they are an advertisement to criminals of a safe working area. Maybe I wouldn't be carrying there anyway, maybe no one would, but why declare it and announce to criminals that it is a baited field?

rick_reno
December 2, 2005, 12:15 PM
No signs like that in our library, good thing too given they just hired a convicted pedofile and registered sex offender.

http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/articles/2005/11/26/news/news01.txt

http://www.isp.state.id.us/so_viewer/showSO.do?nic=SX04431

SANDPOINT -- Sue Phelps was more than shocked with spotted Kristine Lutes -- an Idaho registered sex offender -- working at the East Bonner County Library last week.

"I almost fell over when I saw her checking out books when I was coming up the stairs," said Phelps, who worked with Lutes at Rockstad Ford before she was convicted of sexual abuse of a child under 16 in 2003.

"How appropriate is it to have a registered sex offender working around children in our library?"

In January 2004, Lutes -- and her husband, Richard Brandon Lutes -- pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a Bonner County girl when she was 14 years old. The couple -- who were engaged to be married -- initially faced as many as 41 felony sex counts, including rape and lewd conduct, when they were charged in the summer of 2002.

Charging papers alleged they had sexual contact with the teen between November 1999 and April 2000 when the girl was 14 and 15 years old. A second lewd conduct against Lutes -- who was then Kristine Patricia Lund -- was filed because she allegedly assisted and encouraged her fiance to commit lewd acts on the girl.

The teenager told authorities she engaged in group sex with the couple on at least two occasions. Methamphetamine and pornographic movies were apparently involved in some of the sexual encounters. The couple later reached a plea agreement with the state and were sentenced to 10- and 15-year prison sentences in July 2003, but District Judge Steve Verby agreed during sentencing to retain jurisdiction.

Convicted of one count of sexual abuse, Lutes served six months at the South Boise Women's Correctional Center. Verby later sentenced her to a year of local jail time with no work release, 15 years of supervised probation, fined $5,000 and ordered her to complete 500 hours of community service. Her husband was convicted of three counts of sexually abusing a minor and is currently serving a 10 -15 year prison term.

Phelps -- who attended Lutes' sentencing hearing -- was so shaken when she saw her working in the library she refused to have Lutes check out her books. She went home, called the library and left a stinging complaint on the library's message phone.

"I wasn't going to stand for something like this," she said. "I want to know why they hired a sex offender in our library where parents drop off their children and leave them there alone."

She received a four-sentence letter from the library's human resource manager, Craig Hofmeister, informing Phelps the "library has a policy of thoroughly investigating all potential employees (and volunteers who might be working with children) before they're allowed to begin work.

"Anything that is revealed through the criminal background check is thoroughly investigated to assure patrons and staff are not exposed to risk."

Hofmeister also thanked Phelps "for sharing her concerns."

Calls to library director Wayne Gunter were not returned on Friday. Library staff said he was not in his office during the day.

Still upset, Phelps says she'll do whatever it takes to let parents know that a registered sex offender is working in the library.

"If that means picketing and passing out Lutes' picture to everyone who goes in there, then that's what I'll do," she said. "People here have a right to know a sex offender is working in a library where their children go."

gunsmith
December 6, 2005, 11:36 AM
I hadn't even thought that a sex offender could be working there!

mbs357
December 6, 2005, 11:44 AM
Maybe if you got a supressor they wouldn't mind as much.
You know how libraries are with noises. =o

Shipwreck
December 6, 2005, 02:16 PM
I know I'm going to get flamed for this, and if I am, I won't be responding. No point in playing that game.

I am a CCW permit holder. And, I believe I should be able to go anywhere w/ it.

But, as for open carry. I gotta say, I do not believe that belongs in a library. I will be honest. If I brought my kids to the library, I would not be comfortable to see someone open carrying there OPENLY if they are not a LEO. I know some will equate it as the same as CCW. But, they are not the same. If U feel the need to carry, do so discretely there.

Henry Bowman
December 6, 2005, 02:48 PM
But, as for open carry. I gotta say, I do not believe that belongs in a library. Please explain why.

If I brought my kids to the library, I would not be comfortable to see someone open carrying there OPENLY if they are not a LEO. Again, please explain why. And why is a LEO an acceptable exception?

I know some will equate it as the same as CCW. But, they are not the same. Not the same, but how are they different in a way that is relevant to this discussion?


Please be as specific as possible. I honestly do not understand your position.

Werewolf
December 6, 2005, 05:10 PM
Those are excellent questions Henry.

I sure hope that Shipwreck takes the time to think about the answers and posts them here...

Shipwreck
December 6, 2005, 06:07 PM
<sigh> I really didn't feel like replying at first, because I don't want to type a small essay. I was waiting to see someone reply and agree w/ me.

First off - simple explanation - I don't feel it's necessary. If you want to carry - do it concealed. No problems there. I have no problems w/ someone carrying concealed in a hospital or library. But, I do not think it is appropriate to do so openly in these two areas. Why - because I feel that way... My opinion. You may disagree. Fine. I am being polite, so hopefully any replies will remain so as well.

1 reason that comes to mind - CCW at least has to go thru some sort of checks. ANYONE can strap on a gun openly. One can argue the right about us not even needing a check constitutionally, and that we should not have to jump thru any hoops. But, I will be honest - open carry makes me nervous to be around others who are carrying openly (outside of the range).

lucky_fool
December 6, 2005, 06:24 PM
CCW at least has to go thru some sort of checks.

Correction: legal CCW has to go through checks. If you saw the print of a gun under somebody's shirt would you assume that they were legal or would it make you as uncomfortable as open carry?

I'm not trying to offend, but I just don't understand why a fellow "gun guy" would be uncomfortable at the sight of a gun. Keeping in mind that anybody with malice on their mind would be just as likely (probably more) to conceal illegally as open carry.

Shipwreck
December 6, 2005, 06:35 PM
Correction: legal CCW has to go through checks. If you saw the print of a gun under somebody's shirt would you assume that they were legal or would it make you as uncomfortable as open carry?

I'm not trying to offend, but I just don't understand why a fellow "gun guy" would be uncomfortable at the sight of a gun. Keeping in mind that anybody with malice on their mind would be just as likely (probably more) to conceal illegally as open carry.

Well, as I said above. I do not think that open carry of a firearm is appropriate or necessary in a library. Sorry. That's the way I feel. That's it. If you disagree, we can agree to disagree.

Maybe someone else will post and agree w/ me.

Carl N. Brown
December 6, 2005, 07:07 PM
No handgun carry in a library?
Did not Chairman Mao say
The ideas in a book are more dangerous
than the bullets in a gun?
Oh, the hypocrisy of librarians!

ARperson
December 6, 2005, 07:22 PM
Have to disagree with Shipwreck here.

Aside from the assumption that CCW is legally obtained (which was your assumption), you also assumed that open carry required no legal "checks." In Texas, that may be true. In Indiana, you must have a CCW permit to carry. Period. So your distinction between open carry and concealed carry based on some legal check holds no water. The two are no different whatsoever...at least here.

Second, while I understand that it's "just your opinion," surely you have some reasons for feeling the way you do. I think we're just asking you to share those reasons, since the majority of us do not think there is much of a difference between open and concealed carry (aside from the tactical/strategic advantage viewpoint).

Also, do you just disagree with open carry in general or is it only in those places you mentioned (library, hospital, etc.) that you feel one should not open carry?

As for the original post: what they don't know won't hurt them. Unless that sign has real legal ramifications, I'd probably fail to see it going in. I know here in Indiana you can put up a sign that "requests" no firearms. But since there are no laws regarding restrictions on carry in particular places (outside the usual federal and state/goverment buildings), all they can really do is ask you to leave. But then I don't give those people my business anyway.

Seminole
December 6, 2005, 07:27 PM
But, I do not think it is appropriate to do so openly in these two areas. Why - because I feel that way... My opinion.

I'm not trying to be rude, but you contradict yourself. You are correct in describing your position regarding the inappropriateness of open carry in libraries and hospitals as a "feeling" --an emotional reaction unsupported by critical reasoning. As such, it is not an opinion, which belongs to the domain of the intellect, not of emotion.

Now feelings are important components of what makes us human, but given their subjective and uncritical nature they are an inadequate basis for the formulation of legislation governing our shared civic and political life--which is precisely the issue at hand here. Knowing someone's feelings may tell us more or less about that person, but those feelings can hold no weight in a rational discussion of a question of this nature.

My opinion on the issue is based on the presupposition that people have the right to do what they want, providing they don't infringe on the life or liberty of others. Thus, people have the right to carry weapons, either openly or concealed, provided they don't, by doing so, violate another person's property rights. That means that if you feel it inappropriate to carry in libraries or hospitals, you can prohibit it in all of the libraries and hospitals that you have bought and/or built with your own money. In the meantime, those of us who reserve the right to protect ourselves and those we love won't do business in your libraries and hospitals. That way, you and we are both within our rights. But you do not have the right--on either an emotional or rational basis--to prohibit our carrying our weapons in whatever way we see fit when we are on property that you don't own.

Carl N. Brown
December 6, 2005, 07:36 PM
The receiver of my Ruger Mark II has more reading
material than some items in the library.

Shipwreck
December 6, 2005, 08:21 PM
No handgun carry in a library?
Did not Chairman Mao say
The ideas in a book are more dangerous
than the bullets in a gun?
Oh, the hypocrisy of librarians!

I said OPEN carry.... Not no carry. I'm sorry. but I don't want to see a room full of people carrying a handgun openly in the hospital or library. Everyone here does?

Aside from the assumption that CCW is legally obtained (which was your assumption), you also assumed that open carry required no legal "checks." In Texas, that may be true. In Indiana, you must have a CCW permit to carry. Period. So your distinction between open carry and concealed carry based on some legal check holds no water. The two are no different whatsoever...at least here.

U missed the original poster - he does not have his CCW YET. Therefore, he is open carrying. You can do that w/o a permit in AZ and LA, and probably other states (that is the only 2 I knew of prev; excluding Vermont). Therefore, there is a distinction.

I think there may be a place for open carry, but hospitals and libraries are not the place. My opinion.

If you enjoyed reading about "no CCW in my public library" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!