Concealed means concealed


PDA






FNMatt
May 1, 2011, 02:31 PM
I've been seeing the phrase "concealed means concealed" quite a bit on the forum in regards to carrying a CCW into places that would rather not have weapons inside their buildings. Legalities of carry and signeage aside, do you folks thinks it is moral (ethical) to carry a weapon into a place that is known to not want weapons inside, even though they won't know? Why or why not?

For example, I noticed that a book store I frequented hung a 'no concealed weapons sign' on their door. Even though the sign was not SC-law compliant and did not carry the weight of law, I have since stopped carrying there (or shopping there) as a matter of principle. Though I'm not one of the "guns are scary/evil" crowd, I do like to know who is carrying and give permission to carry on my property, and respect that for others and their businesses to allow or not allow me to do so. Just curious what you folks think about the idea.

If you enjoyed reading about "Concealed means concealed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MarkDozier
May 1, 2011, 02:34 PM
I carry into places like that, but only to tell manager I will not be shopping there and tedlling everyoner I know to not shop there, becuase of thier policey.

azyogi
May 1, 2011, 02:41 PM
They put up the sign, I stop going there. Vote with my feet, or wallet whichever gets their attention. Most of those that chose to post sich signs went out of business, or took down the signs.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
May 1, 2011, 02:43 PM
I do not carry in any places where it is not legal for me to carry.

If someone happens to be watching people coming and going and they are using something that makes seeing through your clothes possible, you may be watched -- even when you don't think you are!

Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps there is no technology short of the new body scanners at the airports that can see through clothes. My take on it is if they are watching you with infrared technology, your body heat will be given off and the outline of a gun would be visible as your body heat is not readily going through the solid object.

Please correct me if I am mistaken in this.

Owen Sparks
May 1, 2011, 02:46 PM
On Private property the owner makes the rules. You either abide by them or don't come in. It is that simple. From a moral standpoint breaking a posted rule on someone elses property is a form of trespass, sort of like lighting up in a no smoking area or talking loud in in the same book store after being told to be quiet.

The only recourse is the threat to take your business elswhere, and that can work especially if enough people complain.

Shadow 7D
May 1, 2011, 02:46 PM
Get the card, and simply hang one on the door next to the sign, or pass it to the manager
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6543

Friendly, Don't Fire!
May 1, 2011, 02:59 PM
Good one!

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2011, 03:01 PM
do you folks thinks it is moral (ethical) to carry a weapon into a place that is known to not want weapons inside, even though they won't know? Why or why not?

As long as it's legal. Is it moral? In my opinion it's very immoral for someone to want to deny me the right to protect myself and my family so whether it's immoral for me to ignore their wishes doesn't matter, they are way further on the moral low ground than I would ever be since I wish them no harm, and they clearly don't care about my well being at all.

Owen Sparks
May 1, 2011, 03:13 PM
What about your right to free speech? Plenty of people have been kicked out of book stores for talking loud. What about your right to worship God as you choose? You would not expect to hold church service in the book store would you? How about the right to assemble? Try having a big party in the book store and see what happens. The Bill of Rights is a limit on GOVERNMENT, not on private property rights. They can make any rules they want. The only absolute right you have on private property is the right to leave.

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2011, 03:20 PM
Private property owners who open their property to the public can control what happens on their property if it changes their use or enjoyment of that property.

If a property owner opens his property to the public his enjoyment and free use of that property is not harmed if I carry a concealed firearm legally any more than if I wear blue underwear onto his property.

That is the distinction from a moral perspective. He might not LIKE blue underwear but is he harmed if I wear some? He might not LIKE guns but is he harmed if I keep mine concealed?

The answer to both of those questions is no, I am not interfering with HIS right to enjoy the use of his property.

You said From a moral standpoint breaking a posted rule on someone elses property is a form of trespass

OK, let me pose this. Suppose it's well known in a town that a store owner is against gay marriage. If a married gay couple go into his store anyway are they trespassing? According to your argument here they would be. But if the store owner isn't AWARE that they are a married gay couple is he harmed? Is his enjoyment of his property damaged in any way?

The Bill of Rights is a limit on GOVERNMENT, not on private property rights. They can make any rules they want. The only absolute right you have on private property is the right to leave.

That's not really the case any more. The Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and others have allowed the government to overrule the wishes of property owners many times.

All that said, do I WANT to go onto property where the owner has made it clear he doesn't want guns? Absolutely not, and I rarely do. But, if for some reason I must I have no moral issues with it at all, as long as it's legal.

FNMatt
May 1, 2011, 03:28 PM
Owen, i agree with you. I pretty much figured everyone felt this way, it seems obvious. But the phrase "concealed means concealed" keeps popping up, so hence my question...

jeffegg2
May 1, 2011, 03:33 PM
I think the question I would ask is:

Is it ethical to ask people who are law abiding people to stop protecting
themselves and their families while they are at my store?:rolleyes:

Loosedhorse
May 1, 2011, 03:33 PM
do you folks thinks it is moral (ethical) to carry a weapon into a place that is known to not want weapons inside, even though they won't know?
Depends.

Let's suppose that your town has two grocery stores across the street from each other, both identical except one says "No guns!" and the other says "Legally carried guns welcome." I think it would be dishonest and unnecessary to carry into the "No guns" store. So, unethical.

However, suppose that every grocery store within a certain distance from me (what's prohibitive, with gas prices these days--20 miles? 40?) is a "no guns" store. And let's further suppose that the stores have no force of law. Then shopping there armed would still be dishonest, but might be necessary--you cannot practically shop elsewhere. So, not unethical.

To look at it another way, the owner of a store who is refusing legal carry is denying you access for exercising a basic civil right. Protest. Carry signs. Take a page from the civil rights movement if you will, and organize sit ins where you go in, clog the register lines, but don't buy anything. Write your reps that store owners should no more be allowed to deny legal carry than members of specific races or religions from their stores.

Or open your own store.

There are levels of ethics. Honesty is a great principle, but there may be times when dishonesty is necessary. But even better than dishonesty is honest protest--even if it is done at significant cost.

hogcowboy
May 1, 2011, 03:50 PM
Would you still visit a friend that asked you not to bring a weapon onto his or her property? I know the argument...you just wouldn't be friends anymore. Well sometimes you still want to be friends so do you abide by their wishes?

Owen Sparks
May 1, 2011, 03:51 PM
The store owner may think that allowing people to carry loaded guns into his store might cause a dangerous situation that he could be held liable for. I am not saying that it will, but a lot of people feel that way as evidence by all the restrictive gun laws. If the owner does not want loaded guns brought onto his property for WHATEVER reason, right or wrong it is his perogitive. If you don't like it, then don't go there.

If you wan't to argue your right to carry concealed on PUBLICLY owned property like streets and sidewalks that you pay taxes on, I will support you 100%.

smallbore
May 1, 2011, 03:53 PM
I too am in agreement with Owen.

Ryanxia
May 1, 2011, 03:56 PM
I haven't noticed any signs first hand. I do hear stories from THR and stay away from stores that have those policies like Toys R Us and Jerad's Jewelers.

We don't have a lot of variety in my area so if it was a place I needed to go to I would ignore otherwise stop giving them my business. Either way I would let them know how I feel. (In my state signs/policies do not carry the weight of the law)

Grey_Mana
May 1, 2011, 03:59 PM
"On Private property the owner makes the rules."

ah, the young pups. Imainge if the sign said "No [insert your race here] allowed." That would be discriminatory and illegal. It would be an act of courage to exercise your legal rights, shop there and throw their prejudice in their face. Bigotry against people who want to excerise their civil rights is the same, regardless of which civil right the haters want to violate. "no guns allowed" is just as vile and stupid as "Jobs! No [insert anything about yourself which has nothing to do with being an employee]". by legal means and legal persuasion, we will relegate anti-gun fetisism to the dustbin of history with all the other hate groups.

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2011, 04:12 PM
If the owner does not want loaded guns brought onto his property for WHATEVER reason, right or wrong it is his perogitive. If you don't like it, then don't go there.

Sorry but sometimes reality steps in and hypotheticals go out the window.

If I'm out in the middle of nowhere and I need to buy a tank of gas and the only gas station that's open has a non legally binding sign that says "No Guns" guess what.... I'm gonna buy some gas, he's not gonna know I'm armed, and my morals will still be intact.

MachIVshooter
May 1, 2011, 04:13 PM
do you folks thinks it is moral (ethical) to carry a weapon into a place that is known to not want weapons inside, even though they won't know? Why or why not?

Into a person's private residence? Unethical. They absolutely get to dictate what is and is not prohibited within their home, behavior and items alike.

A private business that is open to the public? Perfectly ethical. By being open to the public, you give up the right to dictate every aspect of behavior that a person may engage in or items they may possess. As far as I'm concerned, if that person may legally posess it outside on the public sidewalk, it is not unethical to bring it inside the public private property. The only exception to this is if the owner employs effective screening processes to prevent anyone from being armed (detectors), has a way to deal with someone who comes in anyway (security), is explicitly willing to accept full responsibility for my safety and that of my family, and be 100% liable if he is unable to provide that.

Barring that, my right to protect myself and my family in a public place supersedes his/her right to dictate my behavior and items I possess.

On Private property the owner makes the rules. You either abide by them or don't come in. It is that simple. From a moral standpoint breaking a posted rule on someone elses property is a form of trespass, sort of like lighting up in a no smoking area or talking loud in in the same book store after being told to be quiet.

Carrying concealed is most certainly not the same as smoking in a non smoking section or being loud in a place that quiet is expected, because my carrying of that weapon will not adversely affect anyone who does not attempt to hurt me or my family.

Neverwinter
May 1, 2011, 04:14 PM
If the owner does not want loaded guns brought onto his property for WHATEVER reason, right or wrong it is his perogitive. If you don't like it, then don't go there.

If someone does not want you to have a weapon, it is because they might give you a reason to use it.
;) :D

Imainge if the sign said "No [insert your race here] allowed." That would be discriminatory and illegal. It would be an act of courage to exercise your legal rights, shop there and throw their prejudice in their face.The difference is that carrying is a behavior, not an immutable aspect of who you are. You can stop carrying a gun, but you can't stop being Irish.

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2011, 04:15 PM
The difference is that carrying is a behavior, not an immutable aspect of who you are. You can stop carrying a gun, but you can't stop being Irish.

If a store owner has a sign up that says "No Gays" and he believes that people can stop being gay is he still OK with that sign? Are ignorance and prejudice acceptable as long as it's a property owner doing it?

If ignorance and prejudice are not acceptable reasons for him to post a "No Gays" sign why are they acceptable reasons for him to post a "No Guns" sign?

It seems to me that the act of opening your property to public access for a business removes some of the iron clad property rights that would be enjoyed by someone who didn't invite the public at large onto their property. That's an important distinction. We're not talking about someone's home here, we're talking about a business (unless you know someone who actually posts a no guns sign at their house).

Gregaw
May 1, 2011, 04:22 PM
I don't have an ethical problem carrying into any place open to the public where it is legal.

MtnSpur
May 1, 2011, 04:26 PM
Sorry but sometimes reality steps in and hypotheticals go out the window.

If I'm out in the middle of nowhere and I need to buy a tank of gas and the only gas station that's open has a non legally binding sign that says "No Guns" guess what.... I'm gonna buy some gas, he's not gonna know I'm armed, and my morals will still be intact.

As you know Mr TR, sir, we're Texans and not typically subjected to some of the behaviour exhibited by other states :D . I reckon there are still some gas stations out here in West Texas where one can get gas, an oil change and a box of .45's with a smile and free coffee. Heck our small town grocery store sells ammo right beside the cigarettes, chew and lottery tickets :) . Gotta love it.

Neverwinter
May 1, 2011, 04:29 PM
If a store owner has a sign up that says "No Gays" and he believes that people can stop being gay is he still OK with that sign?
No, because his belief that people can stop being gay is not based on evidence and contrary to the medical and psychological profession.

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2011, 04:30 PM
No, because his belief that people can stop being gay is incorrect and contrary to the medical and psychological profession.

And his belief that my carrying a gun is dangerous is incorrect and contrary to professional self defense experts opinions. Now what?

You're saying that if I agree with experts and believe his ignorance and prejudices are wrong that I am morally OK with ignoring his wishes. And that's what I am saying as well.

Neverwinter
May 1, 2011, 04:40 PM
And his belief that my carrying a gun is dangerous is incorrect and contrary to professional self defense experts opinions. Now what?

You're saying that if I agree with experts and believe his ignorance and prejudices are wrong that I am morally OK with ignoring his wishes. And that's what I am saying as well.
His belief that you can stop carrying a gun is still based in fact unless you are physically incapable from not being in possession of your gun.

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2011, 04:47 PM
His belief that you can stop carrying a gun is still based in fact unless you are physically incapable from not being in possession of your gun.

I might be. If I am walking and I absolutely must enter his place of business there would be no way for me to legally disarm, where would I put the gun? My requirement to follow the law would outweigh his desire that I not be armed.

Point is that it's simply not possible to say that it's always morally wrong to ignore property owners wishes. 99% of the time I'm more than happy to spend my money elsewhere, but if something did come up where I had to enter a business with a sign I wouldn't have the slightest moral hesitation to do so.

Don't get me wrong, for the most part I'm just playing Devi's Advocate here.

bigfatdave
May 1, 2011, 05:18 PM
my right to protect myself and my family in a public place supersedes his/her right to dictate my behavior and items I possess.

I like that turn of phrase ... nicley put.

His belief that you can stop carrying a gun is still based in fact unless you are physically incapable from not being in possession of your gun.

You're imagining that someone will always have a spot to leave a weapon when they go in. If the owner is providing that place and armed security, and a means of disarming everyone (not just the do-gooders who abide by his silly little sign) then you're going somewhere.

But I don't have a place to place my pistol if some store manager decides to put up a sign on Tuesday, and if it carries no force of law or has no means of enforcement/detection ... ... I just don't care.

Owen Sparks
May 1, 2011, 06:13 PM
I don't have an ethical problem carrying into any place open to the public where it is legal.
_________________________________________________________________

In most places a NO GUNS sign posted by the proprieter carrys the weight of law.

I used to work in a bar and we had a dress code, no sleeveless shirts or tank tops for men. I never will forget this one sleeveless rube who declared that he had a right to wear anything that he wanted and that I could not stop him from coming in because this was America. I told this individual that he could indeed wear anything he wanted but NOT HERE. I told him that his rights ended at the door I and if he came in dressed like that now that he had been warned, that it would constitute trespass and that I would have him arrested (and I could in my state). This is no different in principle than someone being warned not to bring a gun onto private property.

Neverwinter
May 1, 2011, 07:20 PM
You're imagining that someone will always have a spot to leave a weapon when they go in. If the owner is providing that place and armed security, and a means of disarming everyone (not just the do-gooders who abide by his silly little sign) then you're going somewhere.

But I don't have a place to place my pistol if some store manager decides to put up a sign on Tuesday, and if it carries no force of law or has no means of enforcement/detection ... ... I just don't care.
As a car owner, I have a readily available place to store it when I travel.

However, it is still legal for them to post the sign and in many cases legal to carry inside. Is it ethical to do so? That depends on the priorities on your personal set of ethics. If you value the ability to defend yourself over the rights of a property owner to dictate the behavior that occurs on the premises, then it would be ethical.

mljdeckard
May 1, 2011, 07:32 PM
I think you did the right thing in ceasing patronage of the store. If they don't trust us to be armed, they don't need our business.

It depends on whether or not you believe that being armed is a right. Property owners have a right to decide who they will and won't let on their property. Business owners can refuse service to anyone. The question is whether or not it is reasonable to tell a segment of the population; "I don't want you to exercise your rights on my property", when it is obvious that criminals are going to do what they want anyway. This is why pre-emption makes sense. In a state without pre-emption, every person and entity can impose whatever restrictions on your rights that they want to. If the state has pre-emption, THE STATE says where you can and can't carry. Property owners have to follow the law. If they choose to not want people carrying, they are free to not have a business open to the general public.

bigfatdave
May 1, 2011, 07:40 PM
As a car owner, I have a readily available place to store it when I travel.

What, so being a car owner is a prerequisite for being a customer or visiting a hospitalized relative?

Sorry, but sometimes I walk places, and sometimes I arrive on a motorcycle with little in the way of locking storage ... and even when I take the cage I don't feel like being spotted stashing a >$500 piece of portable and fenceable wealth, then walking away from it.

Here's a thought ... if you wanted to steal guns, would you ... oh, I don't know ...maybe go watch the lot somewhere posted as a victim disarmament zone and see who lingers putting crap in the trunk/glove-box for no apparent reason? Keep in mind that a vehicle in a lot is pretty much an open box for someone not worried about making a bit of noise.

As I said, until the location desiring unarmed customers:
1- provides safe storage
2- provides security
3- takes on liability for victims of crime in their little unarmed victim zone
4- effectively sets up a gun exclusion zone with something a bit more effective than a silly little sign
... I will either ignore the sign or avoid the business.

If a business owner/manager is so scared of firearms they can:
a- quit
b- work from behind a bulletproof enclosure
c- spend their time in a bulletproof hamster ball
... I am not the people they want disarmed, and the people they DO want disarmed care even less than I do about their stupid sign

===

Look at the numbers for muggings, rapes, and other opportunistic predator type crimes inside the unarmed victim zones ... I'm not going to be a compliant victim because of some idiot's phobias.

M-Cameron
May 1, 2011, 07:49 PM
you see.....the one good thing about living in MA is you will never see a "no guns" sign......anywhere(or more correctly, i have yet to see one).

this is because guns are so far out of peoples minds that they simply do not think to put them up.......win for me :D

Owen Sparks
May 1, 2011, 08:01 PM
we all have a right to free speech, right?

But not on this or practically any other gun forums.

This forum is private property and we are all guests here. Even though we all have a right to free speech, there are plenty of things that you can't talk about. Not just rude, vulgar or insulting speech but also things that the owners feel are inappropriate or just off topic. I suppose if enough people got together and lobbied Congress they might get anti-discrimination legislation passed to force the owners to allow you to talk about your gay love life or whatever but legal or not, it would still be a violation of the owner’s property rights.

So would any law forcing a property owner to allow you to bring something onto his property against his wishes be it controversial like pornography or alcohol, or something that the owner thinks might be a potential problem like little children or firearms.

You do not HAVE to go onto private property.

FNMatt
May 1, 2011, 08:13 PM
Barring that, my right to protect myself and my family in a public place supersedes his/her right to dictate my behavior and items I possess.



Carrying concealed is most certainly not the same as smoking in a non smoking section or being loud in a place that quiet is expected, because my carrying of that weapon will not adversely affect anyone who does not attempt to hurt me or my family.


I'm not too sure that i agree that a store open to the public is the same as a public place, such as the sidewalk or a park. The store owner's rights and your right to protect yourself never truly come into conflict, because the alternative of not visiting that store usually exists (barring certain practical problems, such as all hospitals ban guns, etc.). Really, you have no right to visit the store, if the store asks you to sacrifice your right to protection or not come in, I don't think its not very kosher to ignore that. Stores have policies all that time that would not fly in public places, and stores can pretty much discriminate any way they want, barring that its not based on a protected class. Ultimately, this weapon discrimination seems to be so prevalent because its not affecting a lot of people. Only some folks carry concealed weapons, and some of those that do ignore these policies anyway.

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2011, 08:14 PM
But Owen, that whole argument falls apart in the face of ADA and the Civil Rights Act.

Government forces business to install ramps on their property. Try to open a retail business without ADA compliant access and see what you get.

The idea that "You don't have to go on private property" doesn't work. Pretty much all of the necessities of life require you to go onto private property to purchase them; groceries, gasoline, medicine, etc.

Private property owners have already lost full control over their property, that happened decades ago.

What we are talking about here is what degree of control do private property owners have left, and when does that begin to interfere with others' rights.

The courts have already ruled that property owners rights take a back seat in many cases. Guns aren't there yet but many of the same arguments still apply.

Tell a customer they can't bring their wheelchair into your business because they might run over a child. Keep the checkbook close by, the settlement will be large. Total property rights are a figment of the imagination today.

Owen Sparks
May 1, 2011, 08:28 PM
But Owen, that whole argument falls apart in the face of ADA and the Civil Rights Act.

And that is EXACTLY why libertarians such as myself oppose that aspect of the law, because it resulted in private property owners loosing control over their property and is a big step toward socialism.

Not to get off topic here, but if any group such as gun owners can use the power of government to FORCE business owners to accommodate them, then any other group can theoretically do the same. You would not some law forcing you to allow pornography, gay sex or Satan worship in YOUR business would you? Then don’t support the government forcing loaded guns on the property of people who don’t want them there either.

76shuvlinoff
May 1, 2011, 08:41 PM
The store owner has the right to express their wishes, I can chose to honor them or not or even take my trade elsewhere.

On the other hand if I have waltzed my way across town or even across the street without creating a ruckus by carrying concealed why would I expect the sky to fall because I crossed a particular threshold?

Mr White
May 1, 2011, 08:52 PM
I don't make it a habit to frequent places that don't allow firearms, but if I have a need to patronize such a business, my personal safety trumps the business owner's illogical fears. I'll carry wherever it's legal. On the chance that I get outed and they ask me to leave, I'll leave.

ny32182
May 1, 2011, 09:14 PM
In SC the sign has to be very specific to carry the weight of law. I don't immediately recall ever seeing one.

To get in trouble, you would have to:

-Carry to a correctly posted business
-Be discovered
-Be asked to leave
-Refuse to leave

You could then be charged with trespassing.

Business are under all kinds of requirements to not discriminate once they open their doors to the public. Businesses have rights, and so do customers. It depends on the state law.

writerinmo
May 1, 2011, 09:51 PM
It's very similar here in Missouri. If you have a CC permit and for some reason are 'discovered' to be carrying concealed in a posted premises, all they can do is ask you to leave. Obviously, if you are truly carrying concealed, they wouldn't know you were carrying, and secondly, if you are stupid enough to not take the option and leave then you pretty much deserve the trespassing complaint that will be filed against you.

Missouricarry.com keeps a constantly updated boycott list of businesses that are posted as off limits. I added our local Buchheits farm and home store, then called the store and talked to the manager and asked if he was aware that their store was on the list. He was unpleasantly surprised to find out that it was. I talked to him a bit regarding the actual facts regarding posting such a sign, about the training and certification that permit holders go through, and had a generally pleasant 6 or 7 minute conversation, then thanked him for listening. I stopped in there to pick up some ammunition that they had on sale a few weeks later, and was pleasantly surprised to note that the "No Firearms" sign was gone from the front door.

Personally, I don't go places where I can't carry. If the sign says "No Firearms", I take that to mean no open carry, since my town is an open carry one. There really isn't a lot of places that I need to go that are posted... Post Office is about it, and I just park on the street and toss it under my seat while inside. My bank is posted, but the branch I use is inside Walmart, and I can use the teller while still standing outside the front of the actual bank, so my firearm is technically still in Walmart, lol...

MachIVshooter
May 1, 2011, 11:09 PM
I'm not too sure that i agree that a store open to the public is the same as a public place, such as the sidewalk or a park.

It's not, but it's also not the same as private property.

A homeowner can say they don't want any people of (insert race/reigion/sexual orientation) on their property, and no one can do anything about it. A business that is open to the public cannot. In this respect, it is public property

But a business that is open to the public can dictate that a group of protestors may not assemble on his property. For these purposes, it is private property.

Businesses are required by law to accomodate certain things. By being open to the public, they give up the right to refuse service to anyone (despite those silly signs, which won't hold up in court if the person they try to deny entry to is of a "protected class", for lack of a better term).

No homeowner has to have wheelchair access to their home with steps, but a business, even on private property, must be able to accomodate a handicapped person. If accomodating them means they need to enter the building, the business MUST install a wheelchair ramp or lift.

It gets a little trickier with a home based business, like mine that is on my own personal property. In my case, it's really about business hours. During business hours, I have to treat my property (not my home, but the shop and drive) as an open to the public business. That means people may park their car, no matter what an ugly peice of ghetto crap it is, in my drive, and I have to tolerate it. They can hang out on the property and peacefully go about their business, and I'm required to let them as long as their is no disruptive behavior. Basically, as long as what they are doing or possessing is legal and not bothersome to my other customers, it is their right. A muslim can roll out his little mat and pray in my drive, and I just have to suck it up, because even though I disapprove of the religion, I do not have the right to tell him he can't or that he must leave, so long as it's during business hours and on a part of the property that is dedicated to the business.

MikeNice
May 2, 2011, 02:28 AM
There is a lot of arguing back and forth about this subject. There is even a lot of high brow sounding debate. It all boils down to something simple.

If I asked a person to not perform a certain action on my property I would expect them to stop or leave. It is just basic common courtesy to return that respect to other property owners.

To me this whole "concealed means concealed" matter is further evidence of the degredation of mutual respect in this country. It has become more about the narcasisstic needs of the self.

There is nothing unjust about the owner's request. Thoreau once said that the only law that should be willfully broken is an unjust one. That breaking a law of convenience is an unjust act in it self. I tend to apply that to the requests of property owners. As long as their request is not unjust I comply.

If you are afraid of somebody seeing you stash your sidearm in the glove box you need to brush up on your tactical awareness and discretion.

If you walk every where and feel that some how makes you special, it doesn't. You can purchase a bike, purchase a scooter, take a taxi, or ride a bus to extend your range of options. If you're out for a sunday stroll and the shop is posted, come back next week.

9MMare
May 2, 2011, 02:32 AM
Texas Rifleman (post 10) said it well.

If the signs arent 'legal' then I will carry out my 2nd Amendment rights. I will also carry out my 1st Amendment rights. If the business owner doesnt like either, he can ask me to leave. If he does, and I do not leave, then (in my state) I'd be guilty of trespass and could be charged. So I would leave if asked.

However, I tend to keep my opinions AND firearm to myself and the business owner is none the wiser. Hence: "Concealed means concealed."

That business owner makes no committment to protect me, but he arbitrarily chooses to deny me entry with my choice of protection. Hm, with this in mind, I dont feel that I am compromising my ethics at all.

I also feel the signs are useless... they only affect the law-abiding (apparently from many posts here). Criminals break thru windows, doors, security systems.....a sign isnt going to stop them.

9MMare
May 2, 2011, 02:52 AM
There is nothing unjust about the owner's request.

If you are afraid of somebody seeing you stash your sidearm in the glove box you need to brush up on your tactical awareness and discretion.


.

I dont think it's unjust, I think it's wrong and may put me at unnecessary risk. To me, that is pretty offensive, at the least inconsiderate.

I will avoid places with the signs if I can. If not, again, I feel no ethical dilemma since they are not concerned about my safety...and they do not know that I am armed...so they are not harmed.

And as an ex-park ranger (in Manhattan's Central Park and out in other states/parks as well)....you are incorrect about the ease of stashing things without being noticed in your car. There are people that watch for this specifically and can then be in and out of your vehicle in minutes. Matter of fact, they wouldnt even bother breaking in unless they observed you 'stashing something in your glove compartment, under the seat, etc.' If you have to do this, do it before you reach your destination, not when you get there.

I try never to leave my gun locked in my car...where it is vulnerable to being stolen and used by criminals. I consider it a primary responsibility to keep my firearms out of the hands of criminals...to me the ethics of this also outweigh the ethics of the business owner.

Demarko
May 2, 2011, 03:36 AM
I might be. If I am walking and I absolutely must enter his place of business there would be no way for me to legally disarm, where would I put the gun? My requirement to follow the law would outweigh his desire that I not be armed.

You, sir, must REALLY like books!

Neverwinter
May 2, 2011, 04:16 AM
To me this whole "concealed means concealed" matter is further evidence of the degredation of mutual respect in this country. It has become more about the narcasisstic needs of the self.
It is more narcissistic that the individual considers their needs above the many when posting the sign.
"The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."

Oh crap, that's "socialism". Like requiring handicap access and acceptance of service animals.

MikeNice
May 2, 2011, 04:19 AM
If you have to do this, do it before you reach your destination, not when you get there.


This is usually what I do, after I pass the last major choke point. After the last major intersection, or while entering the lot, I reach over and put the gun away. Whether I'm putting it in the center console, glove box, or under the seat I do it before parking. That way I'm not taking longer to get out of the car.

That is part of what I meant by discretion.

I try never to leave my gun locked in my car...where it is vulnerable to being stolen and used by criminals. I consider it a primary responsibility to keep my firearms out of the hands of criminals...to me the ethics of this also outweigh the ethics of the business owner.


From what I've seen over the years criminals tend not to break in to a second locked area after entering the car. Rarely have I seen or heard of a criminal ripping open the glove box or center console. That usually means that it was somebody that knew you and/or where you put the thing they want. Most car B&Es are smash and grab jobs. They are going for things that are easily visible and easy to liquidate.

It might be different when someone leaves their car at a park. Most of my experience is with urban high traffic areas. So, others may have different experiences.

I usually just take the time to avoid places that don't allow carry. I started shopping at a different grocery store. I swithced gas stations. I started buying music and books online, and started using the ATM nearly exclusively. (NC law prohibits carrying in a bank.) At work I even park further away so that I can have my cc with me before and after work. (It is against NC law for me to have my cc on the property of my employer.)

Just by making a few lifestyle adjustments people can still ensure they carry more than 90% of the time. Carrying a back up non lethal weapon can help with the other 10% of the time. A small flashlight/stun gun combo, mace, and/or pocket knife can aid in stopping an attack or fighting your way back to the gun.

I just don't find a way to justify carrying where I'm asked not to by a property owner. I've also taken the time to write the government and several businesses lobbying them to change certain policies regarding carry. I believe we should work torwards opening up areas that have been denied to us.

Demarko
May 2, 2011, 04:21 AM
It is more narcissistic that the individual considers their needs above the many when posting the sign.
"The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."

Oh crap, that's "socialism". Like requiring handicap access and acceptance of service animals.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a buffet-style political party? "Oh, I like this stance on gun control. This one on taxes and abortion. This stance on gay marriage. Oh! This is a good stance on military spending. Ohhh! Look at this stance on indoor smoking!" Select your ideals, and then: "You have selected candidate: Jon Doe of Party X!"

MikeNice
May 2, 2011, 04:29 AM
It is more narcissistic that the individual considers their needs above the many when posting the sign.


In some cases yes.

However, in some cases it is a matter of liability or operating costs. In that case the owner is looking after the sustainability of his (and his employee's) income source. It isn't about the individual, it is about the ripple effect of what happens to that person and those family members and employees that rely on them.

I know a guy that runs a store that also happens to sell alcohol. His store is posted because the insurance company gave him a discount. So, he was looking at the operating cost and how lowering it would effect his family.

That isn't a narcissistic decision. He is using that money to pay a tutor to help his kid that has dyslexia learn to manage the problem and catch up in school.

Demarko
May 2, 2011, 05:26 AM
I know a guy that runs a store that also happens to sell alcohol. His store is posted because the insurance company gave him a discount. So, he was looking at the operating cost and how lowering it would effect his family.

In which case, it shouldn't be the business owner that gets the boycott, but rather, the insurance company that makes such decisions.

friscolatchi
May 2, 2011, 08:10 AM
Ethical or not, I feel that it's a personal choice given the circumstance. Do a risk analysis. Do I need to carry in the store, ie a posted supermarket or convenience store at 1 am when I need gas and milk on the way home from work? A visit to a posted Hospital in high crime area? Risk vs benefit. I'm willing to carry in a posted area when risk of carrying provides security to myself and my family. You can bring a SUB 2000 in a laptop case anywhere and not be suspect. I don't think that concealment is the issue here.

What if you're in a posted location, ie store or State Park, (for us that live in states that post their parks) and you have an injury/heart attack that requires an EMS and Police response? Possible, yes - probable, no, unless your over 50 a smoker and have high lipids, or performing a high risk activity. I have been in EMS/ER work for the past 15 years and anything is possible.

Just do the analysis. If it's safe to leave your piece in your car, then I would, considering all other circumstances.

What about carrying in restaurants, churches and bars in states that don't allow CC in these locations? Do you do so in violation of the law? I think that many do so and won't admit it, and rightfully so. As bad as NY is, there aren't many restrictions for an unrestricted permit holder aside from what is the normal restricted areas, schools, courts, etc.

BTW, nice topic.

FNMatt
May 2, 2011, 08:36 AM
I'm inclined to agree with Owen (again!). I think ADA and protected classes in businesses are unjust infringements on property owner rights. If someone wants to open KKK grocery in my town, go ahead. I won't shop there and won't associate with the owners, and if some sort of community demonstration against the store takes place, i'd probably contribute as well.

As far as carrying into the store and waiting to be asked to leave, I think it shows poor respect for the property owner and is bad form. That would be the same as walking into your store and running your mouth until asked the leave, because its your 1st amendment right and its not trespassing until you refuse to leave. But it's definitely rude and shows little class.

I think some of you guys really throw "need" around a little carelessly. There are few cases were, with proper planning and diligence, you would "need" to carry into a store to buy milk or gas. Barring being stranded in the desert with a dry tank, you can always keep your fuel above half tank and fuel up in the morning at a gun friendly establishment. But i guess maybe thats just me...

Gregaw
May 2, 2011, 08:57 AM
I know a guy that runs a store that also happens to sell alcohol. His store is posted because the insurance company gave him a discount. So, he was looking at the operating cost and how lowering it would effect his family.

Yet another reason why I have no problem carrying in his business. He's posted this as a CYA measure, and I can't argue with his logic or blame him for it. But now that he's covered his behind, I'll keep my piece on to cover my own. ;)

(It is legal here in Iowa. Our signs carry no weight of law.)

heeler
May 2, 2011, 09:14 AM
I only read the first page of this thread but as far as the expression concealed means concealed goes the best I can answer is Texas is not an open carry state and they flat out want your gun concealed and if you deliberately show your gun in a normal setting you will be arrested and most likely lose your right to carry for a very long time.
I have doubts this open carry thing will be approved here due to changes in the state such as demographics,politics,etc.
But the state has also made it clear that businesses that dont want concealed handguns in their establishment must put up signage known as the 30.06 sign and it must be very specific in letter size, contrast,and in English and Spanish to be binding.
I avoid those places as much as possible.
However property owners that hang those signs such as those known as gun busters which carry zero weight legally can just go pound sand as far as I am concerned.
So being concealed means concealed it's best that you keep your business of carrying to yourself and no one else should know any better.

TexasRifleman
May 2, 2011, 09:20 AM
I'm inclined to agree with Owen (again!). I think ADA and protected classes in businesses are unjust infringements on property owner rights. If someone wants to open KKK grocery in my town, go ahead. I won't shop there and won't associate with the owners, and if some sort of community demonstration against the store takes place, i'd probably contribute as well.

I agree too but that ship has long sailed. We DO have these laws in place and they are NOT going anywhere, they've been upheld by the courts time and time again.

So, arguing that there should be no restrictions on private property at all is a waste of time. Since there ARE some restrictions the argument then becomes, do gun owners have a case to argue they fit into one of the "special" protected classes like race, sexual preference, handicap, etc. and if gun owners DO have that argument on their side SHOULD we be fighting to have guns declared a "civil right"?

Not sure how I feel about that one.

MtnSpur
May 2, 2011, 09:22 AM
I was given a card when I took my original CHL course many years ago that had the Red Circle w/Stripe through a gun = Same Symbol through a $ sign. Underneath: "We have noticed your sign and are going to respect your wishes by shopping elsewhere". On the back of the card:
"AS A TEXAS CHL LICENSE HOLDER I:
-Have no felony convictions - Lifetime
-No class A or B Misdemeanors within the last 5 years
-Passed both state and federal fingerprint and Background checks
-No Delinquent conduct within the past 10 years
-Not delinquent in Child Support, Student Loans or State/Local taxes
-HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT YOUR OTHER CUSTOMERS?"

Our instructor said if you need more cards to please let him know and he would supply as many as we desired.

We all have choices and being Americans are free to exercise them within the law (even when some laws infringe on our right to bear arms in certain places). Change? Yes we need more change but small steps forward are better than standing still. All this IMHO.

ForumSurfer
May 2, 2011, 09:23 AM
In which case, it shouldn't be the business owner that gets the boycott, but rather, the insurance company that makes such decisions.

Yes, but we gun owners will just boycott the business because we won't know about the back-story. Instead, we'll see "No Weapons" and move on.

Myself, I will carry everywhere that I legally can. I have no "moral" feelings regarding the matter. In NC, a simple "no conceal carry" sign will suffice. I wish we were more like Texas and required proper signage. Many businesses here post signs at the door, but they are tiny and not really noticeable.

If we were like Texas, I would carry if someone posted improper signage. They have the right to exercise their right should they do it properly. If they make a halfhearted attempt and post improper signage, that is their problem.

FNMatt
May 2, 2011, 09:28 AM
I agree too but that ship has long sailed. We DO have these laws in place and they are NOT going anywhere, they've been upheld by the courts time and time again.

So, arguing that there should be no restrictions on private property at all is a waste of time. Since there ARE some restrictions the argument then becomes, do gun owners have a case to argue they fit into one of the "special" protected classes like race, sexual preference, handicap, etc. and if gun owners DO have that argument on their side SHOULD we be fighting to have guns declared a "civil right"?

Not sure how I feel about that one.
If this were so, the 2nd amendment would be the only one protected in other people's businesses. Currently, people cannot say what they want in a store, should that be protected as well? Many bars and nightclubs perform pat downs and use metal detectors. Should we be protected from this search via the 4th amendment? Rights are different than a protected class, because you can't stop being handicap or a certain race, but you can waive your rights if you feel so inclined. Whether or not you do so if your choice, but coming into someone's store armed against their will seems like a violation of their property rights that should not occur, no matter how lame their reasons are for not allowing firearms.

Gregaw
May 2, 2011, 10:33 AM
Currently, people cannot say what they want in a store, should that be protected as well?

But people can think whatever they want because no one knows and it doesn't affect anyone else around them. Or do you curve your thoughts based on a business owners signed wishes?

You can have a sign that says "No Profanity", and it is enforcable because if someone starts spewing profanities you can point to the sign and ask them to leave. But what if they just think the profanities, or mumble them so quietly no one can hear? A sign that said "no thinking, mumbling or spewing profanity" would be unenforcable.

Along the same lines a sign (with no weight of law) that bans guns can be enforced to the fullest exent that the business owner is able to do so. He can put up metal detectors and deny entry to anyone he wants. I'm fine with that. If he wants to have a sign and only enforce if he happens to notice someone carrying, fine, ask me to leave if I'm printing. I'll go quietly. :) If he wants a sign to help drop his insurance rate and not enforce it, that's fine with me too. It's up to the owner to enforce any rule they make up.

I may take some risks carrying there. Like he asks me to leave and I'm publicly humiliated. :) Or he calls the police before asking me to leave and I have to explain to them the law or that he never asked me to leave. But those are risks I'm willing to live with.

Owen Sparks
May 2, 2011, 11:52 AM
Traditional property rights are really a “bundle of rights” which includes:

1. The right to any benefit from the property (rent, mining etc.).
2. The right to use the property.
3. A right to transfer or sell the property.
4. The right to exclude others from the property.

Evidently enough people no longer understand the concept of yours and mine that they only think in terms of "we, us and ours". This collective view of private property as “open to the public” is the tip of a huge wedge because it removes certain items from that bundle such as the right to use your property as you see fit (zoning, home owners associations etc.) or the right to exclude others as in this case, those carrying loaded guns.

Removing any one of these rights is a big step towards socialism as there are only 4.

Gregaw
May 2, 2011, 12:01 PM
So you don't think there's any responsibility for the property owner to be able or willing to enforce the rules they make?

I think most business owners consider certain areas of their property "open to the public" during their busininess hours.

Sam1911
May 2, 2011, 12:03 PM
Wow, I'm gone for 3 days and miss the latest version of this argument? Shock! :D

My gun, concealed on my person, is of no interest nor concern to anyone who means me no harm. In my state the law says I may go anywhere armed that I may go unarmed, with a very few more or less well-defined exceptions. Businesses or property bearing a "no guns" sign or where I have reason to believe the owner doesn't like guns or whatnot are not on that very short list.

I follow the law.

MachIVshooter
May 2, 2011, 12:20 PM
If I asked a person to not perform a certain action on my property I would expect them to stop or leave. It is just basic common courtesy to return that respect to other property owners

No one is debating private property rights. In other threads, I think we've almost unanimously agreed that if a homeowner or renter asks that no one bring weapons into the dwelling, we abide.

But as I have to keep reiterating here, private property that is open to the public is not the same as private property with respect to what you can and can't do, allow, etc.

Any part of a business that is open to the public has to reasonably accomodate that public. That means handicapped access and no discrimination, among other things. Areas that are "employees only" can be more limited, depending on the staff. They also do not have to accomodate the public outside of business hours.

Aside from that, the ethics side is that CCW does not conflict with business as usual. Open carry, different story. Openly displayed firearms may make other customers uncomfortable, and then you are interfering with the owners ability to conduct business and earn money. But concealed does not, and the only time anyone would even know about it is if another individual decides to endanger that CCW holder, in which event the armed citizen is, at the very least, not the problem. He/she could very well turn out to be the savior under those circumstances.

Owen Sparks
May 2, 2011, 12:30 PM
Some of you seem to be under the impression that your right to protect yourself overrides a business owner’s right to control what goes on on his property. I suggest you take a quick look at this article by economist Walter Williams about how a civilized society settles conflicting harms through property rights.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/WhoMayHarmWhom.htm

MachIVshooter
May 2, 2011, 01:10 PM
Some of you seem to be under the impression that your right to protect yourself overrides a business owner’s right to control what goes on on his property. I suggest you take a quick look at this article by economist Walter Williams about how a civilized society settles conflicting harms through property rights.

What the brilliant Mr. Williams is talking about there is on the other side of the equation. But, in keeping with his theme, if that bar's music and smoke permiates the confines of that business and bothers adjacent businesses or residences, they would be exceeding their property rights.

But since we have already covered the fact that CCW against the wishes of a business owner does not harm anyone (or affect them in any other way), this article is really irrelevant anyway. The only possible effect on the business or other patrons of carrying under these circumstances is contingent on the violent acts of another person, which I already covered in my last post

Owen Sparks
May 2, 2011, 02:15 PM
Suppose you owned a bar, sports stadium or some other crowded venue and decided that someone using a firearm in self defense posed a grave threat to bystanders? After all, not every shot hits the target and those that do hit sometimes pass through.

shooter429
May 2, 2011, 02:27 PM
Just because a place is not publicly owned, does not mean it is not open to the public. If it reasonably appears to be so, I will carry there whenever I please regardless of any silly signs. Our right to life, liberty and property do not end at a store entrance. They cannot say "no blacks" or "we dont serve gays" "No service animals" or "you people cannot rent from us." My right to bear arms is as fundamental as my right to breath. They could hang a sign saying "no breathing" in the store, but contrary to their wishes, I would persist. A private residence is a different matter as I respect the owners and their wishes. I hope this helps clarify the point. That having been said, I am very careful not to flash or print for many reasons both tactical and social. If they wanna try to search me, well they won't get far.

Shooter429

Owen Sparks
May 2, 2011, 02:33 PM
What about your right to eat and provide food for your children? Would that mean that you have a right steal food from "publicly owned" places?

of course not. Your rights end at the door. If you go to the store you must follow the rules and pay for your food. You may have to follow other rules like wearing a shirt or leaving your pistol outside.

MachIVshooter
May 2, 2011, 03:20 PM
Suppose you owned a bar, sports stadium or some other crowded venue and decided that someone using a firearm in self defense posed a grave threat to bystanders? After all, not every shot hits the target and those that do hit sometimes pass through.

Here we arrive at the philisophical junction that the anti's love to dance around. So because there may be a risk to others, I should not be capable of defending myself? My assailant should be able to attack me carte blanch, even kill me, because defending myself might risk other's safety? Who's lives are worth more? Who decides?

On the flip side of that is any instance like the Colorado Springs church, in which an armed citizen in a crowded place saved lives. I submit that an armed citizen who has to use his or her weapon is more likely to be saving innocent people than hurting them, regardless of venue.

As far as I'm concerned, no one has the authority to limit my ability to defend myself unless they are able to provide a reasonably secure environment. For a place of public accomodation, that means effective screening (metal detectors) and armed security to deal with threats. If a store has both of those, I will disarm before entering. If not, screw them. Once again, my god given human right to defend myself supersedes their public private business property rights.

By going out in public, you accept certain risks. There is no way to avoid that, and your above mentioned reasoning that a business owner might want to prohibit firearms is quite reminiscent of the anti's screaming "the streets will turn red with blood" whenever CCW or RTC legislation is passed.

What about your right to eat and provide food for your children? Would that mean that you have a right steal food from "publicly owned" places?

That's an entirely different argument. Once again, CCW does not hurt anyone who doesn't try to hurt me first. Stealing food hurts the store economically. Arguing whether a starving man and his family have more right to live more than a store has a right to be properly compensated for their merchandise is a different argument for a different forum. It's also not a realistic scenaro in the United States. People simply don't starve to death in this country, unless they are completely unwilling to seek help from the myriad government and private organizations that exist solely for that purpose.

Loosedhorse
May 2, 2011, 03:24 PM
Suppose you owned a bar, sports stadium or some other crowded venue and decided that someone using a firearm in self defense posed a grave threat to bystanders?
Well, then: an attacked person just has to take his beating, or killing, without defending himself. It's for the good of the other patrons, after all.

Actually, I hope such a bar owner does post a "No guns allowed" sign. What that most likely will accomplish is that all folks legally carrying will leave and drink elsewhere, leaving him with all those carrying illegally.

Nice bar. :uhoh:
The right to exclude others from the property
As I said, carrying a gun is a basic civil right. To the extent shop- or bar-owners should be able to exclude others from their property for exercising basic civil rights (being Democrat, being Episcopalian, etc.), they should also be able to exclude legal gun carriers. That doesn't prevent ethical open defiance and protest against any such policy. In some (rare, exceptional) cases, it may not prevent ethical secretive carry in violation of the owner's policy.

Owen Sparks
May 2, 2011, 03:52 PM
You do not HAVE to go into a bar or a sporting event. If you do you must respect the owners wishes and abide by the rules.

We voluntarily give up rights all the time on private property.
You might argue that everyone has a right not to be punched in the face, but under certain circumstances like choosing to participate in a boxing match, you must give up these rights. You do not HAVE to box either; you have a free choice to participate and follow the rules when you step in the ring or to take up a tamer sport like shooting if you don’t like being punched.

Stay out of the bar if you don’t like breathing smoke or hearing loud music, stay out of my church if you don’t want to wear a shirt and stay out of property posted with NO GUNS signs if you wish to carry concealed.

Single Action Six
May 2, 2011, 03:58 PM
In some cases yes.

However, in some cases it is a matter of liability or operating costs. In that case the owner is looking after the sustainability of his (and his employee's) income source. It isn't about the individual, it is about the ripple effect of what happens to that person and those family members and employees that rely on them.

I know a guy that runs a store that also happens to sell alcohol. His store is posted because the insurance company gave him a discount. So, he was looking at the operating cost and how lowering it would effect his family.

That isn't a narcissistic decision. He is using that money to pay a tutor to help his kid that has dyslexia learn to manage the problem and catch up in school.

..I thought about the following.

Is that same owner thinking about the liability and operating costs occurred (via a customer lawsuit against the store owner that was perpetuated by a BG occurrence), if/when something happened to that customer because the customer wasn't able to legally defend themselves (because of having to leave their sidearm some other place).. or no store security was available to help protect the customers?

Single Action Six

hermannr
May 2, 2011, 04:11 PM
To the OP: If there was a "no concealed weapons" sign on the door, I would comply...I would just open carry if I really wanted something that store had.:evil: (I mostly open carry anyway, it is hard to conceal a 6" Colt revolver.)

If the manager complained about the open carry I would explain that it was not concealed, therefore I was complying with his/her request, however If he did not want to sell to legal gun owners/carriers, I would be happy to not shop there, I sure his competitors would appreciate my business.

BTW: we do not have that problem in Okanogan County, I don't think there is a single store that has that kind of signage here.

MikeNice
May 2, 2011, 04:19 PM
SAS, I don't know where you live but, in NC the property owner is not responsible for the actions of a criminal unless he facilitates them. In other words he has to lawfully encourae the criminal to take action before he is liable on a personal level.

At least that is my understanding.

I can see the issue possibly arising if you have a sole proprietorship or partnership. However, every one I know has found a way to incorporate to limit all (or the vast majority) of their personal liability.

Paying for a victim in store is a moot point nearly every where. You getting shot in a person's business is a matter for you and their insurance at best.

Owen Sparks
May 2, 2011, 04:20 PM
Never seen one in my town either.

Grey_Mana
May 2, 2011, 04:21 PM
If you hold the position that a store owner's wishes should be respected, do you extend that thinking to cops? Do you hold that a cop serving a warrant should disarm? What about a cop without a warrant who has some legitimate work-related reason to enter a store with a NO GUN sign?

State constitutions are all about restricting government authority. If the storeowner has a 'right' to a legal-gun free zone (not to be confused with a gun free zone, which is imaginary), then that right would logically apply to civil servants.

TexasRifleman
May 2, 2011, 04:26 PM
If you hold the position that a store owner's wishes should be respected, do you extend that thinking to cops? Do you hold that a cop serving a warrant should disarm? What about a cop without a warrant who has some legitimate work-related reason to enter a store with a NO GUN sign?


I like where you are headed with this. Good point again showing that there are ALWAYS exceptions to "rights". Fire in a theater etc.... Those arguing that these rights are 100% and inviolable will have a hard time with this one. There simply has to be some flexibility.

This gets us back to the original question which was "Do you have a moral problem with carrying somewhere with a no guns sign". This example of the cop is a good one and what it means is that we are assuming the property owner has SOME room to allow for the carrying of guns, surely he doesn't expect LE to not enter if he's being robbed right?

So, now as private citizens were playing a guessing game trying to figure out what the property owner means with his sign. Does a "gun buster" sign REALLY mean no guns at all? Probably not. He is probably OK with cops. And, if I assume that if he's OK with a cop he would be OK with me as well having passed as much of a background check as most cops. Maybe what he really means to ban is unlawful carry of firearms? Is it morally acceptable of me to make those assumptions? I believe it is. If I come to the conclusion that he means to ban only unlawfully carried guns then I am not violating his property rights if I go armed legally.

Something to think about anyway.

A personal example:

I have a friend who owns several tanning salons in Texas. He is a concealed handgun carrier. His stores do not carry the legally binding 30.06 sign required by Texas law, but they DO have the "gun buster" signs. I asked him about that, reminding him that they carried no legal weight. He told me he is well aware they carry no legal weight, they are merely to comfort some of his customers. So here's a property owner who is posting a no gun sign but doesn't care at all of someone actually brings a gun on his property. The sign doesn't by itself reflect the true beliefs of the property owner. That could be the case for many of these non legally binding signs so again if I carry there the property owners rights are intact. It's up to each of us to try to guess what the sign really means, it might not mean what it says.

Owen Sparks
May 2, 2011, 04:35 PM
We had an incident in my town where an off duty cop was asked not to wear his pistol into a local health club. He refused and his membership was revoked. It would have been different if he was there on official police business to answer a call but he wasn’t. He was just swaggering around with it in the locker room to prove that the rules did not apply to him. After being asked repeatedly to leave it in the car just like all the other members, he refused to comply and was ejected and the balance of his dues refunded.

MachIVshooter
May 2, 2011, 05:20 PM
You do not HAVE to go into a bar or a sporting event.

Correct. And I will typically avoid places that post no guns signs as a matter of not wanting to offer financial support to a place that I disagree with on a fundamental level. But when my family wants to get together for dinner somewhere, I'm not going to stay home or ask that they choose another venue, and I'm not going to disarm and limit my ability to protect them. I'm going to go, I'm going to carry, I'm not going to drink, and we're all going to have a good time, eat some food, pay and leave. And unless a violent criminal comes in and threatens me or mine, the staff/owner will be none the wiser and completely unaffected by my decision. This is why I have no moral qualms about doing so.


Stay out of the bar if you don’t like breathing smoke or hearing loud music, stay out of my church if you don’t want to wear a shirt and stay out of property posted with NO GUNS signs if you wish to carry concealed.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the differences between these analogies you keep creating? Once more, the carrying of a concealed weapon does not affect anyone who does not try to attack the person carrying (or his family). Every other example you try to give does negatively impact one or more party just by being carried out.

If you were arguing against open carry, we'd have some common ground, because that may negatively impact patrons (unnerved by seeing the weapon) or the business (loosing money because patrons are bothered and leaving rather than buying). But this thread's title is "Concealed means concealed" That means NO ONE KNOWS.

Single Action Six
May 2, 2011, 05:25 PM
SAS, I don't know where you live but, in NC the property owner is not responsible for the actions of a criminal unless he facilitates them. In other words he has to lawfully encourae the criminal to take action before he is liable on a personal level.

At least that is my understanding.

I can see the issue possibly arising if you have a sole proprietorship or partnership. However, every one I know has found a way to incorporate to limit all (or the vast majority) of their personal liability.

Paying for a victim in store is a moot point nearly every where. You getting shot in a person's business is a matter for you and their insurance at best.

I looked up "facilitate" in a online dictionary.

fa·cil·i·tate

   [fuh-sil-i-teyt] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -tat·ed, -tat·ing.

1.to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.)
2.to assist the progress of (a person).

(Q.) Wouldn't having a "No Gun" sign fit into the above? The store owner is in fact making it easier and assisting in the progress of having the BG do his/her dirty deed much easier.

Now getting back to the money side of things, ie: "operating costs occurred".. a small fee of less than $50 and a small claims suit can occur. Look at the lost time and money incurred by the store owner to defend such a suit. If his/her lawyer's involved then it goes up into the "Thousands" of $$$$!

Now where does that leave the store owner if he/she's.. "Using that money to pay a tutor to help his kid that has dyslexia learn to manage the problem and catch up in school."

Another way to also look at it is this. You have two identical type stores a half mile apart (or just around the block). One has a sign, while the other doesn't. Now we have to take into account the money being lost through reduced or no additional sales with the "signed" store.

Even though the store owner is Anti-2A/CCW, one would think the extra money $$$ lost in sales would be enough to change their mind.. let alone knowing BG's don't follow the law anyways!

Single Action Six

gym
May 2, 2011, 05:55 PM
Facilitation is often used in court when conspiracy can't be proved, like in a mob trial. How do I know that, because it was used by a judge on a friend of mine and quicklly set aside during appeal. Judges cannot levy charges because the case can't get proved only the state or DA in federal cases. As far as signs go, we have been here before. It's an individual decision weather you obey them or not. I personally am usually in a hurry and don't stop to read signs.
No kidding, my wife always tells me ddn't you see that. Usually the answer is, see what. Conspiracy as you all know is hard to prove sometimes, without audio tapes. so it often unravells in a court of law. The problem usually starts when one guy says he did something illegal and his counterpart says he didn't. This scenario the guy who pled not guilty was out in 9 months with charges dropped, the guy who took the plea, did 5 years.
You can't choose where you were born but you can move. I moved, one of those guys pictures sits on my desk, he was gunned down at a traffic light in his new 928 Porshe, waiting for the light to change, closed coffin. The other went on to become an actor, and appeared in a bunch of those Soprano type shows, things aren't what they appear.
I don't let anyone hold my life in their hands, I grew up that way, whatever happens I want the last word, not some bum with a gun pointed at me again.
He doesn't get that privalidge. If a store owner want's to walk next to me with a weapon while I shop, fine, otherwise tough luck, you know what you can do with your sign.

jiminhobesound
May 2, 2011, 08:10 PM
I have a problem with morality versus constitutional rights that are based on religious based concepts. I am religious and I follow the bible. I follow the constitution that tells me I cannot be denied certain actions in public places. What is the morality problem with a concealed weapon that is not seen and does not offend the store owner? If there are weapon detectors that presents a practical problem of revealing the concealed weapon. Why do we CCW folks have to be on the defensive. Just live your life as a free person.

Lex Luthier
May 2, 2011, 08:59 PM
@jiminhobesound: I just met with our pastor today and revealed to him that I have a CCL and may or may not be carrying on any given Sunday morning. He was a little shocked at first. We should follow Jesus, and we should not only know our rights, but help our brothers and sisters understand them.

Loosedhorse
May 2, 2011, 09:51 PM
Do you hold that a cop serving a warrant should disarm?
This is not at all a valid comparison. An LEO with a search warrant is entering your premises by force--legal force, but force. Try to stop him for any reason.

On the other hand, let's say the officer comes to the door, says there was a disturbance outside last night, and can he come in and talk. "Not with that gun you can't." Perfectly within your rights.
surely he doesn't expect LE to not enter if he's being robbed right?
Under the theory of implied consent or exigent circumstances? In either case, it doesn't prevent the owner from refusing the LEO entrance under other circumstances.
He told me he is well aware they carry no legal weight, they are merely to comfort some of his customers.
I like that story. But it doesn't mean that every "no guns" sign, because of this one example, may be ethically ignored.

Neverwinter
May 2, 2011, 10:28 PM
Well, then: an attacked person just has to take his beating, or killing, without defending himself. It's for the good of the other patrons, after all.
Incorrect. It's for the good of the business owner, who has received a lower insurance rate for posting the sign. And occasionally the family of the business owner.

What about your right to eat and provide food for your children? Would that mean that you have a right steal food from "publicly owned" places?

of course not. Your rights end at the door. If you go to the store you must follow the rules and pay for your food. You may have to follow other rules like wearing a shirt or leaving your pistol outside.
That's not the rules they're following by paying for their food, it's the law. As much as you would prefer otherwise, your rules are only yours. Rules for everyone are the law.

Owen Sparks
May 2, 2011, 11:54 PM
Rules for everyone are the law.

And in most states the law backs NO GUNS signs on private property.

9MMare
May 3, 2011, 12:36 AM
Just by making a few lifestyle adjustments people can still ensure they carry more than 90% of the time. Carrying a back up non lethal weapon can help with the other 10% of the time. A small flashlight/stun gun combo, mace, and/or pocket knife can aid in stopping an attack or fighting your way back to the gun.

I just don't find a way to justify carrying where I'm asked not to by a property owner. I've also taken the time to write the government and several businesses lobbying them to change certain policies regarding carry. I believe we should work torwards opening up areas that have been denied to us.

I also carry OC spray and a knife, I agree that a gun isnt and shouldnt be our only tool for self-defense.

And I do not criticize your personal ethics at all. You feel strongly and follow up on your beliefs.

9MMare
May 3, 2011, 12:51 AM
As far as carrying into the store and waiting to be asked to leave, I think it shows poor respect for the property owner and is bad form. That would be the same as walking into your store and running your mouth until asked the leave, because its your 1st amendment right and its not trespassing until you refuse to leave. But it's definitely rude and shows little class.

...

In my case, I'm not waiting to be asked to leave....that business owner will never know that I am carrying. We're right back to the original title/post..."Concealed means concealed." Think about this for a minute...why exactly do you think we have to 'carry concealed?' So that we dont frighten the public in general? If not for that, we could all be open carrying. (And some can and do...it depends on many factors and locations). I think it's a sad state of affairs that the general public is scared of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

My weapon...no matter which one (because I'll also have pepper spray and a knife) will not accidentally affect anyone else in that establishment. And not being a jerk, I dont normally run my mouth just for my own ego. (However the Constitution doesnt pass judgement on people's personalities luckily...you can be a jerk and carry a gun or be insulting to others...)

And if you want to pass your judgement on other people who choose self-defense for the sake of themselves and their families...feel free. That is also your right.

9MMare
May 3, 2011, 01:04 AM
If this were so, the 2nd amendment would be the only one protected in other people's businesses. Currently, people cannot say what they want in a store, should that be protected as well? Many bars and nightclubs perform pat downs and use metal detectors. Should we be protected from this search via the 4th amendment? Rights are different than a protected class, because you can't stop being handicap or a certain race, but you can waive your rights if you feel so inclined. Whether or not you do so if your choice, but coming into someone's store armed against their will seems like a violation of their property rights that should not occur, no matter how lame their reasons are for not allowing firearms.

People CAN say whatever they want in a place of business. And the business owner can ask them to leave if he objects. however he has no control over your thoughts and cannot stop you from thinking them. Holding your tongue doesnt really mean much if you still think in a manner that the business owner would find objectionable...however **he doesnt know**.

Again, 'concealed means concealed.'

You are making this about US, the carriers, and our 'ethics.' It's also about the business owners. Their choice to post signs. And also the fact that they have no idea what we are 'thinking' nor what we are carrying.


(btw, I also know that they dont always have a choice about the signs, due to insurance or franchising or whatever. So you dont really know if they object or not).

9MMare
May 3, 2011, 01:12 AM
Some of you seem to be under the impression that your right to protect yourself overrides a business owner’s right to control what goes on on his property. I suggest you take a quick look at this article by economist Walter Williams about how a civilized society settles conflicting harms through property rights.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/WhoMayHarmWhom.htm

Oh, I thought we were talking about 'ethics'. Unfortunately, that is often completely different from the law. Many unethical things are legal, and many laws support unethical behavior. (And business laws especially come to mind).

However, the LAW in my state about posted stores says that I'm not breaking the law unless I am asked to leave and dont. And it's not about guns, it's about trespassing which means it could be for a variety of offenses, like no shirt or no shoes or profanity......

The business owner is free to ask you to leave if he has reason. "Conceals means concealed' is about not giving him a reason.

9MMare
May 3, 2011, 01:27 AM
And in most states the law backs NO GUNS signs on private property.

That's incorrect. In many states, including WA, you are not violating ANY state or other law by carrying in a posted business. The signs carry no weight of the law. They are a business owner's preference or requirement.

However if you are asked to leave that business and do not, THEN you are in violation of trespassing laws.

btw, I originally felt almost the opposite of my current position on this issue. Many discussions here and elsewhere offered more information and I changed my stance.

Ironclad
May 3, 2011, 01:57 AM
That how it is in Missouri also. You have to be asked to leave, and if you don't and they call the police, you can get a $100 fine. I don't know whether you could consider these signs to have the force of law or not. Seems like a store can ask you to leave whenever they want, for any reason, and you're in roughly the same boat, sign or not.

Interestingly the same deal applies for any place that prohibits carrying, even courts and airports and such, unless I'm reading it wrong. I always assumed if you got caught carrying in an airport or government building they would do more than just ask you to leave.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000107.HTM

9MMare
May 3, 2011, 02:02 AM
That how it is in Missouri also. You have to be asked to leave, and if you don't and they call the police, you can get a $100 fine. I don't know whether you could consider these signs to have the force of law or not. Seems like a store can ask you to leave whenever they want, for any reason, and you're in roughly the same boat, sign or not.

Interestingly the same deal applies for any place that prohibits carrying, even courts and airports and such, unless I'm reading it wrong. I always assumed if you got caught carrying in an airport or government building they would do more than just ask you to leave.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000107.HTM

No, there are some states that issue official signs and if you ignore those, you are in violation of the law and can be arrested. And some states have both...official state signs and then owners also post signs that are not specifically under that/those statutes and are do not carry the wt of the law.

And yes, certain areas, like federal property....you will get more than asked to leave.

MikeNice
May 3, 2011, 03:21 AM
SAS,
To be considerred willfully encouraging an action the owner would - pretty much - have to say "hey perform said action against this person." A sign is not seen as facilitating because you can judge the risk and not enter the store. By entering the store you acknowledge that you are accepting that risk.

You might have a suit against the owner's insurance company, but it would be tough to near impossible.

My friend isn't worried about the loss of sales because he serves a specific niche. There are other stores, but none in direct competition.

There would be no case and most likely it would be dismissed before any trial. The loss of time would be negligble as would the lawyers fees. It would probably cost about $750 total. A lot for average people but not devestating.

Just for the record the gentleman in question is not anti-gun. He does own guns and even competes from time to time. He made a decision based on economics for his family.

I am far from anti-gun. However, I ask some people not to carry in my car or on my property. I know they are sloppy when handling guns. They have had multiple negligent discharges. I'm not anti-gun, but I am pro family safety. Not every denial of the ability to carry is based on some hatred of guns.

MikeNice
May 3, 2011, 03:35 AM
I also carry OC spray and a knife, I agree that a gun isnt and shouldnt be our only tool for self-defense.

And I do not criticize your personal ethics at all. You feel strongly and follow up on your beliefs.

I hope I haven't come across as overly judgemental. It might be a little late with my choice of wording in the initial response. I just get tired of people saying, "I don't care what you want, this is what I want."

As a whole I think we have become to self centered as a society. Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching socialism. I just think a little more respect of others would get us a lot farther.

I wouldn't let a choice like this one change my opinion of some one though. I understand the feeling of working late and having to run in to a store at 03:30 to get milk for the kid. It can be creepy and scary.

What I don't understand is people saying something like, I was out for a walk and saw this used book store that looked cool so... To me that is just disrespectful and rude. That isn't a matter of importance. That is a matter of convenience.

We can all be rude and disrespectful sometimes though.

9MMare
May 3, 2011, 03:45 AM
Just as additional perspective on my position Mike Nice, I am also a landlord, with 1 rental unit on my property. I have indeed had to confront and consider my position on this issue. I had to look at it from both sides...landlord and tenant.

And while I see risks and possible problems, I try to make my decisions based on my signature: "Freedom doesnt mean safe, it means free."

WHich to me means, we all need to take as much responsibility as we can for our own safety and opportunities, and not look to the govt or other people for those things.

For me, the decision is made before I ever approach the store. It's not about convenience. It's about my position on the issue, carefully considered...and yes, possibly controversial. And obviously, not the same as that of those particular business owners.:uhoh:

MikeNice
May 3, 2011, 03:46 AM
It's up to each of us to try to guess what the sign really means, it might not mean what it says.


No, it is not a game of guess and see. You know one particular person who has done that. In that case you know the person's wishes. You know you aren't violating what they truly want. In other cases you do not know the owner, so you are supposed to take them at their word.

It isn't a matter of one guy did it so that must be what another guy is doing. That is faulty logic when applied on a case by case basis. It is simply trying to justify your actions in your mind.

Just be honest. Say "this is what I want to do, and I'm going to think this way because it allows the actions I want to take."

You can not justify it. If somebody asks you to not do something on their property, you don't. A cop can't carry on your property if you tell him not to. The exception is if he is excetuting his duty. Even then there are exceptions. A cop can be told to leave his gun outside at a mental ward. Even though there is elevated danger the danger is multiplied if he has a loaded weapon. So, he must empty his gun and lock it.

If a cop comes on my property without a warant I can tell him to disarm or leave. If he has a warant he can be armed because he is placing himself in situation that may endanger his life. He can not reasonably assume the person he is serving has no gun. So, he must be able to meet that threat.

You might think that isn't fair, but it is the way things work. Cops have special powers and responsibilities bestowed upon them by the state. They are tasked with dealing with the dregs of society so that guys like us don't have to rely on our guns often or ever.

9MMare
May 3, 2011, 03:58 AM
Just be honest. Say "this is what I want to do, and I'm going to think this way because it allows the actions I want to take."

You can not justify it. If somebody asks you to not do something on their property, you don't. .

But Mike, and I dont mean to attack you here, that is an oversimplification and even if true for some, is not for others. Others of us do this according to our beliefs. As I said above, I dont make this decision based on a store by store basis, I've considered my position and it's the same no matter how convenient or inconvenient.

And re: the 2nd sentence I quoted....that is just not reality. For sooooo many reasons and situations. Perspective as both a property owner and as a visitor/customer. Most times it's not done in a property owner's presence, but it's done all the same. Take smoking as an example.

MikeNice
May 3, 2011, 04:14 AM
9mmare, that first quoted part was a little more direct and honestly not aimed at you. It was meant for the poster that said because he knows one store owner he can "assume"
what he wants about others. That is a logical fallacy. It is a way of twisting the matter to fit what makes that person comfortable.

I understand that for you it is a strong belief. I do not question that.

As for the second sentence. I don't smoke if it is posted no smoking. I try to respect the owner's wishes. I've had a bar owner tell me he didn't care that the state had banned smoking in establishments like his. He encouraged people to smoke all they wanted inside. So, I smoked in his bar. The owner didn't object and every one there was aware of the consequences of being there. No one was coerced or harmed, so I had no problem. (I'm much more of a social libertarian than my responses in this thread would suggest.)

I feel that we should focus more on the government over reach than the owners. We should be pushing out elected officials to do away with idiot laws that limit what a person can do with their property and life. I also think we need to back off on some of the restrictions of guns.

However, if the property owner posts a sign saying not to do something, I try my hardest to refrain. If I can't refrain I usually leave. I give them the respect they deserve and enjoy (or protect) my self elsewhere.

M-Cameron
May 3, 2011, 07:07 AM
now i have an interesting question.........

now i think we all would agree that if you were going into someones private residence, and they did not want guns in the house........we would honor their wishes.........right?

so what would you do if you had to go into a small mom-n-pop shop, possibly run out of their garage, or a part of their house, and they had a "no guns allowed" sign........would you honor their wishes?

Sam1911
May 3, 2011, 07:35 AM
now i have an interesting question.........

now i think we all would agree that if you were going into someones private residence, and they did not want guns in the house........we would honor their wishes.........right?

so what would you do if you had to go into a small mom-n-pop shop, possibly run out of their garage, or a part of their house, and they had a "no guns allowed" sign........would you honor their wishes?

In both instances I would not open carry and would, beyond that, scrupulously follow the law.

x1wildone
May 3, 2011, 11:55 AM
If the sign says as OP stated no concealed carry weapons.
Then just open carry.

Rail Driver
May 3, 2011, 12:02 PM
What about your right to eat and provide food for your children? Would that mean that you have a right steal food from "publicly owned" places?

I think you're a bit confused. Eating and feeding your family are VERY different than right to carry. You don't have to get a permit and a background check to go buy a loaf of bread. Firearms and their carry and possession are regulated (however illegally) and also (in most places) the signs prohibiting carry do not carry the force of law. Where they do not, I feel no compunctions about carrying. Where the signs do hold force of law, I'll either pass the place by, or if I must visit, I'll leave the pistol locked in the car.

As far as your stealing scenario, the answer is no, nothing gives anyone the right to steal something that belongs to another, whether the place is publicly owned or not. Theft is NOT a constitutional right, Keeping and bearing arms is.

FNMatt
May 3, 2011, 12:20 PM
As far as the police example is concerned, a store owner could just as easily ask a police officer to disarm before entering just like any other customer. As far as warrants are concerned, not really the same case. The police do not need any permissions from the owner to execute a warrant, so the wish of the owner for the officers to be unarmed are just as worthless as their wish for the officer not to enter the building.

Some of you have mentioned that CC is not harming the business owner, and since they don't know, its not really a problem. However, its up to the business owner to decide what "harm" really is on their own property, no matter how absurd their reasoning. Additionally, carrying a CC does have very real implications for the business owner. They may prefer that, in the case of a robbery, no one is able to resist. While this victimizes the people of the store, the owner may believe that this will hopefully reduce the violence of the robbery. While this may seem idiotic to many, the business owner may feel this is the easiest way to prevent bloodshed, and if they are insured, who cares about the stolen till? If you ignored the business owner's wishes and concealed a firearm, then you suddenly have a reason to use your weapon, you are directly affecting that owner's right to manage their property. Even if their reason to not allow you to carry was completely absurd, say the owner thought that guns attracted evil spirits or pixies, its not our place to dismiss the owner's concerns on their own property. Again, the option to never enter the store exists in the first place...

MachIVshooter
May 3, 2011, 12:28 PM
so what would you do if you had to go into a small mom-n-pop shop, possibly run out of their garage, or a part of their house, and they had a "no guns allowed" sign........would you honor their wishes?

As the proprietor of a personal property based business that is open to the public, I touched on this in an earlier post (#43). Basically, any part of the property or residence that is dedicated to the business and intended to be accessible to the public during business hours has to abide by a different set of rules than the remainder of the property and residence. For me, that means that during business hours, I may have to tolerate things that I wouldn't ordinarily allow on my property, but those things are only permitted in the shop, office, one restroom and the parking area. My customers do not have carte blanche to go anywhere they want in my home and treat it like a waiting area, because is not. They also can't drive their car into my front yard, because it is separate from the business parking area.

shooter429
May 3, 2011, 01:01 PM
Owen, why do you set up straw men. You and I both know your analogy has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Stealing is a crime. And while eating is essential to life, stealing food from a store is not a fundamental right. However, being able to shop while maintaining one's inalienable rights is necessary. In this society, we value individual rights. Corporate interests can and must be superceeded by fundamental human rights. Laws don't go out the window because you enter a public facility. That is just silly. Troy

Owen Sparks
May 3, 2011, 04:08 PM
We seem to be going in circles here.

The Bill of Rights is a list of rights that THE GOVERNMENT is supposed to have no power to control. Thomas Jefferson said: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others". In other words, in a free society you should be able to do as you please right up to the point that it infringes upon the natural rights of someone else to do the same, and bringing an unwanted item onto someone else’s property against their stated wishes is an infringement, even if they don’t know about it, even if you think it is harmless.

I work event security from time to time and we don’t let people bring pistols in even though it is perfectly legal. Knives are allowed but the event organizers don’t want bullets flying in a crowded convention center for any reason. Part of my job is to enforce that and if people don't want to come in without their pistol, then they just can't come in.

We give up our natural rights all the time in exchange for things we want. You give up your liberty or a large portion of it for 8 hours a day in exchange for a paycheck. We give up the rights to some of our property whenever we buy something and sometimes we have to surrender some of our personal safety in exchange for being allowed on someone else’s property. That is how a free society works, through a series of mutually agreeable voluntary exchanges. To suggest that some third party (the government) should FORCE me to accommodate armed people against my wishes is a form of coercion.

Gregaw
May 3, 2011, 04:27 PM
I work event security from time to time and we don’t let people bring pistols in even though it is perfectly legal. Knives are allowed but the event organizers don’t want bullets flying in a crowded convention center for any reason. Part of my job is to enforce that and if people don't want to come in without their pistol, then they just can't come in.

I don't think anyone is arguing with their right to do this. I'm certainly not. If you take the time to enforce your rule then go for it. It's legal and fine for you to do so. But simply placing a sign doesn't ethically obligate me to follow it. (or legally in my state)

Sam1911
May 3, 2011, 04:51 PM
To suggest that some third party (the government) should FORCE me to accommodate armed people against my wishes is a form of coercion.
It doesn't. You may ask for compliance with a wish. You might get it. You may enforce compliance with a wish if you are willing to put the money and effort into doing so. And if you are willing to take the "P.R." hit attendant to your decision to put your friends/visitors/customers through your searches/frisks.

What you probably shouldn't do is ask for compliance and then believe that you will get it, just for the asking. Not from the law-abiding, whom you (should) have no reason to fear. Certainly not from the law-breaker who's intentions are less noble.

We seem to be going in circles here.
That is the usual result of this thread, which we have every two months or so on average.

Gregaw
May 3, 2011, 04:54 PM
That is the usual result of this thread, which we have every two months or so on average.

Perhaps, but not all of us pay close enough attention to catch very many of them. :)

Owen Sparks
May 3, 2011, 04:54 PM
But simply placing a sign doesn't ethically obligate me to follow it.

It does if it is a coindition of entering the property.

MachIVshooter
May 3, 2011, 06:39 PM
I work event security from time to time and we don’t let people bring pistols in even though it is perfectly legal. Knives are allowed but the event organizers don’t want bullets flying in a crowded convention center for any reason. Part of my job is to enforce that and if people don't want to come in without their pistol, then they just can't come in.

That's a whole 'nother ball-o-wax. None of us are talking about forcing our way through or circumventing active enforcement of a disarmament policy. Obviously, there's no ethics issue there, as active enforcement/screening negates the possibility of being able to enter with a firearm undetected.
As Sam 1911 said, if you're willing to enforce your rule, then you can expect compliance (though, as he also noted, you may alienate your customers).

But, once again, as I and so many others have pointed out, posting a rule (especially one without the law behind it) doesn't mean you'll get compliance, and it doesn't mean that people ignoring it are morally compromised.

Sam1911
May 3, 2011, 07:42 PM
But simply placing a sign doesn't ethically obligate me to follow it. It does if it is a coindition of entering the property.

Let's rephrase: Simply placing a sign doesn't physically obligate me -- or the robber entering in front of me or the rapist who came in behind me or the psychopath who's sitting in the parking lot trying to decide if "today's the day" -- to follow it.

It may -- in some cases -- legally obligate me to follow it...or it may not. But that's about the most conclusive thing you can say.

gym
May 3, 2011, 07:46 PM
We always end up like this, maybe we shoud have a "your going to do what you each see fit attitude" and be done with it. I don't condone taking a gun anyware my state or Federal law restricts it, other than that it becomes a matter of choice. If you want to deal with the choices then you do just that, either obey the proprieter or ignore it and if caught deal with it. I hear Bin Ladin had a sign "no guns on Seals past this point". on his gate.

Sam1911
May 3, 2011, 07:50 PM
We always end up like this, maybe we shoud have a "your going to do what you each see fit attitude" and be done with it.That's pretty much how it goes. I gave up on worrying about other people's morals or ethics a long time ago. As long as folks understand the law and have some idea of social consequences they may face for their actions, that's about the best we can hope for.

Lord Teapot
May 3, 2011, 07:50 PM
i think it's perfectly ok for me to ensure my personal safety in an area where less informed people think i should not ensure my personal safety.

jahwarrior
May 3, 2011, 08:00 PM
i carry everywhere i can carry legally. in PA, signs don't carry any legal weight behind them, so i routinely ignore them when i see them.

gym
May 3, 2011, 08:02 PM
They just feel they have that right, so we deal with it in our own way.

rstull85
May 3, 2011, 08:21 PM
I don't get why everybody gets so worked up about refusing to go anywhere that they cant carry. I have my CCW but I rarely carry. I am going to school so I cant carry there. I don't know what my employers stance on concealed carry is because I just started there, but I work for a bobcat rental company as a service technician so trying to pack a handgun would be a real pain. If my wife and I go out to eat I cant carry because I cant carry in to any place that serves alcohol. Am I going to quit going to applebees because I cant carry in there? No, I wont even take it to leave in the glove box because I might decide to have a beer with my meal.
As far as going into a friends home. Most of my friends are either pro 2A or carry themselves so no problem there. My wife's friends on the other hand are uncomfortable around guns. Sure you can say that concealed is concealed and if they see your CCW and get mad then you can leave and just look at it as they are not your friend anymore, but is it really worth it. Sure you can brag to your buddies that you told those scared uneducated people what was what and you wont be seeing them any more but your going to be sleeping on the couch for a while. I ask people that come into my home to keep there weapons concealed. If they decide that they cant do that then I have the right to ask them to put it in the car or leave.
If you don't want to go someplace that wont allow you to carry thats fine but don't get on hear and go off on a rant about it (like I just did). We all just need to use common sense and common courtesy, throwing a fit about not being able to carry someplace isn't going to help our cause. Sorry for the rant and if I offended anyone just putting my .02 out there.

burley
May 3, 2011, 11:52 PM
Where I live I see no ccw allowed signs at the lgs. The shop where I bought my ccw, ccw holster and took my state ccw test has one. There is also a No CCW sign at a range I sometimes visit. They even have a No Loaded Magazines sign and they charge by the hour. Granted, it's probably an insurance requirement. They don't say anything when I bring out 6 loaded AK magazines and get ready to shoot. Still, it is an interesting ethical delima.

gym
May 3, 2011, 11:53 PM
Like I said it's your business we keep telling some of you but it dosn't get through to you. It's a free country exercise your own judgement.
I can tell you that I had several occasions when If i didn't have my gun, I wouldn't be enjoying this forum. So you carry on with what you feel is the right thing to do.

9MMare
May 4, 2011, 12:08 AM
It does if it is a coindition of entering the property.

Only if you can enforce it. And you cannot without violating the (privacy) rights of the carrier.

If you want to search everyone that enters your business, good luck. And you'll stop lots more than people carrying guns! lol Just wait til you see what else they're carrying.

I follow the law. THe law in my state says that I can comply with that business owner's wishes (sign)...or not. That business owner can do nothing unless a) I screw up or b) he invades my right to privacy.

If neither of those things happens....he or she is none the wiser and not harmed by my actions. Not only that...he got my business...he benefits.

(Altho if given a choice, I choose businesses that are not posted)

wrs840
May 4, 2011, 12:36 AM
Suzanna Gratia Hupp solved my moral dilemma when she said "the biggest mistake I ever made..."

Neverwinter
May 4, 2011, 01:00 AM
But simply placing a sign doesn't ethically obligate me to follow it.
It does if it is a coindition of entering the property. Let's rephrase: Simply placing a sign doesn't physically obligate me -- or the robber entering in front of me or the rapist who came in behind me or the psychopath who's sitting in the parking lot trying to decide if "today's the day" -- to follow it.

It may -- in some cases -- legally obligate me to follow it...or it may not. But that's about the most conclusive thing you can say.
There is no ethical obligation to follow it if the preservation of life is placed above the preservation of property. In that case, the former supersedes the latter.

Loosedhorse
May 4, 2011, 08:21 AM
If there is nothing "forcing" you into that store--"We have the only food for hundreds of miles, right here!"--then you have a choice to remain armed outside, to disarm and enter...

Or dishonestly to enter armed. I get that some of you think that choosing optional dishonesty is ethical, but I don't. To each his own.

Sam1911
May 4, 2011, 08:40 AM
Or dishonestly to enter armed. I get that some of you think that choosing optional dishonesty is ethical, but I don't. To each his own.


As I said before, I don't tend to worry a lot or even think about other people's ethics or morals. There is legal and illegal. Then there are possible social consequences. Beyond that, the personal demons each person has to struggle with within themselves are beyond my ability to control, change, or even fully understand.

Dilige, et quod vis fac.

MachIVshooter
May 4, 2011, 11:40 AM
Or dishonestly to enter armed. I get that some of you think that choosing optional dishonesty is ethical, but I don't. To each his own.

So, by extension, we can deduce that you believe in being 100% honest and forthcoming, no matter the potential consequences, and even when keeping things to yourself hurts no one else?

If a police officer tells you that he clocked you at 43 in a 35, but you know you were actually doing 51, do you tell him and risk the bigger ticket? Because, after all, you're being dishonest if you don't. It's not like telling him the truth will help him, and it may hurt you, but at least your not choosing "optional dishonesty".............

Me? Just as CCW against a silly sign's policy doesn't bother me, my moral compass doesn't spin wildly if I keep my mouth shut and accept the smaller ticket.

I think morality can be defined similarly. If something you do benefits you or others and negatively impacts no one, what's the problem?

Owen Sparks
May 4, 2011, 12:21 PM
I went somewhere on business the other day and a big sign on the door said:

METAL DETECTORS IN USE.
ALL PERSONS ENTERING THIS PROPERTY ARE SUBJECT TO SEARCH.

So I turned around and took my Emerson back to my car before I went in.
I had a choice, leave my weapons outside and make the sales call or to not go in. I chose the latter.

MachIVshooter
May 4, 2011, 12:27 PM
I went somewhere on business the other day and a big sign on the door said:

METAL DETECTORS IN USE.
ALL PERSONS ENTERING THIS PROPERTY ARE SUBJECT TO SEARCH.

So I turned around and took my Emerson back to my car before I went in.
I had a choice, leave my weapons outside and make the sales call or to not go in. I chose the latter.

And those were the only two choices you had because of the screening they used. It's not a question of your "moral" decision to leave the weapon behind; You couldn't bring it in, period. If circumstances dictate that you can't make the decision to obey or disobey a sign, right/wrong or moral/immoral don't factor in at all.

hermannr
May 4, 2011, 12:39 PM
Owen, I do not see anything there that said you could not carry? That you might be searched and that they had metal detectors available, nowithstanding? If the had posted "no firearms allowed" and what you stated, I would have done as you did. However, if there was no "no firearms allowed" sign, I would have entered. Then if they decided that they wanted to search me, I would not have submitted and left.

What type of business was this, and did they have permenently installed detectors like at the Airport? Or just wands, that they would use indiscriminately if they so wished.

I don't know what "Emerson" you had, but most electronics would set off a metal detector anyway.

TexasRifleman
May 4, 2011, 02:26 PM
I don't know what "Emerson" you had, but most electronics would set off a metal detector anyway.

Emerson is a knife.

gym
May 4, 2011, 04:03 PM
Time to close this one yet?, when I sart seeing, if this and if that, I get seasick. You can take things Literally, Ethically, Spiritually, practiclly, Legally, or any combination of the group, or add a few more. The combination makes for an earthshattering amount of ways to look at life. It's up to the individual to interpret what he sees and act accordinglly, not to try to convince others that they should do things his way, that's just naive.

Sam1911
May 4, 2011, 04:16 PM
try to convince others that they should do things his way, that's just naive. And the largest irony is that the choir being preached to is made up of those least likely to do anyone any harm whatsoever with their sidearm. None of us is actually naive enough to believe that a person of ill intent -- the mugger, robber, rapist, murderer, etc. -- is going to be compelled to follow our request and disarm because we wish they would (...and just look at our lovely sign!), so the calls for "ethical" living apply only to those who DON'T pose any risks to those around them.

It does begin to sound eerily similar to the eternal drumbeat we've heard from others since about 1934 and redoubled in 1968, that placing controls on the law-abiding folks is the path to public safety.

...

What is the goal of this exercise? Promoting safety? Then figure out a way to restrict what those who don't value human life will do. Or is it just "control?" The promoting safety angle is a farce. The "control" angle is ineffective, at best, and irrelevant at worst.

MachIVshooter
May 4, 2011, 04:16 PM
Time to close this one yet?

Why? It's civil, on-topic, and gives lots of different viewpoints and reasoning for people deciding either way.

When it's time, those with the power will make it happen

Loosedhorse
May 4, 2011, 07:45 PM
As I said before, I don't tend to worry a lot or even think about other people's ethics or morals
Cool. I left the Home Depot today, and found that I had an item I hadn't paid for. Under a big bag that neither I or the checker shifted; found it when unloading the cart into the car. I was already out of the store, with the checker's blessing. No one around...

But I walked back in and paid $5.
There is legal and illegal.
Then, sir, don't even talk about ethics, if they don't exist for you.
we can deduce that you believe in being 100% honest and forthcoming
In the same way that, since you believe you must go armed, you must believe that you will at all times and in all places be attacked. Tell you what, if don't misgeneralize me, I won't misgeneralize you. :rolleyes:

All ethical behaviors carry a cost. Many years ago, I was in a lunch line. The guy in front of me grabbed a cheeseburger, a luxury item that cost $0.40 more than the hamburger I grabbed. I follow him to the check-out, and the girl there looks at his tray and sees the top of a bun.

"Hamburger?" she asks. There is an almost imperceptible pause, then, "Yes." After he left, I told her, "Just so you know, that was a cheeseburger. And the price of honor these days is 40 cents."

She smiled.

So, perhaps like others here, I don't much care what you do, or how you rationalize it to make it "okay." Just, please, don't try to tell me that choosing to be dishonest is ethical.

Owen Sparks
May 4, 2011, 07:53 PM
Gym said: Time to close this one yet?,

You can "close" it anytime by just not clicking on this thread.

Sam1911
May 4, 2011, 08:36 PM
As I said before, I don't tend to worry a lot or even think about other people's ethics or morals Cool. I left the Home Depot today, and found that I had an item I hadn't paid for... But I walked back in and paid $5.And? Do you want a cookie? ;) I think most of us have probably had that exact experience before. Each of us has some kind of internal compass. Our demons to appease or contend with as I mentioned before.

There is legal and illegal.
Then, sir, don't even talk about ethics, if they don't exist for you.That's not all I said, and I didn't indicate that I have no sense of personal ethics. I said there are personal "demons" each person has to appease. You and I apparently share the one about being scrupulously honest in hardware stores. Cool! Maybe we're related.

All ethical behaviors carry a cost. Many years ago, I was in a lunch line. The guy in front of me grabbed a cheeseburger, a luxury item that cost $0.40 more than the hamburger I grabbed. I follow him to the check-out, and the girl there looks at his tray and sees the top of a bun.

"Hamburger?" she asks. There is an almost imperceptible pause, then, "Yes." After he left, I told her, "Just so you know, that was a cheeseburger. And the price of honor these days is 40 cents."

She smiled.All that just to impress a check out girl? Did you land a date? Or was it more of a power thing over the other guy? Seems tattling on someone would be mighty unethical -- for some folks. (Not me, I don't care.)

So, perhaps like others here, I don't much care what you do, or how you rationalize it to make it "okay." Just, please, don't try to tell me that choosing to be dishonest is ethical. Careful -- the southbound end of your high horse is showing! :D

More seriously though, you're casting aspersions here that are unnecessary. If you feel you're entering into an unwritten and unspoken social contract with a property owner that you won't do something, that's your cross to bear. As you said, such decisions come with costs. In this case, the cost is being unarmed when it might not be wise to be so, because all those nasty guys who don't follow the owner's rules -- or society's laws, either -- are armed and may be dangerous. Understanding that to be absolutely true, I can't see disarming as a wise choice, whether your personal ethical compass spins that way or not. But I won't insult anyone who feels compelled to do so.

:)

Loosedhorse
May 4, 2011, 08:44 PM
And? Do you want a cookie?All that just to impress a check out girl?the southbound end of your high horse is showing
Nice tone for a moderator to set, don't you think? You're getting personal.But I won't insult anyone who makes such an odd choice.Actually, I think your words above betray you: you've certainly tried to be insulting. Again, nice tone for a moderator. Disingenuous, too. But perhaps that behavior is on-topic.such decisions come with costs. In this case, the cost is being unarmed when it might not be wise to be so, because all those nasty guys who don't follow the owner's rulesNo, sir. The cost implied is not the cost of you going unarmed: it is the cost of you not entering. Apparently too much for you to bear...or consider.

Sam1911
May 4, 2011, 09:07 PM
Oh, please don't take my comments as personal -- or serious commentary on your ethics! I don't think you were trying to impress the check-out girl. Just pointing out that "ethics" are very different for each person and that you certainly are casting aspersions through your tone, as well as introducing oddly non-topical anecdotes to prove yourself to be an "ethical" person by some definition of your own, when no one had accused you of not being so!

I believe you. You are an ethical person. You may or may not meet my definition of ethical, but that doesn't matter. I may not meet yours. Again, that's wholly irrelevant.

No, sir. The cost implied is not the cost of you going unarmed: it is the cost of you not entering. Apparently too much for you to bear...or consider.
The cost may be any number of things. Your need to enter may be greater or lesser. Your perception of risk may be lesser or greater. Your belief in an unwritten/unspoken social contract may be compelling or non-existent.

Again, though, you are attempting to be condescending ("too much to bear ... or consider") and it isn't necessary. You've established your ethics. Be confident enough in your own choices to allow others to make differing ones without feeling the need to validate or condemn those choices.

With greatest humility, I mean no insult. If you don't see the humor and gently chiding truth of my comments, then I apologize and bid you be at peace.

Loosedhorse
May 4, 2011, 09:54 PM
oddly non-topical anecdotes to prove yourself to be an "ethical" personIf I may suggest, if you find an anecdote odd, ask why it was posted rather than assume you know. Prove I'm ethical? This is the internet; I can't prove anything. Perhaps you might reflect that there are many ways that one might have handled the cheeseburger situation; my way generated a smile, and that choice may perhaps say something about what I value.

What I was trying to do with the story was point out that ethics typically imposes a cost, sometimes a very small one, that the occasional person finds too high.
You are an ethical person.I thank you, but of course I'm simply human, and I have my hypocrisies and blindspots. The hardware story? There was a part of me kicking myself for paying the money--how's that for ethical? (Or for high-horsing!) I do try to be very conscious of why I do what I do, and whether I'm "letting myself off the hook" too easily--because I think we all do from time to time (I apologize for the presumption).

Here, I responded to the implication that because either choosing to go unarmed or choosing to not enter would be harder (more inconvenient or more "risky") than choosing to enter armed, that last was the right answer; in fact, the ethical thing can be the more expensive, or harder choice. I think it usually is.
you are attempting to be condescending ("too much to bear ... or consider")I understand that you think you were not being condescending and that I was. It is in the end your decision as to whether moderators should project a higher standard, and whether any insult, if followed by a :rolleyes:,;), or :D then becomes "alright."

And no, it did not seem to me that in your response you were even considering not entering, as you only mentioned the risk of going unarmed. I was stuck by that: if it's in fact so risky, why again are you entering?

So I pointed it out.

MachIVshooter
May 4, 2011, 11:05 PM
if it's in fact so risky, why again are you entering?

"do you carry a pistol because you're execting trouble?"

"No, if I were expecting trouble, I'd have brought my rifle"

Need I say more?

gym
May 4, 2011, 11:11 PM
Why don't we all do what we want to do, and stop trying to convince others that they should do what we think they should do.
After all isn't that what this all comes down to, it's not going to change anyones mind so what sence does it make to continue going "tit for tat". I am not leaving this discussion with a different way of living my life as I am sure some of the guys I know from these discussions aren't either so why the constant bantor. It's just going round and round covering basically the same points in different scenarios and stories. But nobody is leaving here with a different view on how to conduct themselves.
I guess if someone is getting something from it, then by all means continue.

Neverwinter
May 4, 2011, 11:56 PM
The examples offered required a minimum of cost to the person to follow. A parallel to the sacrifice of the means to preserve one's life is not necessarily possible, unless we assume them to be similar enough in value.

Here, I responded to the implication that because either choosing to go unarmed or choosing to not enter would be harder (more inconvenient or more "risky") than choosing to enter armed, that last was the right answer; in fact, the ethical thing can be the more expensive, or harder choice. I think it usually is.
A system of ethics can exist in which the value of a decision is not based on the expense to yourself. A proof of existence can be obtained by searching this forum for the phrase "socialism". Some people do not have ethics systems which are founded heavily in the concept of self-flagellation.

Neverwinter
May 5, 2011, 12:04 AM
After all isn't that what this all comes down to, it's not going to change anyones mind so what sence does it make to continue going "tit for tat". I am not leaving this discussion with a different way of living my life as I am sure some of the guys I know from these discussions aren't either so why the constant bantor. It's just going round and round covering basically the same points in different scenarios and stories. But nobody is leaving here with a different view on how to conduct themselves.
I guess if someone is getting something from it, then by all means continue.
I have sometimes been surprised by the discussions which resulted in a modification of my position. On the other hand, many have provided numerous opportunities for introspection and the reinforcement of current beliefs. Ultimately, it's about the journey rather than the destination. If not one person's opinion has changed over the course of the discussion, it still isn't a loss for me.

thorazine
May 5, 2011, 02:06 AM
Legalities of carry and signeage aside, do you folks thinks it is moral (ethical) to carry a weapon into a place that is known to not want weapons inside, even though they won't know? Why or why not?

I could care less about what is morally correct.

-and-

All they want really is my money. =D

MachIVshooter
May 5, 2011, 12:59 PM
Why don't we all do what we want to do, and stop trying to convince others that they should do what we think they should do.
After all isn't that what this all comes down to, it's not going to change anyones mind so what sence does it make to continue going "tit for tat". I am not leaving this discussion with a different way of living my life as I am sure some of the guys I know from these discussions aren't either so why the constant bantor. It's just going round and round covering basically the same points in different scenarios and stories.


If you're so bothered by this thread, then stop clicking on it. It's not like we're having this discourse in your living room.

But nobody is leaving here with a different view on how to conduct themselves.

You know this to be fact?

I guess if someone is getting something from it, then by all means continue.

If nothing else, entertainment and brain exercise. But if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that some people haven't altered their stance. I haven't, but I'm one of those who has thought this through from every angle multiple times. Others may have given it little consideration prior to reading this, and may have formed a more solid opinion based on what they've read.

Regardless, this forum is nothing without discussion, so why do you want us to cease so badly? That's as bad as the people who immediately chime in with "use the search function". If we didn't rehash topics, there'd be virtually no activity on this board.

Loosedhorse
May 5, 2011, 01:38 PM
Need I say more?
Of course. Your pat and canned answer does not explain why, armed or not, one would choose to enter a place that one has judged as particularly dangerous.

So, which is it: places with "no guns" signs are particularly dangerous, and so should be avoided; or they're not?

If someone were to in fact bring his unconcealed rifle into a "No guns" store as you seem to suggest, well, that would at least be honest defiance of the sign--rather than sneaky, secretive defiance--and also, it's consistent with the increased threat assessment that's been suggested.

If I have misunderstood you, and you meant by your words that bringing in a rifle is exactly what you plan to do on seeing a "no guns sign," well, good for you!

Again, I understand that many prefer to stick with the "I won't disarm for a sign!" line; that's easier to defend than "If I and my gun are not welcome here, I refuse to go elsewhere where they are!"
The examples offered required a minimum of cost to the person to follow. A parallel to the sacrifice of the means to preserve one's life is not necessarily possible, unless we assume them to be similar enough in value.
Two responses. First, an accurate assessment of the "cost" of going unarmed would be the value of the loss incurred (might be life, property, or injury) times the probability of the loss unarmed minus the probability that the loss would occur even if you were armed (which is not zero). Yes, I know: your life is invaluable to you; for the sake of the calculation, ask your insurance company--they have a different opinion.

Second, again, no one is asking you to go unarmed; they're asking you to walk or drive a few blocks to the similar store without such a sign. Big cost?A system of ethics can exist in which the value of a decision is not based on the expense to yourself.
I did not suggest that the value was so based. I did suggest that any cost to a given decision will make that less likely to be chosen. I suspect then that situations in which "the right thing" is also the "cheapest thing" result in no need for discussion, or varying opinion; but those which have one "cheapest" solution, and a different "most ethical" solution--now we've got a chance to weigh things carefully. If we want to.
I could care less about what is morally correct.
It is my impression you are not alone.

Sam1911
May 5, 2011, 02:02 PM
Of course. Your pat and canned answer does answer does not explain why, armed or not, one would choose to enter a place that one has judged as particularly dangerous.

So, which is it: places with no guns signs are particularly dangerous, and so should be avoided; or they're not?
That's absurd. Every place carries the possibility for violent encounters and the possible need for effective self-defense tools. If we knew where an attack would happen, we would stay home. But we don't and have to go about our lives as ready as we can make ourselves for whatever may come, when and wherever it may come. It isn't a matter of deciding that a place is too dangerous. It is simply facing the fact that danger exists more or less universally. Hence, we carry a handgun for times when we expect no trouble at all -- but yet trouble may find us. If trouble can be reasonably expected, we'll make other plans.

Second, again, no one is asking you to go unarmed; there asking you to walk or drive a few blocks to the similar store without such a sign. Big cost?Again, that depends. If there are two identical establishments within a reasonable distance, the relatively low cost to you -- and the desired economic impact on those establishments -- may warrant a change in direction. But that's not always the case. Having to drive to another city or state for what you need might dramatically shift that balance.

I could care less about what is morally correct.
It is my impression you are not alone. But you certainly own the moral high ground, don't you? Maybe that should read, "I could care less about what you think is morally correct." All this emotionally weighted talk of "sneaky, dishonest, secretive" actions robs this debate of any grounding whatsoever. Insert the words "legal," "discreet," "law-abiding," or "responsible" for each of your "sneakys," "dishonests," and "secretives" and we could have a rational discussion. Otherwise it might as well be a religious debate -- without both parties believing the same basic tenets, it's pointless.

Loosedhorse
May 5, 2011, 02:23 PM
Maybe that should read, "I could care less about what you think is morally correct."
But it doesn't; you're pinging me for responding to what was there, instead of what you would prefer be there?

You say "legal," and thereby imply that should be the only determinant of behavior. I disagree. You say discreet: I could have discreetly just left that hardware store yesterday. Instead, I discreetly paid. Both would have been discreet, but paying felt less sneaky.
it might as well be a religious debate
I'm not sure why you bring up religion. I know you're not suggesting that one religion says defying the sign secretly is fine, but another says it isn't.
If there are two identical establishments within a reasonable distance, the relatively low cost to you
I think we're getting somewhere. If you're saying, sure, when it's of relatively little cost to me to go elsewhere, I will--fine. Then we're only, perhaps, varying on our definitions of what a "little cost" is. If you're saying that, beyond a certain cost, it is "necessary" that you enter that store instead of another, then also fine--there is a well known principle at law and in ethics of "competing harms," and in that instance we should pick the least harm.

Oops--where did my high horse suddenly go? Perhaps I never had one?

I will say that, if the cost of going elsewhere is high enough that entering despite the sign is the lesser of the competing harms, to me that is still entering under false pretenses. It may be justified, but I personally would not claim that such justification then makes the entry an honest one.
With greatest humility, I mean no insult.
I neglected to comment on this yesterday. Thank you, no problem, and I will try to do better at avoiding the appearence of insult or condescension.

You mentioned emotion above; it is in fact my opinion that these are essentially emotional questions--not just emotion-laden, but emotional in a fundamental way. Humans do not (IMHO) simply reason out what fairness is: we feel it, and fairness is important to us. It is therefore perhaps impossible to discuss such a topic without consulting emotion--and emotion is a tricky guide.

Sam1911
May 5, 2011, 03:25 PM
But it doesn't; you're pinging me for responding to what was there, instead of what you would prefer be there?
Fair enough.

You say "legal," and thereby imply that should be the only determinant of behavior.Not quite. I said there is legal and illegal -- that's part of the equation. I said there is also the question of social consequences -- a second part of the equation. And each person's internal demons -- ethics, fear, conscience, etc, and a definite third part of the equation. My point originally was that I can't fully comprehend and should not be expected to universally share anyone else's burden of that third category.

You say discreet: I could have discreetly just left that hardware store yesterday. Instead, I discreetly paid. Both would have been discreet, but paying felt less sneaky.Paying kept you from doing something that many folks would consider stealing. I'd imagine that you paid because you have a moral compunction against stealing, not because you don't like to be sneaky. That's why I've paid in similar circumstances, but I'm projecting... :)

I'm not sure why you bring up religion. I know you're not suggesting that one religion says defying the sign secretly is fine, but another says it isn't.I bring up religion as an example of a situation where debaters who do not share a conviction regarding the basic tenant of the debate cannot achieve meaningful dialog. The statement that ignoring a lawfully vacuous sign is dishonest is not something that some of us here believe at all. So making ethical judgments based on that belief limits those judgments to relevancy only in a very small sphere -- strictly speaking, only in your mind and we may assume those of others who might believe similar things. (Though certainly not all religions would have an opinion one way or the other on the issue.)

Therefore when you make public declarations that such behaviors are unethical, dishonest, sneaky, etc, you tend to insult those who don't share your basic tenant.

Limiting polite comments to, "I believe that 'x' so I feel I should 'y'..." comes off a lot better than, "I don't much care what you do, or how you rationalize it to make it "okay." Just, please, don't try to tell me that choosing to be dishonest is ethical."

to me that is still entering under false pretenses. It may be justified, but I personally would not claim that such justification then makes the entry an honest one.No argument with that statement of your opinions on that matter. They aren't my opinions, but what difference does that make?

You mentioned emotion above; it is in fact my opinion that these are essentially emotional questions--not just emotion-laden, but emotional in a fundamental way. Humans do not (IMHO) simply reason out what fairness is: we feel it, and fairness is important to us. It is therefore perhaps impossible to discuss such a topic without consulting emotion--and emotion is a tricky guide. Ethical, emotional, feelings, fairness? I can't deny the impact of those. If we all were tugged the same way by the same ones we wouldn't have any need for laws. Emotion is a tricky guide, as you say. There are probably more instances, from an ethical standpoint, where the law is a tricky guide as well.

Loosedhorse
May 5, 2011, 03:53 PM
such behaviors are unethical, dishonest, sneaky, etc, you tend to insult those who don't share your basic tenant.
I know that one can always add a self-dismissive "JMHO"--but that to me implies that no discussion is wanted or needed, and no agreement (or reason for disagreement) is sought.

I'm not sure that it's tenets that are involved here, as much as definitions. If one sees a "no guns" sign and enters--should that be considered "honest"? Dishonest? Honesty-neutral? As I implied before, there can be times when it is more ethical to be dishonest than honest, but I don't think that changes what dishonesty is.
many folks would consider stealing
Sure, but I didn't intend to leave without paying, nobody stopped me...so how can it be stealing? ;)

I could argue that it's the store's responsibility to make sure that things like that don't happen--theft detectors and the like--and if those measures are inadequate, I'm not "morally bound" to pay for it once I'm out of the store.

I think this is similar to the idea that a "no guns" store owner gets the noncompliance he deserves if he puts up a sign but no metal detector to enforce it. I mean, I believe a criminal would certainly (as have you have suggested) have that attitude--should we not be concerned at the idea that a "law-abiding citizen" should have exactly the same attitude toward the sign as a criminal?

DAP90
May 5, 2011, 04:03 PM
If one sees a "no guns" sign and enters--should that be considered "honest"? Dishonest? Honesty-neutral?

If one sees a “no guns” sign should that be considered prejudiced? Naive? Unconstitutional?

Gregaw
May 5, 2011, 04:10 PM
I could argue that it's the store's responsibility to make sure that things like that don't happen--theft detectors and the like--and if those measures are inadequate, I'm not "morally bound" to pay for it once I'm out of the store. I think this is similar to the idea that a "no guns" store owner gets the noncompliance he deserves if he puts up a sign but no metal detector to enforce it. I mean, I believe a criminal would certainly (as have you have suggested) have that attitude--should we not be concerned at the idea that a "law-abiding citizen" should have exactly the same attitude toward the sign as a criminal?

That's a valid comparison only if the person in question has no ethical problem with stealing, with or without a sign. Admititly, there are some who don't have any ethical problem stealing, but that would not be most of us.

MachIVshooter
May 5, 2011, 04:18 PM
I could argue that it's the store's responsibility to make sure that things like that don't happen--theft detectors and the like--and if those measures are inadequate, I'm not "morally bound" to pay for it once I'm out of the store.

I think this is similar to the idea that a "no guns" store owner gets the noncompliance he deserves if he puts up a sign but no metal detector to enforce it.

Though the two aren't quite the same (leaving without paying does cause harm), I wouldn't say you were morally wrong in leaving if the cashier was the one to empty the cart. In that case, it was not your intention nor your fault that the item was not paid for, and, in fact, costs you time to correct the error. If you emptied the cart, then it was your mistake, and I believe you have some obligation to correct it. And, of course, the value of the item factors in here. I've left Wal mart having had a tube of chapstick roll into a recess of the cart and not get checked out. To me, the value of my time and the fact that they are a monster of a company that gets literally thousands of dollars from me every year means that I really don't feel guilty about my $0.94 "bonus item". Not enough to lock up my car, walk back in and stand in line again, anyway.

On the other hand, I've been checking out at my LGS and they've forgot to ring up a box of ammo. There, you're talking about a much greater loss to a company that has much less ability to absorb it, and no inconvenience to me to point it out. In that instance, what is right really goes without saying.

As far as theft detectors vs. metal detectors, similar concept. A store may not install theft detectors or may not tag certain items because the amortized cost of doing so exceeds the expected accidental and deliberate shoplifting costs for a given amount of time.

Loosedhorse
May 5, 2011, 04:58 PM
prejudicial? Naive? Unconstitutional?
Perhaps your comment is non-responsive--unless it suggests a "if he's alllowed to be naive, then I'm allowed to be dishonest" school of ethics. I was asking, given the implication that entering a "No guns" shop armed is not dishonest--then exactly what is it, and exactly what is honesty? As I said, I think this gets less at tenets, and more at definitions.
I wouldn't say you were morally wrong in leaving if the cashier was the one to empty the cart.Well, it was a heavy bag, she didn't want to lift it (just to put it back in) and frankly, neither did I. But I follow your reasoning, and it seems sound to me.only if the person in question has no ethical problem with stealingOr if he doesn't define that as stealing--and so can keep his money and his ethics intact!

DAP90
May 5, 2011, 05:13 PM
Perhaps your comment is non-responsive--unless it suggests a "if he's alllowed to be naive, then I'm allowed to be dishonest" school of ethics. I was asking, given the implication that entering a "No guns" shop armed is not dishonest--then exactly what is it, and exactly what is honesty? As I said, I think this gets less at tenets, and more at definitions.

I was suggesting more along the lines of should I be subject to the whims of someone who is prejudiced against me, naive enough to believe that he can keep all guns out and of the opinion that his rules matter more than the laws of the land. It's not an if-then statement.

Also, it would be dishonest to enter a "no gun" establishment and then lie about it if asked directly. It would not be dishonest otherwise. At worst I would call it inconsiderate; assuming that doing so was not against the law.

FNMatt
May 5, 2011, 07:06 PM
I really didn't expect this much discussion when I originally asked the question, but this thread has been very interesting. Honestly, I wasn't trying convince anyone one way or the other, but was asking purely for academic and mental entertainment. Hope anyone didn't get too emotionally involved with the discussion!

Gregaw
May 5, 2011, 07:54 PM
mental entertainment

I think you got your money's worth!

gym
May 5, 2011, 09:01 PM
Is this still about guns? just curious. I was asked to stay today, when a store, "I can't mention the name" was alerted that they were to be robbed. It came from a reliable source, we called the cops, they took about 45 minutes to get there.
It was good intel, no way I would leave the guys alone. even though they have enough stuff there to start a revoution. Everyone was happy everyone was armed. The bad guys hadn't showed up when I left, I am sure when I stop in to sit a while tomorrow, I will be welcome, with or without a weapon, even though it will be with. And I just stopped in to look at pistol. I feel sorry for the poor guys who intend on fulfilling their chosen path, these young men are both competition shooters, in 3 gun and most other disiplines, they shoot a lot better than I do at my old age. Certified FBI instructors, trainers etc
They only have 1 sign, it reads, you are in range now. According to the sherriff, no one has been prosecuted or lost their license for mistakinglly exposing a handgun, during his stay in office, nor anyone in the state that he could find when questioned about open carry. So assuming he didn't lie, your looking at a repremand if you do go into a store and get made. and getting shot if you don't. People get shot everyday, minding their own business, walking around a store shopping. In comes johnny who is high on something, and shoots everyone for whatever reason. Or no reason. Aren't you going to feel embarrased when you have to explain this to St peter. He's going to ask you why did you follow that one and not all the others we have here on record. Like pick up the dog poop, don't run, no smoking, free willy, and don't feed the animals. And what about that time you went in the ladies room because the mens room was full, that's a moral and felonius act. Oh and the seatbelt one, no speeding,Deer crossing, do not park or stand here, stay seated until the airplane comes to a complete stop. Falling rock zone-did you still drive through? that's dangerous.How about, no loaded firarms in the store unless you are shooting on the range floor.Did everyone remove their ammo every time, even from their bug? No reloads, no ammo that wasn't purchased here.Man there sure are a lot of signs, slow down for oncoming traffic? no kids under 12 on this ride. A lot of them say "under penalty of law too. Does everyone come to a complete stop at a stop sign? It's illegal not to.Also to not wash your hands if you work with food and you go potty in some states. Did anyone out the chef. Why are gun signs different? A holyier than thou attitude, for some reason, like you violated one of the ten commandments. You don't even know who put up the sign.It might be some kid who works there part time. I can walk into a store and put up a sign, it could say anything on it, maybe the owner dosen't even see it for a week or thinks someone else got the ok to put it up. I am supposed to base my saftey on the same premiss that you can go to jail for standing up on a flight that hasn't stopped yet, oh that never happens. I don't know anyone who went to jail for it. Or even gave it a second thought. Someone tell me they never knowinglly disobeyed a sign, and I'll call them either a liar or delusional.

Loosedhorse
May 5, 2011, 11:01 PM
At worst I would call it inconsiderateFair enough.Hope anyone didn't get too emotionally involved with the discussion! What's "too"? From my point of view, why comment at all if you're not involved? :D
your looking at a repremand if you do go into a store and get made. and getting shot if you don'tWell, around here, you're looking at losing your LTC permanently--barring some McDonald v. Chicago-related change--if you're "made." And there or here, you're almost certainly NOT looking at getting shot if you enter unarmed. In any circumstance where you did enter and get shot, it is NOT a given that having a gun would prevent that--it is not a magic charm. And you can always remain armed, outside.

But to try to get back to ethics: let's suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting made) to entering armed in spite of the sign, and suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting shot) if you enter unarmed, and NO COST to going elsewhere (the competing store is right next door)--which should you do? It has been said that the measure of ethics is what you do when no one knows but you.

brboyer
May 5, 2011, 11:39 PM
Fair enough.What's "too"? From my point of view, why comment at all if you're not involved? :D
Well, around here, you're looking at losing your LTC permanently--barring some McDonald v. Chicago-related change--if you're "made." And there or here, you're almost certainly NOT looking at getting shot if you enter unarmed. In any circumstance where you did enter and get shot, it is NOT a given that having a gun would prevent that--it is not a magic charm. And you can always remain armed, outside.

But to try to get back to ethics: let's suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting made) to entering armed in spite of the sign, and suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting shot) if you enter unarmed--which should you do? It has been said that the measure of ethics is what you do when no one knows but you.

Well, around here, you're looking at losing your LTC permanently
Thankfully, most of us live in, shall we say, more enlightened communities.

which should you do?
My ethics are sound. I'll do like I do every where, every day - provide for my own, and my families safety - because no one else is responsible for that.

mr_goodbomb
May 5, 2011, 11:46 PM
Would you still visit a friend that asked you not to bring a weapon onto his or her property? I know the argument...you just wouldn't be friends anymore. Well sometimes you still want to be friends so do you abide by their wishes?

A friend and a business are different things. I don't pay my friends for their time and services.

I had a similar situation with credit card charges. I went to a music shop and purchased something like $4 worth of stuff. I handed by debit card over, and the employee/manager told me "we have a $5 minimum on debit cards, you'll have to buy something else." I politely told him that, while I'd buy something else to meet that requirement, he should be careful, because other businesses have had complaints placed by customers for similar policies, and as many debit processing companies don't allow their users to function with such a policy in place, the company will revoke the business's ability to process debit cards. He told me that, because the processing costs something like .30 per transfer, they put a limit in so that they're still making a profit, and that it's his business and he can run it however he wants. I agreed, said "that's fine, I understand, I'm just letting you know, be careful," and he continued to argue, getting more and more angry, to each point I would respond, "that's fine, I understand." While a business can do "whatever they want" within legality because they are on private property, if they aren't compliant with regulation, then their "policy" doesn't mean a thing, and if they push it, you shouldn't shop there.

Loosedhorse
May 5, 2011, 11:54 PM
Thankfully, most of us live in, shall we say, more enlightened communities.
"More enlightened"? Such a value-laden, emotional, potentially insulting term...

Oh, wait: I understand! You mean more enlightened as in higher murder rate! :D;)

FL 6.4/100k; MA 2.6. 2008 stats (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0304.pdf).

As to most things, there are pluses and minuses to each of our communities.

9MMare
May 6, 2011, 12:04 AM
Why don't we all do what we want to do, and stop trying to convince others that they should do what we think they should do.
After all isn't that what this all comes down to, it's not going to change anyones mind so what sence does it make to continue going "tit for tat". I am not leaving this discussion with a different way of living my life as I am sure some of the guys I know from these discussions aren't either so why the constant bantor. It's just going round and round covering basically the same points in different scenarios and stories. But nobody is leaving here with a different view on how to conduct themselves.
I guess if someone is getting something from it, then by all means continue.

Quite some time ago, one of these long and detailed discussions did indeed change my mind on this issue. Almost 180 degrees.

Because of the variety and extent of the opinions, I got a very complete (or near) picture of the different sides of the issue.

You never know when someone 'new' to the issue is reading.

matt_borror
May 6, 2011, 12:18 AM
I understand somebody wanting to KNOW when someone is carrying, but I don't see the point in not allowing them. More than likely they'd never know. If society didn't ignore guns so much there wouldn't be this big mystique surrounding them.

MachIVshooter
May 6, 2011, 12:29 AM
More enlightened"? Such a value-laden, emotional, potentially insulting term...

Oh, wait: I understand! You mean more enlightened as in higher murder rate!

FL 6.8/100k; MA 2.6. 2008 stats.

As to most things, there are pluses and minuses to each of our communities.

To be fair, FL was 6.4

I get that you took what he said as an insult to your home state, which understandably could have been offensive. But resorting to murder statistics and pointing out that your state with tighter controls (couldn't have anything to do with much higher median income, right?.............) is safer??? That's an anti tactic. Why would you do that here on this board???

9MMare
May 6, 2011, 01:30 AM
I understand somebody wanting to KNOW when someone is carrying, but I don't see the point in not allowing them. More than likely they'd never know. If society didn't ignore guns so much there wouldn't be this big mystique surrounding them.

Why?

Neverwinter
May 6, 2011, 02:46 AM
Perhaps your comment is non-responsive--unless it suggests a "if he's alllowed to be naive, then I'm allowed to be dishonest" school of ethics. I was asking, given the implication that entering a "No guns" shop armed is not dishonest--then exactly what is it, and exactly what is honesty? As I said, I think this gets less at tenets, and more at definitions.
An ethical system can consider honesty as secondary to other concepts which are at conflict in a situation. If the other values such as the refusal to relinquish the means by which to defend yourself are ranked higher than than honesty, a virtuous person would reliquish honesty.

Two responses. First, an accurate assessment of the "cost" of going unarmed would be the value of the loss incurred (might be life, property, or injury) times the probability of the loss unarmed minus the probability that the loss would occur even if you were armed (which is not zero). Yes, I know: your life is invaluable to you; for the sake of the calculation, ask your insurance company--they have a different opinion.I'm not surprised that they have a different opinion. They are making that valuations based on a set of assumptions which are not amenable with my ethical framework, and as a result I reject those as a consideration in my consideration of ethics.

But to try to get back to ethics: let's suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting made) to entering armed in spite of the sign, and suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting shot) if you enter unarmed, and NO COST to going elsewhere (the competing store is right next door)--which should you do? It has been said that the measure of ethics is what you do when no one knows but you.If going elsewhere is a viable option, then I would go there. But if there are no viable options, then I am being deprived of access to a category of good/service and will carry in accordance with the law even if there is miniscule punishment(being law abiding as another value).

Quite some time ago, one of these long and detailed discussions did indeed change my mind on this issue. Almost 180 degrees.
Before I started posting here, I was supportive of leaving it in the car. But now that I've had to discuss the rationale of the people who choose not to leave it, I've discovered that I was compromising my ethics and rationalizing it.

On a side note: placing myself in the shoes of a disabled person without the protection of the ADA is a frightening thought exercise.

Loosedhorse
May 6, 2011, 07:18 AM
That's an anti tactic.Only if I say that our tighter controls are the reason for our lower murder rate. If I state facts as facts--especially if I consider murder a benighted, not an "enlightened" activity for a state--that's anti-gun?
Why would you do that here on this board???Well, as mentioned, I didn't--but suppose I did? Would I have been run out of this forum on a rail?

I hope I would have received, in that case, welcome, understanding, and calm explanation why the causality (that I did NOT propose) was incorrect. I mean, that's exactly what would have happened, right? :scrutiny:
An ethical system can consider honesty as secondary to other concepts which are at conflict in a situation.
Absolutely. And I thought, in my discussion of costs, I made that clear. But again, to me that doesn't change what honesty is.

And, secondarily, I was asking us to be clear about whether entering a "no guns" shop armed is dishonest (or inconsiderate), and if so, what justifies that dishonesty, when going elsewhere is a "reasonable" option.

Thirdly, I dislike secrecy when there are more productive, reasonable choices. If you enter armed secretly, perhaps that benefits you. If you discuss things openly with the owner, write a letter telling him you're taking your business elsewhere, organize a protest, etc....

Well, that could benefit everyone. Ethically speaking, why isn't that "better" than being secretive?

Usmc-1
May 6, 2011, 08:56 AM
I dont have a ccw , was law enforcement , when I carried I never looked at the buildings or signs or any of that , the "Bad guys" arent looking at signs either nor are they paying attention to the rules , Im sure if you were in that book store , and a situation arose that demanded your life and death attention , and your firearm was in your car because your a good law abiding citizen , you would find death staring in the face or many others lives as well , and you would be like the rest of the sheeple , helpless!

Im not advocating breaking the law , but at the same time ,if your firearm is concealed, does the manager really need to know you have one , are you gonna be that conscious to take it off and leave it in your car (where your car could be stolen?) ,Im sorry the whole point of concealed carry is for self protection ; concealment means it isnt in the open where people can see it! If you have to take it off everytime you walk into a building that the government deems unlawful why even carry it? Im telling you this because the bad guys will carry no matter what!

doc.lonestar
May 6, 2011, 09:16 AM
In Texas we have two signs that we must abide by if placed at the door of an establishment: 30.06 or a 51% sign

30.06 is the legal way for them to keep chl holders out while carrying - if posted it is a no go to enter

51% sign just states that they get 51% or more of thier revenue from Alcohol sales (bars, etc) again no go to enter

DAP90
May 6, 2011, 09:18 AM
To be dishonest both parties would have to have agreed to abide by the signs and then the firearm carrier would have to ignore it despite that agreement. In cases where the signs have no force of law both parties have made no such agreement.

It can be considered inconsiderate because the property owner has made a request and the firearms carrier has basically said I don’t care, I’m going to carry anyway.

That cuts both ways though. The property owner is basically saying he doesn’t care what your legal rights are or what your potential risks as an unarmed victim could be; he doesn’t want guns on his property. That is just as inconsiderate.

He may have legitimate reasons such as insurance considerations but they are no more legitimate than the reasons of the firearm carriers for carrying. In many cases there is a strong likelihood the property owners reasons are based more on the fear of guns due to ignorance or misinformation. As I said above, should we be beholden to the whims of the prejudiced or misinformed; especially when society has said via laws that we do not need to be?

MachIVshooter
May 6, 2011, 11:01 AM
Only if I say that our tighter controls are the reason for our lower murder rate. If I state facts as facts--especially if I consider murder a benighted, not an "enlightened" activity for a state--that's anti-gun?

The way it is said implies that it is the correlation you intended to bring to light. You could have chosen standards of living, home values, median incomes, etc. But you opted for a crime rate statistic.

Well, as mentioned, I didn't--but suppose I did? Would I have been run out of this forum on a rail?

I hope I would have received, in that case, welcome, understanding, and calm explanation why the causality (that I did NOT propose) was incorrect. I mean, that's exactly what would have happened, right?

Depends on how you conduct yourself. If people here believe you can be reasoned with, we'll try. But there have certainly been anti trolls who sign up just to ruffle feathers, and it's obvious. Why waste time trying to show such individuals the flaws in their thought process?

gym
May 6, 2011, 11:04 AM
Let me just add one thing that someone brought to my attention in the last group of posts. In NYC, it's illegal to leave a handgun in your car unattended. It also used to be illegal to enter a bank with one. Opposite of FL law. "things may have changed since I left in early 90's" But my point is that you couldn't leave your gun in the car even if you chose to follow that store owners policy, Your car had a life expectancy of an hour in some areas, "nice cars",, of being broken into, or stolen. I will say I never saw such a sign in any store in NYC, mainly because permits to carry are so hard to get that it really isn't a problem there.
But as the gentleman and I and many of you mentioned, no one is intentionally going out to break laws or piss off the store owner. But if it's 100 degrees outside and I am with a group of people who decide, lets stop here for lunch or a beer, or to browse some womans stuff at a store by the beach. I will explain that I need to sit at a table, because of my back, "that always works" if they want to stand at the bar and wait, I will wait outside, but there are times when it's inconvienient and you are with others "who may not even know you carry" and why the need to expose that situation in a public place. Do you want to have that conversation in the street someware, or just go in with the rest of your friends to a shop, and browse at "whatever" and leave.
There are situational incidents that make it very sticky to adhere to the wishes of another and out youself in the process. Especially if you didn't come with your car. You will look pretty weird standing in 100 plus temperatures in FL while everyone else is is a store buying tee shirts or whatever they sellAnd I reiterate, when you least expect something bad to happen, that's when it does, so the aw shucks nothings going to happen mentality, dosen't work ever. No one who got shot or killed in a 7-11, or anyware else, thought they were in danger, when they went in to get a bag of chips.

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 11:21 AM
But you certainly own the moral high ground, don't you? Maybe that should read, "I could care less about what you think is morally correct." All this emotionally weighted talk of "sneaky, dishonest, secretive" actions robs this debate of any grounding whatsoever. Insert the words "legal," "discreet," "law-abiding," or "responsible" for each of your "sneakys," "dishonests," and "secretives" and we could have a rational discussion. Otherwise it might as well be a religious debate -- without both parties believing the same basic tenets, it's pointless.


Sorry Sam1911 but the same issue that your bring up about "sneaky, dishonest, secretive" can be brought up against "legal," "discreet," "law-abiding," or "responsible".

All of these are moving targets. The law is arbitary. Discreet is arbitary. Law abiding is arbitary and responsible is arbitary.

If I and others accept your premise than the entire discussion which you have been a central figure in continuing is POINTLESS.

Sam1911
May 6, 2011, 11:51 AM
All of these are moving targets. The law is arbitrary. Discreet is arbitrary. Law abiding is arbitrary and responsible is arbitrary.
You're sidestepping my point with that paragraph. I was illustrating that you can insert several equally valid adjectives there to support a very positive view of the action or a very negative one.

But to your point, "responsible" certainly could be considered a moving target. Certainly nearly as arbitrary as "dishonest" when used in this instance. "Discreet" is a lot easier to pin down. Did you make a show of your weapon, or allow it to be seen? If not, that would be hard to deny as being discreet.

"Law abiding" is, fortunately, not hard to pin down at all. What does the law say? Did I break it or not? In this case, almost every state has some statute or statutes which decide that point clearly. So no, that one is not a moving target.

If I and others except your premise than the entire discussion which you have been a central figure in continuing is POINTLESS. I can't picture what you meant by "except your premise." I think "accept" is the word you are reaching for. In that case, again, no. The discussion is hardly pointless. If there are different ways of looking at things, and as I've several times noted, different fundamental beliefs about your own social contracts and unstated agreements, then bringing those into the light and dispelling or refuting a lot of judgmental talk about dishonesty and sneaking can help many readers (and even participants) of such a thread develop a deeper understanding of their own options and beliefs, and those of their fellow citizens.

Hardly a pointless exercise.

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 11:58 AM
"Discreet" is a lot easier to pin down. Did you make a show of your weapon, or allow it to be seen? If not, that would be hard to deny as being discreet.

Moving target. Seems clear to you based on your arbitary criteria. If I do not agree with your "basic tenets" then I can draw a different conclusion.

"Law abiding" is, fortunately, not hard to pin down at all. What does the law say? Did I break it or not? In this case, almost every state has some statute or statutes which decide that point clearly. So no, that one is not a moving target.


Wrong walk into any courtroom in the US and you will find people who disagree on what the law states. Therefore they disagree on if a person broke it or not. It is not cut and dry. I would argue that our legal system is riddled with ambiguity and therefore subject to interpertation which reaffirms my statement. What is legal or law abiding is a moving target.

I can't picture what you meant by "except your premise." I think "accept" is the word you are reaching for. In that case, again, no. The discussion is hardly pointless. If there are different ways of looking at things, and as I've several times noted, different fundamental beliefs about your own social contracts and unstated agreements, then bringing those into the light and dispelling or refuting a lot of judgmental talk about dishonesty and sneaking can help many readers (and even participants) of such a thread develop a deeper understanding of their own options and beliefs, and those of their fellow citizens.

Hardly a pointless exercise.

I meant "accept" typing on a smartphone does not always work so well... LOL My point is that this dicussion is pointless because of the manner in which you are approaching it. You are using "subjective" criteria to establish your personal feelings of correctness. You are fine with your actions. You have done the mental gymnastics to justify them for you and you only. They do not translate in the least to me. You seem very hung up on what is "legal" and dissmiss what is moral because it is too subjective. In the end its all subjective.

It reminds me of Quine's web of belief concept. Your way of thinking is consistent with the "web of belief" you have created. The subjective arbitary considerations and foundations you have placed at the center of that web are axiomatic to the system. They help you establish relative "truth" values but they do not yield any truth with the big "T". There is no objective truth in your statements or mine for that matter. They are all realitive to our subjective aciomatic principles. They are 100% subjective and pointless unless both parties believe in the same basic tenets. Which clearly we do not. Yes we can go round and round about the subject but unless we are willing to be moved at the center of that web nothing will change.

ET
May 6, 2011, 12:29 PM
I carry into places like that, but only to tell manager I will not be shopping there and tedlling everyoner I know to not shop there, becuase of thier policey.

This...only I would have spelled tedlling, everyoner, thier, becuase & policey differently, but that's just me! ;)


...Yes I can be a complete ass at times, thus the nick name asswhole in school. :scrutiny: At least that's what I think they meant with that...

Loosedhorse
May 6, 2011, 12:55 PM
To be dishonest both parties would have to have agreedEntering can be considered tacit agreement to that condition.The way it is said implies that it is the correlation you intended to bring to light.No, I didn't imply a correlation--but now let me state it: I think there is quite likely a correlation between murder rate and gun regulations, and that it may be a causative one. Here's how it would work:

Murder rate is high; voters complain; pols decide they have to "do something," so they pass laws...and get re-elected. Wait :confused: that doesn't explain how a gun-control-state has a lower murder rate? Well, perhaps we should look at its murder rate at the time the bulk of those laws were passed; or it may have to do with a "perceived" rather than real murder rate; or...

But no, the causative relationship that you are inferring, I did not imply.Depends on how you conduct yourself.Is this where I say "I'll watch my step...sheriff?" ;) Where'd you get that star, anyway?

There are so many parts of my position that can be attacked here, I'm not sure why you feel you need to spend time instead challenging my pro-gun credentials--as if it matters. Anti-gunners have no monopoly on being unreasonable.I will explain that I need to sit at a table, because of my back, "that always works" if they want to stand at the bar and wait, I will wait outsideFair point: a different type of dishonesty--toward your friends--can arise if you choose to obey the sign.Wrong walk into any courtroom in the US and you will find people who disagree on what the law states.When we got our latest set of new gun laws here a while back, I asked an attorney/friend what they meant; he smiled: "Some day some guy is going to get convicted for violating the new law, and then he'll appeal it--and the the appelate court will tell us what the law means. Until then, no one knows."

Still we all make our best effort to know and obey the law.Quine's web of belief concept.For me, more like Euclidian geometry. Start with agreeing on definitions; then tackle a few axioms. It's amazing how much you can agree on.

My comments have been in part trying to get at some definitions--and I thank everyone for their help.

DAP90
May 6, 2011, 01:43 PM
Entering can be considered tacit agreement to that condition.

It could, yes. That is a valid argument to make.

I could also argue that what both parties have agreed to is to follow the law. That given our cultural diversity no other ethical consensus or agreement can be implied.

I would argue that in states where signs have no force of law society has determined it is OK (ethical?) to ignore such signs up until you are asked to leave; and that by opening a shop in such a state the owner has agreed to those conditions.

Sam1911
May 6, 2011, 01:52 PM
Moving target. Seems clear to you based on your arbitrary criteria. If I do not agree with your "basic tenets" then I can draw a different conclusion. Which sounds a lot like my entire point from previous posts. Of course, there are dictionary definitions for discreet which may assist in reducing just how far that target moves, but maybe you don't personally agree with the dictionary definitions. C'est la vie.

Wrong walk into any courtroom in the US and you will find people who disagree on what the law states. Therefore they disagree on if a person broke it or not. It is not cut and dry. I would argue that our legal system is riddled with ambiguity and therefore subject to interpertation which reaffirms my statement. What is legal or law abiding is a moving target.This is reaching quite far to make a point, but if it makes you happy... Not prosecutable? No text in statute speaking to the illegality of the act? No case law supporting a criminal conviction for this act? You seem to be exerting a lot of effort to ignore common, fairly non-subjective definitions. A president, caught in his moment of disgrace, once quibbled over what the definition of "is" should be. We don't have to go so far as to emulate those kinds of contortions. Most people seem to agree that there are concepts that are more or less subjective (like ethics and morality) and some that are less so (like law).

More to the point, the actual definition of "law abiding" is less a conjectural, ephemeral concept in this case, and entirely a practical matter: Could I be arrested for this action? Could I be convicted of breaking the law for this? And, absent those two things actually happening, or direct knowledge of legal text clearly making that action illegal, it de facto IS legal.

My point is that this dicussion is pointless because of the manner in which you are approaching it. You are using "subjective" criteria to establish your personal feelings of correctness. You are fine with your actions.
Ironically, I only entered the discussion to confront someone doing that exact thing: using their subjective criteria to establish their personal feelings -- but then projecting those feelings as condemnations of the actions and morality of others.

You seem very hung up on what is "legal" and dissmiss what is moral because it is too subjective. In the end its all subjective. I dissmiss what is moral (or ethical) only to the extent that I can't condemn someone else for not drawing the same ethical conclusions I have.

They are 100% subjective and pointless unless both parties believe in the same basic tenets. Which clearly we do not. Yes we can go round and round about the subject but unless we are willing to be moved at the center of that web nothing will change. You probably should take some time to read through a thread like this carefully so you don't end up looking silly for arguing with someone who has made precisely the same point you are now introducing as new. Post 152 contains this concept, but it would probably be best to start at the beginning.

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 02:12 PM
I dissmiss what is moral (or ethical) only to the extent that I can't condemn someone else for not drawing the same ethical conclusions I have.

Yet you will make the same judgement on what is legal.... simply because your subjective reasoning leads you to believe you are in the right.

I have read the whole thread. I am not making the same point you are. I extend the subjective and arbitary to the laws which you believe to be objective. The laws on this country are not objective. The entire legal system is based on subjective judgements. You and I simply disagree.

I have read your thoughts on this subject before. As ususally you feel the need to make backhanded insults, post in a condescending manner to those who do not see it your way. This seems to be your MO. I find it ironic that you are allowed to hold a mod title considering your tone and content. I am not the first person who you have done this to in this thread. Maybe you should consider that you might be the one who looks silly. LOL

MachIVshooter
May 6, 2011, 02:13 PM
but now let me state it: I think there is quite likely a correlation between murder rate and gun regulations, and that it may be a causative one. Here's how it would work:

Murder rate is high; voters complain; pols decide they have to "do something," so they pass laws...and get re-elected. Wait that doesn't explain how a gun-control-state has a lower murder rate? Well, perhaps we should look at its murder rate at the time the bulk of those laws were passed; or it may have to do with a "perceived" rather than real murder rate; or...

Though this is not the appropriate thread for it, I would love to hear how you "pro gun but gun control works" mentality is rationalized.

I personally don't believe there's much correlation at all, as one can easily find convincing statistics to support either conclusion. For example, how my CO county could have gun ownership in roughly 84% of the homes, yet until last year, there'd not been a homicide since 1868. Incidentally, it was not a firearm homicide. The man was bound and strangled, then dumped at the county line; He had been traveling from Montana and had picked up hitchhikers.

Loosedhorse
May 6, 2011, 02:28 PM
I personally don't believe there's much correlation at all
Well, you could be right--I did say "may be."
how you[r] "pro gun but gun control works" mentality is rationalized.I do not have that mentality*, but it is no longer surprising that you persist in assuming I do. In any case, as we've both said, that's neither here nor there for this topic.

*At least I don't think I do; of course, I don't know your definition of what a "pro gun but gun control works" mentality would be! :D

Sam1911
May 6, 2011, 02:55 PM
Yet you will make the same judgement on what is legal.... simply because your subjective reasoning leads you to believe you are in the right. Look, let me make this clear: I can look at a the statues of a jurisdiction and decide if a specific action follows those statutes or violates them -- with a very high degree of certainty. If looking at the laws of my state, finding nothing in them anywhere that says that I may not carry a gun in "X" location, and deciding therefore that it must be legal is "subjective," then I can't imagine what your definition of "objective" could possibly be.

There are some grey areas in law, of course. But this is pretty far from being one of them. What is the point of arguing this? If you decide that you can't trust that 1+2 always equals 3 (because under some systems it isn't), that's fine. But you have to admit that an objective view would indicate that it is.

I have read the whole thread. I am not making the same point you are. I extend the subjective and arbitary to the laws which you believe to be objective. The laws on this country are not objective. The entire legal system is based on subjective judgements. You and I simply disagree. O.k. Then my apologies for assuming you hadn't. I didn't comprehend your meaning. But I have to ask why it matters that you extend the subjective and arbitrary to the law? Who does that help? As a practical matter the black letter of law -- specifically in instances like we're discussing here -- is a very good guide to whether or not you'll be jailed for an action. That gives us a working, practical objective answer.

As ususally you feel the need to make backhanded insults, post in a condescending manner to those who do not see it your way. This seems to be your MO. I find it ironic that you are allowed to hold a mod title considering your tone and content. I am not the first person who have done this to in this thread. Maybe you should consider that you might be the one who looks silly. LOL I can live with looking silly. :) But if I've insulted anyone I -- again -- apologize profusely. That doesn't help further our goals here. There is a mighty fine line between arguing stridently using direct examples and analogies and insulting someone. And the exact location of that line is ... surprise surprise ... quite subjective! :D

If I've strayed over it, each person I've offended please send me a PM and I will make personal apologies to each.

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 03:50 PM
O.k. Then my apologies for assuming you hadn't. I didn't comprehend your meaning. But I have to ask why it matters that you extend the subjective and arbitrary to the law? Who does that help? As a practical matter the black letter of law -- specifically in instances like we're discussing here -- is a very good guide to whether or not you'll be jailed for an action. That gives us a working, practical objective answer.

The law is arbitary IMHO. Anyone who has ever gone to traffic court can tell you that. I once saw a judge dissmiss all the cases, pending completion of traffic school, for all military personnel, students & teachers. Those of us who committed the same offense but did not fall into the same protected classes where judged and most convicted. I have seen another Judge convict a hispanic male of the exact same offense tha the let a white middle aged female off on. Both had clear driving records both were charged with speed/reckless driving. Black letter law as you present it would have produced equal outcomes for equal infractions. We all know that does not happen. The law is subjective and arbitary.

To answer your question why I am focusing on this obtuse point is that it matters because you have placed what is legal on a pedstal of objectivity. You state that since it is not illegal to dissobey the sign you see no issue. When others pointed out that there is a moral issue at play you dissmissed the moral issues because they are subjective and that truth determination cannot be made.

You say you follow the law and that is the only valid consideration because it is objective. You seem to acknowledge there maybe moral issues but there is no need to discuss them because they are subjective. Have I understood your position accurately? If not please correct me. As a result I have a question for you. If you were in a state where the sign had force of law would you follow it? If you were in say NC where IIRC you must disclose, would you comply because there it has the force of law? PS The idea that NC has this law and most other states do not also illustrates that the law is subjective and arbitary. :)

What I am attempting to illustrate to you is that the law is also subjective and arbitary in the same way morality is. If one can establish that you either need to give up the laws objetive pedstal or you need to allow morality on the same footing. IMHO both need to be treated as subjective because they are relative. If they are both relative then both might or might not be considerations depending on the individual. Are you tracking me? :)

Sam1911
May 6, 2011, 03:57 PM
Black letter law as you present it would have produced equal outcomes for equal infractions. We all know that does not happen. The law is subjective and arbitary.
But now you seem to be mixing the concepts of law and justice. Both parties in each of your instances appeared to have broken a law -- or at least were accused of doing so. E.g.: "The speed limit was 55, I clocked this man at 70." But the sentences meeted out were inconsistent.

What we're discussing here generally involves no law that COULD be broken -- or that someone could be accused of breaking. Again, how is that subjective?

You say you follow the law and that is your only consideration on this matter. If you were in a state when the sign had force of law would you follow it?
I honestly have every time I've been faced with that decision in the past. In fact, you could say that I do so every working day of my life.

You say you follow the law and that is the only valid consideration because it is objective.I have not stated that morality and ethics do not exist, or are not important. (In fact, multiple times I have listed them as considerations someone will probably have to contend with when making a decision.) I only said that projecting ethics and morality onto other is invalid, or at least, rude.

You seem to acknowledge there maybe moral issues but there is no need to discuss them because they are subjective. Have I understood your position accurately? If not please correct me. Actually, I said arguing that someone else should make the same choices as you (or rather, insulting them if they don't) because of a purely internal/subjective belief doesn't make much sense.

As a result I have a question for you. If you were in a state where the sign had force of law would you follow it? If you were in say NC where IIRC you must disclose, would you comply because there it has the force of law? PS The idea that NC has this law and most other states do not also illustrates that the law is subjective and arbitary. As I said, I do, I have, I probably will again. I disagree on your definition of arbitrary, here though. The law in these cases is not universal in all jurisdictions. But it isn't based on random chance or personal opinion. It is written fairly clearly (in most places) and is universal to all citizens of the affected class in that area. (Meaning, not LEOs, active military or what have you.)

What I am attempting to illustrate to you is that the law is also subjective and arbitary in the same way morality is. If one can establish that you either need to give up the laws objetive pedstal or you need to allow morality on the same footing. IMHO both need to be treated as subjective because they are relative. If they are both relative then both might or might not be considerations depending on the individual. Are you tracking me? Both relative? Relative to what?

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 04:02 PM
I honestly have every time I've been faced with that decision in the past. In fact, you could say that I do so every working day of my life.

So for you the legality is the only consideration?

Would you brake and unjust law?

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 04:06 PM
But now you seem to be mixing the concepts of law and justice. Both parties in each of your instances appeared to have broken a law -- or at least were accused of doing so. E.g.: "The speed limit was 55, I clocked this man at 70." But the sentences meeted out were inconsistent.

What we're discussing here generally involves no law that COULD be broken -- or that someone could be accused of breaking. Again, how is that subjective?

I disagree in the examples I am gave the law was considered broken by some and not by others. Those who got off completely, esp the middle aged women, was judged to not have broken the law even though the evidence proved she did. Judge declared no crime had been commited even though clearly it had.

There are states where carrying on posted property is illegal right?

mljdeckard
May 6, 2011, 04:19 PM
*Drat. Out of popcorn.*

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 04:27 PM
Both relative? Relative to what?

Morals are relative to whatever ethical system you have adopted . One can also have no morals. There are no universals.

Laws are relative to the locality, state, Country and within each of these you have different protected classes which may or may not have special privileges. Those who write and enforce the law do so in an arbitrary manner.

IMHO all things are relative to an individual's system of belief, I referred to it as "web of belief", but you then accused me of an appeal to authority and being obtuse. :)

Loosedhorse
May 6, 2011, 04:41 PM
rellascout--

Please help: I am not sure where you are leading us with this "legal nihilism"--this concept that law is so inconsistently applied that it becomes "subjective" as opposed to just inconsistent. No human system will be perfectly consistent.

How does this help me as I'm staring at the "no guns" sign, deciding whether to enter?

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 04:46 PM
Please help: I am not sure where you are leading us with this "legal nihilism"--this concept that law is so inconsistently applied that it becomes "subjective" as opposed to just inconsistent. No human system will be perfectly consistent.

How does this help me as I'm staring at the "no guns" sign, deciding whether to enter?

Do you follow the letter of the law like Sam1911 or do you follow the spirit?

gym
May 6, 2011, 04:52 PM
The law is based on the principal of being equal to all. That is a premiss that does not always apply. If someone has a propensity for violence and has commited a horrible act as in murder, rape, arson, they are not going to be treated the same way as someone who was an honor student, good father and husband, and Deacon in the church, it's just not going to happen. Should they commit the same crime, let's say they both shot their wives, who will be looked upon with disdain, and who with pity.
Morality can not be dictated by others. I don't believe that people change after they hit maturaty. say 21. They may become more educated but not more moral. There are many good oradors and debators here, but in the end a man is going to lean back on that mans basic nature. A cheat will always cheat, as an alcoholic knows that they are an alcoholic for life, once they think they are no longer an alcoholic, they end up back in the same situation as before. As the Bible says , "and I am not a religious man", Know thyself.
It's one of the hardest things that one can do. We are not all hero's or leaders. We all get confused at times, and we all make mistakes. Knowing all of these things allows us to at least try to exercize logic and good judgement at critical times. I hope everyone "does the right thing" for their own sake as well as for the sake of others, but I cannot impose my will upon others who like myself have strong convictions from years of life experiences. Nor would I really want the responsibility for a poor outcome because anyone followed what I told them to do without really believing that it was right for them.
In the end we will all be judged by a higher power, I just hope there isn't a sign outside their office.

Owen Sparks
May 6, 2011, 04:58 PM
The problem with using pistols for self defense in crowded places is that stray bullets put everyone in the area at risk, and don't say that you are not going to miss. The best miss when the target is shooting back and according to the news, this includes the Navy Seal who fired the first shot at Bin Laden who was unarmed. Look at the statistics for police gun fights and you will find a really lousy hit to miss ratio. Also, bullets often pass through people and glance off hard cover. Some property owners are aware of this and don't want this potential problem. You may have a natural right to defend yourself but you do not have a right to put others in harms way while doing so. There is just no way to have a safe gun fight in a crowd and that is usually the reason for the sign.

DAP90
May 6, 2011, 05:00 PM
Do you follow the letter of the law like Sam1911 or do you follow the spirit?

If the law says that "no guns" signs have no force of law than both the letter and the spirit of the law say that such signs can be ignored providing it is not illegal to enter for other reasons.

Maybe you could explain how legally ignoring such signs is unethical. Why does the simple posting of a sign that is not backed up by law override all other considerations? How does exercising your rights rise to the level of unethical instead of just inconsiderate?

Loosedhorse
May 6, 2011, 05:14 PM
Do you follow the letter of the law like Sam1911 or do you follow the spirit?How does one follow the "spirit" of, say, a drunk-driving law? "Yeah, I was probably 0.09--but that's not so bad, and I was fine!" What is the "spirit" of a school zone speed limit; as long as I look really carefully, I can speed? Or the spirit of a tax law?

I think that, with the exception of good-weather, low-traffic speed limits, I tend to obey the letter of the law. Is "following the spirit of the law" code-speak for breaking the law when the chances of getting caught (or other perceived consequences) are low?

As to entering a no-guns establishment, it's more like: "Hey, it's his place," and "Fine--don't want me, I'm gone." But there are situations when (if legal) I'd enter in a pinch; I wouldn't make it a habit, if I had any choice at all--and it's hard to imagine a long-term, no-choice situation.

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 05:16 PM
If the law says that "no guns" signs have no force of law than both the letter and the spirit of the law say that such signs can be ignored providing it is not illegal to enter for other reasons.

Maybe you could explain how legally ignoring such signs is unethical. Why does the simple posting of a sign that is not backed up by law override all other considerations? How does exercising your rights rise to the level of unethical instead of just inconsiderate?

IMHO the spirit of the law is that the property owner has rights. When you willingly enter their property you should respect those rights.

IMHO Exercising your rights should not come at the trampling of someone elses. The property owner has the right to determine who is and is not armed on their property. Those who object think that their right to self defense overrides the property rights of the owner. They then also justify this trampling by saying its not illegal. Which IMHO is a red herring leading to a strawman.

MachIVshooter
May 6, 2011, 05:16 PM
I did say "may be."

Actually, you said "I think there is quite likely a correlation between murder rate and gun regulations, and that it may be a causative one."

I know when I tell someone "Quite likely", it's a little more positive than "maybe". I don't think I'm the only person who'd interpret it that way, either.

I don't know your definition of what a "pro gun but gun control works" mentality would be!

Basically anyone who believes that we should have guns, but that the government has a right to place restrictions on them. Fudds, for example.

I have the GOA/RMGO attitude. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that, and if someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon, they're too dangerous to be running around loose in society, because no amount of regulation is going to stop them from procuring one.

I believe we should be able to own any firearm, no matter it's rate of fire, bore diameter or destructive potential. I believe we should be able to carry them everywhere, including the white house and airplanes. I believe the founding fathers understood that a government with greater armament than it's constituency not only has the ability to become tyrannical, but also the inclination.

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 05:18 PM
I think that, with the exception of good-weather, low-traffic speed limits, I tend to obey the letter of the law. Is "following the spirit of the law" code-speak for breaking the law when the chances of getting caught (or other perceived consequences) are low?

No in fact in this instance I believe the spirit of the law goes well beyond the law that is on the books. I believe that the actual law on the books does not give the property owner their due rights and respect.

MachIVshooter
May 6, 2011, 05:31 PM
I believe that the actual law on the books does not give the property owner their due rights and respect.

How so? Even in states where the sign alone does not have force of law, there are ways that a business owner can enforce a prohibition with the law behind him. Here in CO, for example, all they have to do is install metal detectors at every public entrance and have full time security personnel. Or skip the walk through detectors and have the guards scan every single patron with a wand before entry. If they do that, carrying becomes a violation of C.R.S. 18-12-214 (4)(a),(b),(c).

Not my problem if they're not concerned enough to install the machines and hire the guards. The provision exists if they are really that hell bent on a gun free zone. Otherwise, I'll assume they're just not that worried about it.

Loosedhorse
May 6, 2011, 05:36 PM
I did say "may be."Actually, you said "I think there is quite likely a correlation between murder rate and gun regulations, and that it may be a causative one."
QED. But perhaps you're upset that I said you might be right? :DBasically anyone who believes that we should have guns, but that the government has a right to place restrictions on themStart a thread, and we may discover who agrees with you. (BTW, governments don't have rights, they have powers).I believe the spirit of the law goes well beyond the law that is on the books.Got you now. The way I would phrase it (you don't have to agree, obviously) is that there is an ethical principle behind the law, and that the ethical principle may extend beyond where the law stops.

I guess that depends on the particular law. It is hard to discern, for example, any clear ethical principle in the tax laws--it's more of a game. So, you follow the rules, and don't try to guess at the principle.

In other cases, there is no law, but there is a spirit. Except in maritime law, there is no legal duty between unacquainted parties to render aid in time of distress. But, I think, the spirit is that all who are able should.

But where there is a clear "spirit" behind the law--and the spirit and the law embody principles I agree with--then I go "beyond" the law to obey the spirit.

You mentioned above, that there are no universals. Just thought I'd mention I disagree with that; I believe we can define some...maybe more than some.

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 05:37 PM
How so? Even in states where the sign alone does not have force of law, there are ways that a business owner can enforce a prohibition with the law behind him. Here in CO, for example, all they have to do is install metal detectors at every public entrance and have full time security personnel. Or skip the walk through detectors and have the gaurds scan every single patron with a wand before entry. If they do that, carrying becomes a violation of C.R.S. 18-12-214 (4)(a),(b),(c).

Not my problem if they're not concerned enough to not install the machines and hire the guards. The provision exists if they are really that hell bent on a gun free zone. Otherwise, I'll assume they're just not that worried about it.

Perfect example of the rationalization I am talking about. Your concept of self defense and your need to carry is so axiomatic to your subjective "web of belief" that you cannot see that the property owner should not have to go through all that. He or she already informed you that you cannot enter with a concealed weapon/handgun. Why do they bare the burden to force your compliance?

gym
May 6, 2011, 05:40 PM
Owen, Bin Laden was shot in the head by a Kimber 45,older model, intentionally, there were no misses. I first was told it was a Sig but that was corrected yesterday. What does that have to do with anything? It was a kill mission, there were never any plans of bringing him back to stand trial and putting more innocents at risk witha a lengthy trial and a dragged out situation that surely would have resulted in more loss of life.
They can't and never will admit to this but thats what it was. the woman was dropped, to stop her from shielding him, notice she was not killed. They even said it a few times before they realised what they were saying, they were under orders to kill him, not to take him alive, that has nothing to do with this.
And dangerous to who, to me, you or the guy coming in with 3 buddies to rob the place?
Do you think those guys are a danger if they want to go buy an ice cream cone and there is a sign outside? Or would you rather they be in the store. I would rather they were in any store I was in.
On missing, I wouldn't have to shoot if they didn't come in to rob, I can't make the assumption that, "they" are just going to rob the owner, and not hurt anyone, it almost never happens like that. Unfortunatelly people do miss but that is another topic, it's stretching the boundries.

rellascout
May 6, 2011, 05:41 PM
You mentioned above, that there are no universals. Just thought I'd mention I disagree with that; I believe we can define some...maybe more than some.

I disagree but that is another topic entirely.

But where there is a clear "spirit" behind the law--and the spirit and the law embody principles I agree with--then I go "beyond" the law to obey the spirit.


And there is the subjectivity. If you agree with the law then you follow it or go above and beyond. I think that property rights are just as important as the right to self defense. So I act accordingly. YMMV and that is OK. I however think the property owner should have more recourse if they have properly posted their property.

gym
May 6, 2011, 05:47 PM
I don't agree, the state and federal laws are enough without individuals making up their own.

DAP90
May 6, 2011, 06:06 PM
IMHO the spirit of the law is that the property owner has rights. When you willingly enter their property you should respect those rights.

It is your opinion that when you enter their property you should respect those rights. The law is pretty clear on the subject.

To be clear I don't necessarily disagree. If a property is posted and you can easily go elsewhere to get what you need then you probably should.

If you can't then I don't agree that the property owners rights automatically override my own in situations when he set up a public shop. Like me, he should be aware of the laws and what they entailed when he set up his shop.

He can't simply choose to ignore the law that says I can go on his property any more than I can choose to ignore a law that says I can't. Well, we both can but at some cost.

IMHO Exercising your rights should not come at the trampling of someone elses. The property owner has the right to determine who is and is not armed on their property. Those who object think that their right to self defense overrides the property rights of the owner. They then also justify this trampling by saying its not illegal.

Somebodies rights are getting trampled in these cases. In some states the property owner wins. In others it's the firearm carrier.

MachIVshooter
May 6, 2011, 07:12 PM
He or she already informed you that you cannot enter with a concealed weapon/handgun. Why do they bare the burden to force your compliance?

I can post "no trespassing" signs, but without 12' fences topped with razor wire and nasty dogs running around inside that perimiter, I don't really expect that no one would dare enter just because of a silly sign.

And on that note, even if it were posted, I wouldn't be bothered by someone cutting across my acreage to save time getting home (maybe their car broke down and my property is between the road and theirs and that shortcut saves them considerable time), so long as they don't damage anything. I would see this as being similar to carrying against a policy, so long as you do what is suggested in the title of this thread and keep it concealed.

Loosedhorse
May 6, 2011, 09:10 PM
I don't really expect that no one would dare enter just because of a silly sign.I would expect that no honest (or maybe no polite) person would enter without a good reason; and even with a good reason, he would likely ask first, if circumstances permitted. And because of that expectation that a trespasser is not polite and honest, I will formulate a different response than I would if the sign said, "Everyone welcome."

But you get to an important point here: we seem to have varied expectations. Some say a sign means what it says, some say it doesn't. For example:I wouldn't be bothered by someone cutting across my acreage...so long as they don't damage anything.My immediate response is, well, then don't put up "No Trespassing" signs, put up "Don't Damage Anything" signs! I mean, I live in exurbia/suburbia, and if I put up a no trespassing sign (I don't), I mean no trespassing. But in a very rural community with fewer by-ways, my attitude might be different.

What is the "reasonable expectation" of someone hanging a no-guns sign? That "good people" will comply, or that they will (silently) refuse to?

And do the owner's reasonable expectations matter?

9MMare
May 6, 2011, 10:43 PM
IMHO the spirit of the law is that the property owner has rights. When you willingly enter their property you should respect those rights.

IMHO Exercising your rights should not come at the trampling of someone elses. The property owner has the right to determine who is and is not armed on their property. Those who object think that their right to self defense overrides the property rights of the owner. They then also justify this trampling by saying its not illegal. Which IMHO is a red herring leading to a strawman.

And you continually seem to miss that he is not respecting the legal gun carrier's rights.

Is he not trampling mine? (I find that wording a bit extreme, a bit...dramatic....but it's your wording).

Like I said earlier, he is none the wiser AND he may well benefit from my patronage. He is harmed in no way. I, OTOH, AM aware of the infringement on my rights and am possibly opened up to dangers.

9MMare
May 6, 2011, 10:49 PM
The problem with using pistols for self defense in crowded places is that stray bullets put everyone in the area at risk, and don't say that you are not going to miss. The best miss when the target is shooting back and according to the news, this includes the Navy Seal who fired the first shot at Bin Laden who was unarmed. Look at the statistics for police gun fights and you will find a really lousy hit to miss ratio. Also, bullets often pass through people and glance off hard cover. Some property owners are aware of this and don't want this potential problem. You may have a natural right to defend yourself but you do not have a right to put others in harms way while doing so. There is just no way to have a safe gun fight in a crowd and that is usually the reason for the sign.

By considering this a 'problem' you immediately call into question the judgement and skills of every CC'er. Carrying a firearm does not mean using it, as many here have said, there are many options for SD and many of us have more than one option/weapon at any time, including avoidance, calling 911, CQC, etc. However, it IS a right.

Do you also think it would be fair to judge all auto drivers in the same way? We all get a license, after basic testing. Period. And we see daily the results of that system. But no one is excluding them from the roads 'for no demonstrated reason.'

MachIVshooter
May 7, 2011, 07:48 AM
But in a very rural community with fewer by-ways, my attitude might be different

It would really have to be. Neighbor's animals get loose and wander, so they may cross the fence to retrieve them. Neighborhood kids take short cuts. It's a different world out here; We fence critters in, not people out.

No doubt having grown up in this atmosphere has, in part, contributed to my attitude of no harm no foul. People who live in communities like mine aren't so defensive and suspicious by and large, unless we have a reason to be, and tend to be quite tolerant of harmless trespass.

If I were to catch someone hunting on my land, different story. For that, you'd better ask permission.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that I believe (and in many repects, the law agrees) that open to the public businesses are held to a different standard of tolerance, my own included.

Neverwinter
May 7, 2011, 12:47 PM
I could also argue that what both parties have agreed to is to follow the law. That given our cultural diversity no other ethical consensus or agreement can be implied.

I would argue that in states where signs have no force of law society has determined it is OK (ethical?) to ignore such signs up until you are asked to leave; and that by opening a shop in such a state the owner has agreed to those conditions.
This does bring up a good point. A shop owner can post a sign indicating that Sharia must be followed, but it will not have the force of law. The owner can take precautions to ensure the enforcement of his own sign, but society has decided that it will not protect that particular property right. In a Muslim system of government, the situation might be different.

How does one follow the "spirit" of, say, a drunk-driving law? "Yeah, I was probably 0.09--but that's not so bad, and I was fine!" What is the "spirit" of a school zone speed limit; as long as I look really carefully, I can speed? Or the spirit of a tax law?The spirit of a law is a murky entity. There are a few approaches to determining the spirit. It could be interpreted as the intent of the individuals who have introduced the law. It could be interpreted as the understanding of the law by those who enacted it.

Loosedhorse
May 7, 2011, 01:16 PM
The problem with using pistols for self defense in crowded places is that stray bullets put everyone in the area at risk
Yes, they do. So what?

Don't misunderstand: I am not cavalier about the possiblility of injuring innocents--heck, I or my daughter could be that by-stander. It is absolutely incumbent on the defender that he shoot only when innocent life and limb are in immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger, and that he be competent with his chosen mode of defense.

Still, the danger is created by the attacker--by his choice, not by the choice of the defender. Nevertheless, the defender will be held accountable for the landing place of each of his bullets.

None of these is good reason to go unarmed in crowded places--do we expect LEOs to do that?
society has decided that it will not protect that particular property rightThere is law, there is ethics, and there is "little ethics": etiquette, or politeness. Manners.

What is the legal thing, what is the right thing, and what is the nice thing to do.

I'm hearing a lot of, "if it's legal, I can do it." And here I was thinking that an armed society is a polite society! :D

Neverwinter
May 7, 2011, 07:30 PM
Yes, they do. So what?

Don't misunderstand: I am not cavalier about the possiblility of injuring innocents--heck, I or my daughter could be that by-stander. It is absolutely incumbent on the defender that he shoot only when innocent life and limb are in immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger, and that he be competent with his chosen mode of defense.
For people placing property rights as equal to self defense, the defender could also shoot when his property is in immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger.

There is law, there is ethics, and there is "little ethics": etiquette, or politeness. Manners.

What is the legal thing, what is the right thing, and what is the nice thing to do.

I'm hearing a lot of, "if it's legal, I can do it." And here I was thinking that an armed society is a polite society! :DDoing what is legal, doing what is right, and doing what is defined by societal norms are three aspects which can be present in varying degrees for a given behavior. Maybe something which is both legal and right might be worth the sacrifice of not conforming to the social mores. If something is both legal and is common societal behavior, should that override the aspect of doing what is right when making your decision?

Loosedhorse
May 7, 2011, 08:48 PM
common societal behaviorWho said good manners was "common societal behavior"? The two rarest things I know of are common sense and common courtesy. :(

As to your question, I probably can't answer generally, I'd need a specific case.
the defender could also shoot when his property is in immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger.Well, people will do what they can live with. I personally wouldn't be wanting to explain--even to myself--why I errantly shot someone's daughter, in order to defend my stereo. I probably wouldn't even want to explain why I shot the 17 y/o who tried to steal it. YMMV.

But if you're saying that property owners excluding whomever they choose from their property (including gun carriers) equates property rights and SD, I disagree. Just stay armed, and stay out.

Owen Sparks
May 7, 2011, 10:00 PM
For people placing property rights as equal to self defense, the defender could also shoot when his property is in immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger.

Here is what things look like when the potential thief knows you will not defend your property.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvfkk5D8-8o&feature=player_embedded

Watch this and then come back and tell me why a human life is always worth more than a six pack of beer.

brboyer
May 7, 2011, 11:01 PM
Anyone post this yet?
I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. 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

Neverwinter
May 8, 2011, 02:39 PM
Who said good manners was "common societal behavior"? The two rarest things I know of are common sense and common courtesy. :(

As to your question, I probably can't answer generally, I'd need a specific case.

We can called it "societal norms" or "social mores" or whatever phrasing you would prefer. The defining characteristic of that behavior is that it intended to be the shared(i.e. common) behavior that is expected of other people in the society. There may be people who place no value on that. Others may place a value of it, but place it under other their other values such as doing what is legal or doing what is right. By asking those people to obey a sign, you are asking them to act contrary to what is legal and their ethics in preference of "etiquette".

My last question was a rhetorical one, to get people to understand what they are asking of others. While it took me a while to finally state in plainly, that has been the point of my involvement in the thread.

Well, people will do what they can live with. I personally wouldn't be wanting to explain--even to myself--why I errantly shot someone's daughter, in order to defend my stereo. I probably wouldn't even want to explain why I shot the 17 y/o who tried to steal it. YMMV.

But if you're saying that property owners excluding whomever they choose from their property (including gun carriers) equates property rights and SD, I disagree. Just stay armed, and stay out.
Here is what things look like when the potential thief knows you will not defend your property.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvfkk...layer_embedded

Watch this and then come back and tell me why a human life is always worth more than a six pack of beer. Those are two sets of people. Based on Owen's post, I would bet that the proportion of overlap is statistically significant.

Owen Sparks
May 8, 2011, 02:58 PM
All laws are eventually backed up by the threat of death, even the most trivial minor offences. Suppose you get a parking ticket and don’t pay it? A “failure to appear” goes on your driving record and the next time the police run your tag for something routine it will show up. Now you are driving with an outstand warrant and you will be taken downtown. But what if you don’t want to be arrested? Then the police will use whatever amount of force is necessary to put you in the back of the cruiser. Resisting arrest is a serious offence and justifies the use of force. They will try not to injure you If you resist effectively enough they will shoot you and kill you.

When civilians are not allowed to respond to an escalating situation in the same manor by using whatever amount of force is necessary to protect their property situations like the one in the video are the ultimate results. Just calling the police after the fact does little good in recovering stolen property unless you know the thief.

Loosedhorse
May 8, 2011, 03:13 PM
By asking those people to obey a sign, you are asking them to act contrary to what is legal and their ethics in preference of "etiquette".Perhaps. I thought I was giving them two ways to stay armed if that's what their ethics mandate (stay out, or ignore the sign), with one of those choices also being well-mannered. (At least better mannered, and arguably more ethical...but I won't argue that for now).
If something is both legal and is common societal behavior, should that override the aspect of doing what is right when making your decision?
Well, let's have another look at this, then.

It may be (and is in some places) legal to enter a "no-guns"-signed store while carrying concealed (with proper license, if required). Is it "common societal behavior" that such a sign is ignored? I don't know. My sense is that a higher percentage of those carrying illegally would ignore it than lawful carriers; if that's true, does that tell us something about the "rightness" of ignoring the sign?

Taking a different tack, slavery (and then later, separate but "equal" :rolleyes:) was legal and "common" in its day; opinions varied (then) about whether slavery was "right." Those who thought it wasn't perhaps made more headway by attacking it openly than secretly, but both were done.

Neverwinter
May 8, 2011, 06:32 PM
It may be (and is in some places) legal to enter a "no-guns"-signed store while carrying concealed (with proper license, if required). Is it "common societal behavior" that such a sign is ignored? I don't know. My sense is that a higher percentage of those carrying illegally would ignore it than lawful carriers; if that's true, does that tell us something about the "rightness" of ignoring the sign?It tells you absolutely nothing, unless you are a strict deontological ethicist. Because two people perform the same activity, the comparisons that you can make between the two people because of their ethics do not have an implication as to the ethics of the activity. The ethics of an activity stand on its own merits, not on the merits of those who partake in it.

The common and shared behavior expected by society is not to ignore signs. I do so if and when other conflicting ethical and legal concerns are lacking.

Taking a different tack, slavery (and then later, separate but "equal" ) was legal and "common" in its day; opinions varied (then) about whether slavery was "right." Those who thought it wasn't perhaps made more headway by attacking it openly than secretly, but both were done.Both are being done these days at the individual business level(eg. gunbuster business cards) up to the governmental level.

All laws are eventually backed up by the threat of death, even the most trivial minor offences. Suppose you get a parking ticket and don’t pay it? A “failure to appear” goes on your driving record and the next time the police run your tag for something routine it will show up. Now you are driving with an outstand warrant and you will be taken downtown. But what if you don’t want to be arrested? Then the police will use whatever amount of force is necessary to put you in the back of the cruiser. Resisting arrest is a serious offence and justifies the use of force. They will try not to injure you If you resist effectively enough they will shoot you and kill you.

When civilians are not allowed to respond to an escalating situation in the same manor by using whatever amount of force is necessary to protect their property situations like the one in the video are the ultimate results. Just calling the police after the fact does little good in recovering stolen property unless you know the thief.
If you would like to discuss the difference between the powers afforded a private individual vs law enforcement, feel free to start another thread. But don't derail this one.

Loosedhorse
May 9, 2011, 08:35 AM
The ethics of an activity stand on its own merits, not on the merits of those who partake in it
How can they stand on their own? Ethics presuppose people interacting. One need not be a "strict deontological ethicist" to take note of what people actually do, and how they feel about it.

Ethics can tell you which values are in conflict in in a given situation--how do they tell you which of values you should choose as governing, and which as subordinate? That takes value judgment, and that's the job of individuals--or groups of them.

Neverwinter
May 9, 2011, 10:25 AM
How can they stand on their own? Ethics presuppose people interacting. One need not be a "strict deontological ethicist" to take note of what people actually do, and how they feel about it.

Ethics can tell you which values are in conflict in in a given situation--how do they tell you which of values you should choose as governing, and which as subordinate? That takes value judgment, and that's the job of individuals--or groups of them.
You said "My sense is that a higher percentage of those carrying illegally would ignore it than lawful carriers; if that's true, does that tell us something about the "rightness" of ignoring the sign?"
The merits of those who partake in the activity do not affect the merits of an activity, and making the assumption otherwise is fallacious. If the proportion of thieves is higher than the proportion of legitimate purchasers when it comes to people who do not stop for the doorman at retail stores, it doesn't have any bearing on the ethics of stopping for the doorman.

gym
May 9, 2011, 10:56 AM
Newsmax reports hundreds of references to attacks that were to be carried out in small groups of heavilly armed men, "commando style". In major malls, and the NYC subway system, That last one was mentioned severaltimes. So why don't we all just do what we think is right for us. My step son works in those tunnels, for the TA, so please stop bantering about things that other people should do, it''s starting to sound like an Obama press conference. Carry where you feel necessary, try to obey the law, as long as you feel comfortable and that's it.

Loosedhorse
May 9, 2011, 11:51 AM
the proportion of thieves is higher than the proportion of legitimate purchasers when it comes to people who do not stop for the doorman at retail stores, it doesn't have any bearing on the ethics of stopping for the doorman.
Interesting. Perhaps the high percentage of thieves engaging in thievery also has no bearing on the ethics of thievery--yet it would seem to mean something. :Dtry to obey the lawTry? Only gamble what you can afford to lose. That about covers all the angles, I guess.

buzzg
May 9, 2011, 12:06 PM
Simple answer, I don't go to such stores/businesses and like some others here I seek out my CCW friends and inform them of the store/business policy. Eventually, those business people will get the idea. Or not.

TexasRifleman
May 9, 2011, 12:15 PM
Started off friendly enough but this one's gotten a bit too angry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Concealed means concealed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!