Why the fuss?


PDA






PR-NJ
May 10, 2012, 09:08 PM
I may be missing something, but why all the outrage over the "no firearms" signs in various businesses. The signs are primarily there for tort liability reasons.

If you have a legal CCW permit, who's going to know you're carrying as long as your gun stays concealed. Discretion is the better part of valor. Or put another way, why make a stink if you don't have to.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why the fuss?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PT92
May 10, 2012, 09:30 PM
I may be missing something, but why all the outrage over the "no firearms" signs in various businesses. The signs are primarily there for tort liability reasons.

If you have a legal CCW permit, who's going to know you're carrying as long as your gun stays concealed. Discretion is the better part of valor. Or put another way, why make a stink if you don't have to.

Not always--Many businesses are simply liberal anti-gun establishments of which IMO should be boycotted in order that they receive the message that Second Amendment restrictions=No BUSINESS!

-Cheers

beatledog7
May 10, 2012, 10:27 PM
In some places they carry the force of law, and violating them makes to doer unlawful. Not a good position for a responsible gun owner.

hso
May 10, 2012, 10:30 PM
The signs are directed at you and are saying that you aren't welcome. If you're not welcome then why not take your money to the business that doesn't post that you aren't.

We've had several members explain that the signs are meaningless to the very people that the business is trying to keep out, but that those of us that can afford to carry have had the background check to purchase the handgun as well as to get the permit are the very people they'd like to have. Statistically we're unlikely to cause trouble. Law abiding citizens exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right with some discretionary income to spend. If the wrongheaded prejudice of such signs is accepted without comment then the business never learns that their profits are being turned away.

mnrivrat
May 10, 2012, 10:34 PM
The signs are primarily there for tort liability reasons.

What do you base that on ? And if that were true, why wouldn't most all business's put up those signs if there was that type of a concern ?

Nomad
May 10, 2012, 10:35 PM
Think about it. How much sense do they make? They only stop law abiding folks from carrying. The criminal see it as a gun free zone. I make a policy to never patronize a business that has such a sign.

Carl N. Brown
May 10, 2012, 10:51 PM
I see the signs as a (mistaken) response to the proliferation of "shall-issue" carry permits. Tort liability? How could that be a burden on a premises owner unless he required firearms? Any liability for accidental shootings should be on the gun carrier. What's next, no baseball bat signs? No chainsaw signs? No Lassiter Laser signs?

coalman
May 11, 2012, 01:55 AM
In some places they carry the force of law, and violating them makes to doer unlawful. Not a good position for a responsible gun owner.

What locales are those? Not leaving when asked becomes trespassing, and you could be banned for life (resulting in trespassing if you ever enter again, gun or not), but I'm curious of locales where simple violation the first time is punishable/enforceable by the legal system.

Deus Machina
May 11, 2012, 06:19 AM
You go through the fingerprinting, taxing, and more background checks than some police officers, in my state, but you aren't trustworthy?

If a place doesn't have the common sense and holds no trust in me, they're also not likely to hold my money.

Twmaster
May 11, 2012, 06:23 AM
What locales are those?

Texas.

A properly posted sign makes it a crime to carry in a private business.

Ryanxia
May 11, 2012, 08:33 AM
Also, in states where those signs hold the force of law, if you were ever forced to defend yourself even if you're in the right you're looking at charges. In my state your loss of CCW for 5 years.

303tom
May 11, 2012, 09:19 AM
I may be missing something, but why all the outrage over the "no firearms" signs in various businesses. The signs are primarily there for tort liability reasons.

If you have a legal CCW permit, who's going to know you're carrying as long as your gun stays concealed. Discretion is the better part of valor. Or put another way, why make a stink if you don't have to.
I could not have said that better.................

Loosedhorse
May 11, 2012, 09:19 AM
The signs are primarily there for tort liability reasons.

If you have a legal CCW permit, who's going to know you're carrying as long as your gun stays concealed.Well, there are several responses.

First, why is it permissible for a person running a store that's open to the public to sacrifice MY rights for HIS supposed tort liability? Wouldn't a better sign be: "If you enter this store legally armed, you are agreeing that I will be 'held harmless' at your expense for any and all damages and costs that may result."

Next, you seem to be implying that carrying concealed into a store that has signs against it is a big nothing. I know that people vary on this question, but if I have seen the sign and go in armed any way, I am showing the owner no respect, and I am being dishonest.

Then, you seem to imply there are no penalties involved, "as long as your gun stays concealed." But the ONLY point of having the gun in the store is that you MIGHT have to expose it to save your life. You may then be in for a lot of things: a civil suit that against you by the person you shot or drew down on, with them using your dishonesty in carrying "where prohibited" as a impeachment of character; a civil suit FROM THE OWNER for any legal costs, loss of business, damages/clean-up, mental anguish, etc.

And if you live in a may-issue state, permanent loss of CCW. Hey, maybe a prosecutor thinks he can, like the civil attorney, use your decision to carry where prohibited against you, and goes for a criminal charge--with everything (like loss of employment) that entails.

So, hey, if you know your gun is absolutely "going to stay concealed", then why bring it into the store; but if you do need it, then it won't be staying concealed--and then, depending on the circumstances, carrying where it was posted not to, could make your post-shooting legal situation much more interesting than you'd like.

The solution: get rid of those signs (ask the owner), or shop elsewhere and carry.

HEAVY METAL 1
May 11, 2012, 09:28 AM
There is a mall where I live that is posted against CC. The hypocrasy of it all is that there is a fantasy store in it that has those bizarre skull headed, dragon, etc knives, small to large, swords-small letter opener size to claymores! But I'm not allowed to carry a gun in there:banghead:

Manson
May 11, 2012, 09:34 AM
For me it's pretty simple. A business tries to deny my rights. And then smiles at me and asks for my money.

A business posts a sign. "We do not support freedom of speech. People who have something to say are trouble makers. Please remain silent."

Could you remain silent and go in and spend your money. If you believe that the Second Amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms but you can't be troubled to respond to those who would deny it you don't deserve it.

No one is calling for noisy protests. Just speak with your wallet. If you are comfortable politely letting the business know why you are going elsewhere all the better.

Deus Machina
May 11, 2012, 09:47 AM
No one is calling for noisy protests. Just speak with your wallet. If you are comfortable politely letting the business know why you are going elsewhere all the better.

True, and unless you (politely!) point out to the business why you are not spending money there instead of somewhere else, they will not know, and it will not change.

I just don't want to spend money somewhere that disrespects my efforts and license, without guaranteeing my safety on their own efforts.

On the other hand, if I manage to find another gamer shop with a sign proclaiming "gaming is not our only hobby" on a used target by the register, they're getting my buck. :)

Bushpilot
May 11, 2012, 10:15 AM
why all the outrage over the "no firearms" signs in various businesses

I don't want to financially support any business that has a problem with me legally carrying my gun. I also think that if I were a crook I'd view businesses who post those signs as great potential targets.

CountryUgly
May 11, 2012, 10:29 AM
The signs hold no weight where I live so legally I can just ignore them and carry on but I choose not to do business with these establishments solely in support of my brothers in arms so to speak that live in other states that the signs do carry the weight of the law . It's not a businesses right to deny us ours. And yes if I'm about to walk into a store that has one of those big ugly signs in the front window I enter and inform the manager/owner why they are not going to get my money and give them the opportunity to take the sign down so I can buy what I need and they can get my money. Out of the half dozen or so times I done this (signs aren't really common here) It has worked once.

coalman
May 11, 2012, 10:51 AM
What locales are those?
Texas. A properly posted sign makes it a crime to carry in a private business.
Interesting. So, a business can basically create "law" via signage? What if they posted, because for example the business found it disruptive, "No talking on cell phones in store"? Or, for example, "You may not enter this business with peanuts" because an employee has a fatal allergy. Are these legally enforceable crimal offenses (arrest, jail time, fine, removal of property/rights, etc.) too under this "a sign makes it a crime" Texas law? Or, does it just apply to guns? Just curios.

CoRoMo
May 11, 2012, 10:56 AM
Are these legally enforceable crimal offenses...
Just for guns.

And Texas isn't the only state where a business, or simply an employee working there who decides to post a sign, can 'create a law' specific to their premises.

HGUNHNTR
May 11, 2012, 11:01 AM
Being Liberal doesn't guarantee an anti-gun stance. I'm really getting tired of gun rights advocates turning the issue into one of party preference. The most influential, and powerful ally a gun rights advocate can have is a Liberal gun owner. Don't alienate this important, and neccesary component in the continued fight for the RKBA.

I am a gun toting Liberal that has changed the mind of MANY friends on what the face of the American gun owner looks like. Three, previously rabidly anti-gun, have become owners themselves.

Sorry, now back to the OP's qestion. The "fuss" is about a company taking it upon themselves to eliminate the rights of the citizenry. Legal or not, the fact that they try to eliminate one's personal liberties based on fear or paranoia is fuss worthy in my opinion.

A sign that says "Please, no expressing your opinions in AMC theatre" "This is a first amendment free zone!"
"Illegal search and seizure welcomed at AMC"
all similarly offensive.

shuvelrider
May 11, 2012, 11:15 AM
"No shirt,No shoes, No service" signs are the same difference. The owner of the store has the right to post them, for the reasonable decency and safety of their overall clientele.
If your neighbor told you not to conceal carry on his property, you would have to abide by that request or leave.
Yeah, I know you have been tested, inspected, and paid money for your permit. But it is not a "cart' blanche" over the rights of others.
You do have the right to spend your money elsewhere or not visit your neighbor if their request upset you.
I open carry in the state of Michigan, do I think that grants me an immunity from everything concerning others, not at all. You still have to practice "responsible" gun ownership by the current law's.

CountryUgly
May 11, 2012, 11:19 AM
Being Liberal doesn't guarantee an anti-gun stance. I'm really getting tired of gun rights advocates turning the issue into one of party preference. The most influential, and powerful ally a gun rights advocate can have is a Liberal gun owner. Don't alienate this important, and neccesary component in the continued fight for the RKBA.

I am a gun toting Liberal that has changed the mind of MANY friends on what the face of the American gun owner looks like. Three, previously rabidly anti-gun, have become owners themselves.

Sorry, now back to the OP's qestion. The "fuss" is about a company taking it upon themselves to eliminate the rights of the citizenry. Legal or not, the fact that they try to eliminate one's personal liberties based on fear or paranoia is fuss worthy in my opinion.

A sign that says "Please, no expressing your opinions in AMC theatre" "This is a first amendment free zone!"
"Illegal search and seizure welcomed at AMC"
all similarly offensive.
Thanks for fighting the good fight even if you're a southpaw.

HoosierQ
May 11, 2012, 11:20 AM
I may be missing something, but why all the outrage over the "no firearms" signs in various businesses. The signs are primarily there for tort liability reasons.

If you have a legal CCW permit, who's going to know you're carrying as long as your gun stays concealed. Discretion is the better part of valor. Or put another way, why make a stink if you don't have to.
That's always been my philosophy.

HGUNHNTR
May 11, 2012, 11:27 AM
"No shirt,No shoes, No service" signs are the same difference. The owner of the store has the right to post them, for the reasonable decency and safety of their overall clientele.
Hmm, I disagree strongly with that. Company policy regarding decency or hygiene are definitely not the "same difference" as one affecting a constitutional right.

Kleanbore
May 11, 2012, 11:41 AM
Posted by PT92: Many businesses are simply liberal anti-gun establishments of which IMO should be boycotted in order that they receive the message that Second Amendment restrictions=No BUSINESS!For your information, one of the most influential "conservative commentators has held that private ownership of firearms should not be allowed. A US President who was widely characterized as a "conservative" felt the same way, but put forth a different face for political reasons. At least one major "conservative" newspaper I know of has been strongly anti-gun for decades.

On the other side of the ledger, one "liberal" US President was a well known hunter and rifleman. Another was a life member of the NRA, and he once acquired a rifle through the DCM. At least one powerful "liberal" Congressman fought hard and long against restrictive gun laws for many years. And I have heard one of our members here who is a well known instructor describe himself as a "liberal".

And then there's the activist who helped draft the Declaration of Independence and who penned the Second Amendment himself.

Close to home, my "conservative" Republican aunt was a virulent anti gunner.

It is not helpful to characterize anti gunners with a broad brush.

HGUNHNTR
May 11, 2012, 12:00 PM
^+1, no reason to create an enemy from a friend. Few feelings match that of seeing the anti-gun tide turning in a friend's head as they are pounding lead downrange at the local shoot-a-torium. :)

Loosedhorse
May 11, 2012, 12:20 PM
If your neighbor told you not to conceal carry on his property, you would have to abide by that request or leave.Sure, and if he told you to leave or remove a religious symbol you were wearing, you'd have to do one or the other. And if he told you to leave his property because of your race, you'd have to abide by that, too, and leave.

Still, once someone leaves his private property and opens a store and invites "the public" in, the reasons that he may use to exclude members of the public are limited. For now, a shop-owner can legally exclude gun carriers. Fifty years ago he could legally kick you out for the color of your skin. However, not everyone thought that was right, and their were boycotts...and eventually the law changed.

shuvelrider
May 11, 2012, 12:45 PM
Sad to say, laws of the land are not as clear cut anymore. Land owners and business owners do have laws written for them also, we do not have to like them, but they are there no matter how we rationalize there importance.
That being said, it would behoove us to educate in a rational manner, those business's in whom we do not agree with. In regards to their posted signs, their store, their rule's. Sneaking your gun in under the guise of your permit, will not win any points for the gun community in popularity.
Check the validity of the sign with the local ordnance's, city legal , whoever. Just may be that the store owner could press charges on ya.

gc70
May 11, 2012, 12:47 PM
In some places they carry the force of law, and violating them makes to doer unlawful. Not a good position for a responsible gun owner.What locales are those?

North Carolina

Concealed carry on any posted private premises is illegal under NC General Statutes § 14‑415.11(c)(8) (http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.11.html). A violation is a Class 2 Misdemeanor (http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.21.html) subject to up to six months imprisonment (http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-3.html) and disqualification (http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.12.html) from having a concealed carry license. The penalties tend to make folks take notice of no-guns signs.

GEM
May 11, 2012, 12:57 PM
Business and location bans are explicitly promoted to make concealed carry so difficult as to deter folks from doing so and/or getting the permit or license.

Why carry if you can't go in a mall, etc? Don't want to leave it in the car, etc.

The fear of liability and faked interest in property rights is used to convince businesses to ban.

As far as going somewhere else. That argument doesn't work. Sometimes there are small community only one of or unique businesses that are necessary for life.

The same property based argument was used to promote racial discrimination. Those other people should just go elsewhere - a tool to segregate communities.

I regard life as trumping property rights if you open yourself to the public for business. It is a similar argument for self-defense lethal force per se. Why does your life trump that of the attacker? Much religious, legal and philosophical discussion of such. Thus, why does your control of your business trump the right to defend yourself if my carrying doesn't threaten you?

Just flapping your arms about your property is more emotional that rational.

I don't want to give businesses the right to discriminate on my fundamental right to protect my life just as they should not have to ability to discriminate on the well-known protected categories. I don't think they should bow to the liability shills or antigunners - under the false pretense of protecting property rights.

gym
May 11, 2012, 01:20 PM
Restaurants and bars often have signs in their coat room that say, we are not responsible for personel property, "like a mink coat". If they have a coat check room, they are responsible weahther the sign is there or not. Normally people don't see or look at signs, unless they are driving, i don't look at signs on store windows or doors, usually it is just advertising. Why would you be liable unless they had a person at the door informing each client of this policy.
It's not my responsibility to read all signs that are hanging in our modern day society otherwise I would never get down the block.
How can this be a credible way to notify people of their store policy, unless it's on a Public Adress system or a notification is given by a person to everyone who enters.
If people miss entire street signs and exit signs, why are they expected to see a "no gun" sign?

mdauben
May 11, 2012, 02:00 PM
Interesting. So, a business can basically create "law" via signage?
No, the business isn't creating the law. The TX CCW law, as written by their legislature, contains provisions for buisnesses to prohibit CCW on their premises by posting a legally defined sign. If they do this correctly (not any "no gunz" sign will do, the contents and format of the sign are legally defined), it becomes a crime to CCW on those premises.

IMO this is bad law, but its what TX (and I think a couple other states) currently have to live with.

95XL883
May 11, 2012, 02:15 PM
What locales are those?

Kansas is another. First offense is a $50 fine. Second offense is more serious. I won't risk a first offense (and generally don't shop at 'no guns allowed' stores).

rtroha
May 11, 2012, 02:50 PM
The signs are primarily there for tort liability reasons.

Ohio law already says that businesses are not liable for the actions of concealed carry licensees so the signs are completely unnecessary, if that were the reason.

Owen Sparks
May 11, 2012, 03:19 PM
This is about property rights.

You and I may not agree with the rules but we must respect them if we want others to respect the rules we make concerning our property.

I'm sure that those of us who own businesses can think of things that are legal but otherwise disruptive, dangerous or just plain disgusting that we would not want to be forced to tolerate on our own property. For example, it is probably not illegal for two men to kiss in public an your state anymore, but you still would not allow two _ _ _ _ to make out in your store.

Thomas Paine said it best:

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Manson
May 11, 2012, 03:36 PM
I beg to differ. You can't make "rules" that violate peoples rights. You can ask a person to leave your business for no reason at all. If he does not he is guilty of criminal trespass. When you open a business to the public you don't gain the right to violate the constitution.

Owen Sparks
May 11, 2012, 05:36 PM
I beg to differ. You can't make "rules" that violate peoples rights.

Of course you can. The Constitution is a limit on the GOIVERNMENT, not individuals.

The Constitution guarantees you the right to free speech, but you can’t exercise that right in a theater.

The Constitution guarantees you a right to worship as you see fit but you cannot hold a church service in the lobby of the bank or hold a revival on the produce isle at the grocery store.

The Constitution guarantees the right of peaceable assembly but not on my lawn.

The Constitution also guarantees you the right to keep and bear arms but NOT on my property unless I allow it.

BTW, I have not posted a sign so you are welcome to visit my business armed, but you still can’t smoke there. My property my rules.

Loosedhorse
May 11, 2012, 06:03 PM
things that are legal but otherwise disruptive, dangerous or just plain disgusting that we would not want to be forced to tolerate on our own property.So, you feel that someone peaceably, legally carrying into a store is reasonably seen as disruptive, dangerous or just plain disgusting?The Constitution guarantees you the right to free speech, but you can’t exercise that right in a theater.Sure you can. Does the theatre have the right to force you to leave your vocal cords outside? Can it say you can't talk politics with your date (so long as you don't disturb others), or post a political opinion to a blog while you're there? Can it make you enter gagged and with hands tied behind you, so you have no possibility of exercising your right?The Constitution guarantees you a right to worship as you see fit but you cannot hold a church service in the lobby of the bankCan the bank throw you out for praying silently during the time you're making a deposit? For wearing a religous symbol around your neck, or on your head--or carrying a religious symbol "concealed"? If you exercise a basic right in a way that disturbs no one, they can legally throw you out?

Not sure they know that.The Constitution guarantees the right of peaceable assembly but not on my lawn.Your lawn is private property. Nothing prevents me from "peaceably assembling" with a few of my friends at a coffee shop (we'll even be polite enough to order some coffee and sit down).The Constitution also guarantees you the right to keep and bear arms but NOT on my property unless I allow it.You're correct as far as it concerns your private property. Currently, you're also correct about property that you've opened to the public, but I hope that will change.

If the state can reach into your store and stop you from excluding people based on their race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or disability, then it should also (IMHO) stop you from excluding people from your store because they are legally armed.

Basic civil rights.

Manson
May 11, 2012, 06:34 PM
Actually if you refuse service to two men because of their sexual preference you are subject to civil prosecution. Which is no different than refusing to serve someone because of their race.

An attempt to stop someone from entering your establishment with a gun, unless otherwise prohibited by law, is also subject to civil prosecution.

You can ask anyone you wish to leave your business and they must comply. Otherwise they are subject to arrest for criminal trespass.

However you do not have the right to ask someone to leave for the express purpose of violating their civil rights. In some cases you may be subject to prosecution in federal court.

ETA. All the examples you used are wrong. In every case those individuals actions were not illeagal. Again if the police were called in any of those cases they would be asked to leave. If they did not comply they would either be charged with trespass or some licensing issue or other. Demonstration without permit etc. They would NOT and can NOT be arrested for worship.

Folks don't have any business on your lawn. That's trespass. It's not "my rules" its the law.

Manson
May 11, 2012, 06:48 PM
Loose. As yet no one has tested the law with regard to carry a gun into a business. At least not that I'm aware of. But I have no doubt that someone will.

What has been tested however is the exclusion of a person or persons involved in other legal behaviors. And the outcome is almost always in favor of those involved in the legal behavior.

An owner cannot prohibit people wearing blue shirts from entering their establishment. Simply because they don't like blue. However they can prevent people without shirts from entering based on a perceived hygiene issue.

So if a business can establish a clear connection between the action (in this case the gun) and sound reasons to disallow there presence he may be able to do so.

As yet I have not heard a valid reason for not allowing someone to continue a lawful behavior. In Florida the signs are meaningless. But I still refuse to do business with them.

jrdolall
May 11, 2012, 06:53 PM
Take 5-6 well dressed buddies to a restaurant that forbids weapons and make sure you do it on a slow night. Don't do it on a weekend when they are slammed and could care less. Make it Tuesday early when they are twiddling their thumbs. Be seated and ask the waitress to bring you a wine list as well as an appetizer list. Talk big about how you are looking at severala appetizers and the 22 oz ribeye. Have someone "notice" the sign and have a very polite converstaion with the manager or owner right before you get up and leave. Make sure he knows that the group is going to a competitor.
Most establishments will find it hard to swallow the loss of $200-$300 at a slow time. Appetizers and alcohol are HUGE profit items for most restaurants. Don't be offensive or loud but make sure they know that the sign is costing them money. It is called "voting with your wallet" and is the only way to get your point across to most businesses that have an offensive policy.

Zundfolge
May 11, 2012, 06:59 PM
The signs are primarily there for tort liability reasons.
There is absolutely zero tort or liability reason for posting "no guns" signs. That's just a flat out lie told by anti-gun activists. There has NEVER been a business sued because of the actions of someone licensed to carry concealed. Period.

The signs are 100% a political statement. If they put up a sign that said "No Republicans" or "No Christians" or for that matter "Whites Only" it would be the exact same thing.

Sure they have the right to post whatever their inane bigotries are on the doors of their business, but we also have the right to refuse to do business there and to tell others to do the same. Often these political bigotry signs are put up by people who are just ignorant, so as a courtesy some of us will tell the business owners that they will lose business if they keep the sign up. Nothing wrong with that.


I do object to these signs having special weight of law. Just because I don't notice some bigot's little sign doesn't mean he should have the right and ability to get me in legal trouble. Where I live (Colorado) I think they do it right. The sign doesn't carry any legal weight on its own, but if you are asked to leave by the proprietor and you refuse THEN you're in trouble.

mmitch
May 11, 2012, 07:06 PM
Consider the rights of the individual who owns the property, upon which, you wish to carry...

Mike

theotherwaldo
May 11, 2012, 07:23 PM
I don't go where I'm not welcome.

-And I won't let my money go where I'm not welcome.

Skribs
May 11, 2012, 07:43 PM
One reason to CCW inside a business that has this sign, even if you will not draw, is simply because you are already carrying. Even if I'm not going to use it, I'd rather not go back to my car, pull it out in view of everyone, and leave it there. I may not use it while I'm in the store, but I may need it before I go back to my car.

Frank Ettin
May 11, 2012, 07:53 PM
[1] Unless we're talking about government property, the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

The Constitution does not regulate private conduct. See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614, 1 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added:"....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. ...

[2] Yes, barring people from carrying guns on one's property is discrimination, but in general discrimination is perfectly legal.

Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.

Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurants discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge.

Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property. Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal.

[3] To the extent it may be illegal for a business to discriminate, it's because of a statute and not the Constitution.

There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases such as race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and some others, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category. These various anti-discrimination laws only prohibit discrimination on those various specified grounds. Having a gun isn't one of them.

[4] Conflicting rights often rub against each other, and when they do, it's been customary in our system for a legislative body to decide priorities and enact laws to ameliorate the rubbing.

Businesses open to the public are subject to numerous regulations and requirements limiting the business' freedom to use its property and conduct business as it chooses. These various requirements, regulations and rules to which a business open to the public is subject arose through the political process in which interested parties can participate; and they therefore reflect a considered determination by a legislative body or authorized administrative agency that as a matter of public policy the public interest served by the requirement, regulation or rule was sufficient to justify impairment of the property rights of the business.

Of course there's a conflict between the rights of an honest citizen to lawfully carry a gun and the right of a business to control its property and exclude people carrying a gun, if it so chooses. So far, to the extent that state legislatures have acted on the question, they have usually recognized the business' property rights and at least have provided some mechanism by which business can require that gun carriers leave on request or be charged with criminal trespass.

[5] Market forces, however, can have an impact.

An interesting side issue that seems to be getting missed is that while business can bar guns, and some do, many do not. And some businesses which have done so in the past, have, because of pressure from customers, reversed their policies. And so whether a business chooses to bar guns is another thing susceptible to the forces of the free market.

Owen Sparks
May 11, 2012, 09:09 PM
I used to work as a bouncer in a beer joint. I could tell people to leave for ANY behavior that I thought was disruptive or dangerous. If they refused they could be charged with trespass. I never ejected anyone for peaceably carrying a weapon but I did throw a lot of people out for lots of other reasons such as throwing up, belligerence, homosexual promiscuity in the men's room, starting fights and general disorderly conduct. Anything that damaged property or offended the customers was reason enough not to do business with people causing the trouble and the local police backed me up.

Loosedhorse
May 11, 2012, 09:48 PM
The signs are 100% a political statement. If they put up a sign that said "No Republicans" or "No Christians" or for that matter "Whites Only" it would be the exact same thing.+1

Literally, of course, this is not true: a "No Guns" sign is not the same as a "Whites Only" sign.

But I think you've hit the emotional nail squarely on the head. And, IMHO, emotions matter. A "No Guns sign" is certainly a statement of philosophy, and it is no leap to say it is a political statement.

Frank Ettin
May 11, 2012, 10:12 PM
The signs are 100% a political statement. If they put up a sign that said "No Republicans" or "No Christians" or for that matter "Whites Only" it would be the exact same thing. ...Literally, of course, this is not true: a "No Guns" sign is not the same as a "Whites Only" sign.

But I think you've hit the emotional nail squarely on the head. And, IMHO, emotions matter. A "No Guns sign" is certainly a statement of philosophy, and it is no leap to say it is a political statement. Phooey! You're just guessing. You have no basis upon which to assume that. It's possible, for example, for a business owner to be concerned about the increased risk of a possibility of damage to his property from an unintentional discharge. See this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/man-accidentally-fires-gun-in-walmart-bathroom_n_1290733.html) and this (http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showthread.php?405045-Gun-goes-off-in-Utah-restroom-shatters-toilet).

Loosedhorse
May 11, 2012, 10:39 PM
All my post said was that his post rang true to me emotionally, and I've got all the "basis" I need to say that, without any guessing at all.

I also said that such a sign was a statement of philosophy. That's a broad enough term (which I chose intentionally) to include a business owner's assessment that his liability concerns (whether or not they are based in reality) are more important than his customers' rights.

BTW, it is late in my time zone, so I'm not at my sharpest...but I somehow missed in your two links any reference as to how simply hanging a no-guns sign (and not enforcing it with true controlled access and gun-exclusion screening procedures) actually reduces Walmart's or Carl's Jr.'s risk exposure either to property damage costs or tort liability. Maybe you have that info, and are just saving it for later?

Frank Ettin
May 11, 2012, 10:48 PM
All my post said was that his post rang true to me emotionally, and I've got all the "basis" I need to say that, without any guessing at all....Your emotional reaction is not a basis upon which to conclude that factually a business owner's choice not to allow guns is a philosophical or political statement.

...but I somehow missed in your two links any reference as to how simply hanging a no-guns sign (and not enforcing it with true controlled access and gun-exclusion screening procedures) actually reduces Walmart's or Carl's Jr.'s risk..The point is that guys legally carrying guns have had unintentional discharges in business establishments. If I'm running a business and prefer not to have to deal with such things, I might decide to do whatever I can to try to keep guns out. It's an imperfect remedy, but perhaps the only one reasonably available to me.

Owen Sparks
May 11, 2012, 10:51 PM
In a free society people should be able to reserve the right not to associate with other peeople for ANY reason including carrying weapons. Immagine how rediculous a law would be that REQUIRED you to patronize a business with an anti-gun policy, or a pro-gun policy for that matter. Freedom of association is a basic human right, even if Congress passes trendy legislation to the contrairy.

Loosedhorse
May 11, 2012, 10:59 PM
Your emotional reaction is not a basis upon which to conclude that factually a business owner's choice not to allow guns is a philosophical or political statement. I did not claim it was. But emotional reactions have a lot to do with what we perceive as "fairness," and I believe that that can influence where the law eventually goes.

With apology for recounting the obvious, the Civil Rights movement in this country was a study in changing people's emotional response to seeing black Americans denied equal treatment and dignity. And that influenced law.The point is that guys legally carrying guns have had unintentional discharges in business establishments.Frank, you and I are talking in two different realms. I have already acknowledged (see post #39) that I am not speaking to what is true legally now, but rather to what I hope will be true legally in the future. And I believe (emotionally, regarding fairness) that a business owner trying to manage his risk by limiting my right to carry has no more validity than if he thought that certain ethnic groups were more likely to shoplift, and so he hung a sign that said they weren't allowed in his store.

Given that I am clearly expressing my idea of fairness, not my opinion of current legal reality--this is not the Legal forum, Frank--do you think you can see clear to allowing me an opinion, and keeping your snarky "Phooeys" to a minimum?In a free society people should be able to reserve the right not to associate with other peeople for ANY reason including carrying weaponsAnd they do. Private homes and private clubs should enjoy that right. You should NOT be able to exclude the people you don't care to associate with either from the public square, or from your open-to-the-public store, IMHO.

dubya450
May 11, 2012, 11:05 PM
+1 Owen Sparks

Frank Ettin
May 11, 2012, 11:07 PM
In a free society people should be able to reserve the right not to associate with other peeople for ANY reason including carrying weapons. ... Freedom of association is a basic human right,... On the other hand, if I choose to operate a business, especially one open to the public generally, certain public policy considerations might warrant circumscribing my freedom of association. And thus we have the civil rights statutes.

As I pointed out in post 47, this is an area where rights rub against each other and thus an issue to be sorted out through the political process.

Owen Sparks
May 11, 2012, 11:40 PM
Property is only "public" when it is supported by tax dollars.

What if I don't want to open my business to the general public? Maybe I only want to do business with people who don't carry guns. Maybe I only want to do business with people who do. Why should the government tell me who I must do business with on my property? Surely you would oppose a law REQUIRING you to patronize the local gay bar, satanic cult or NAMBLA chapter because you don't want to associate with those people. Why would you be against a business owner refusing to do business with people he chooses not to associate with? Bisinesses are after all PRIVATE PROPERTY as they receive no tax dollars.

Frank Ettin
May 11, 2012, 11:51 PM
...What if I don't want to open my business to the general public? Maybe I only want to do business with people who don't carry guns. Maybe I only want to do business with people who do. Why should the government tell me who I must do business with on my property?... Welcome to real life in the 21st Century.

mnrivrat
May 11, 2012, 11:56 PM
What if I don't want to open my business to the general public? Maybe I only want to do business with people who don't carry guns. Maybe I only want to do business with people who do. Why should the government tell me who I must do business with on my property? Surely you would oppose a law REQUIRING you to patronize the local gay bar, satanic cult or NAMBLA chapter because you don't want to associate with those people. Why would you be against a business owner refusing to do business with people he chooses not to associate with? Bisinesses are after all PRIVATE PROPERTY as they receive no tax dollars.

While an interesting arguement with some eliments that seem very reasonable, our society as a whole does not agree with your concept. If your way, then we should be able to go back and hang up the signs like no blacks allowed , or no asians, or women, etc. Like it or not government has passed civil rights laws to protect folks from that way of thinking in general. So the question may be why should folks who legaly carry guns be treated with discrimination ?

Loosedhorse
May 12, 2012, 12:02 AM
Your emotional reaction is not a basis upon which to conclude that factually a business owner's choice not to allow guns is a philosophical or political statement.How can the business owner's choice not be a philosophical statement? Choosing to limit another's ability to defend himself in an emergency in order to appease a (true?) impression that it may keep someone from shooting your toilet bowl accidently someday is making a value judgement of what's more important to you, and of how closely your need to examine your impression regarding toilet bowls before making that decision. Both are, IMHO, statements of personal philosophy.What if I don't want to open my business to the general public?No expert here, but I believe you could declare your store part of a private club, members only, and have all the necessary steps (application for membership, officers, meetings, etc) done--and then you could exclude from membership anyone you want. Of course, all that may limit your ability to do commerce.

There may still be limits. In MA I note that "club stores" like Costco do not have discriminatory membership policies (perhaps that is a corporate choice rather than a legal requirement?), but that the area of the store that sells alcohol is open to the public, not just members; I believe that is because of a provision in state liquor licensing laws.

Frank Ettin
May 12, 2012, 12:15 AM
How can the business owner's choice not be a philosophical statement? ... You are making assumptions about a stranger's "philosophy" on the flimsiest basis -- your emotional reaction. While showing such disrespect to the concerns of your fellow humans is certainly within your rights, it allows the rest of us to draw some inferences about you and your philosophy. To the business owner, it might just be a very practical worry about guns going off unintentionally on his premises.

Loosedhorse
May 12, 2012, 12:33 AM
it allows the rest of us to draw some inferences about you and your philosophy.Frank, it is my perception that you have already drawn your conclusions about me, long before I posted in this thread. That you are now focused on convincing others to accept your opinion does not come as a surprise to me.You are making assumptions about a stranger's "philosophy" on the flimsiest basis -- your emotional reaction.While certainly colorful and distracting, that comment is not an answer to my question, Frank, so I repeat: How can the business owner's choice to hang the sign be anything other than a philosophical statement?

I know you are pre-occupied with drawing some "inferences" about me, and encouraging others to do the same. Perhaps others should note that you haven't answered my question, and draw some inferences about you, too?

By the way, what basis do you have for calling my emotional reaction the "flimsiest basis"? Do you know my personal track record with my emotional reactions as regards later "logical" confirmation. I do....might just be a very practical worrySure. However, as I have already said, that doesn't prevent it from being a statement of personal philosophy.

Favoring what you perceive as "practical" for yourself over other persons' right to defend themselves in an emergency--while, I assume, making no counter-balancing provision as store-owner to assure their safety in such an emergency--is making a value judgment, and so is a statement of philosophy.

Perhaps if you hadn't already decided that my statements are just so much "phooey" and "flimsiest"--and that you need to convince others of that, rather than respond on point--you might have considered that response the first time I posted it.

Kleanbore
May 12, 2012, 06:48 AM
Posted by Loosedhorse: How can the business owner's choice to hang the sign be anything other than a philosophical statement? I'm afraid the meaning of the question eludes me.

But: in the case of one privately held retail corporation of which I am aware, the posting of the "no firearms" signs was a business decision that was made for reasons that I will not discuss publicly.

The owners strongly support RKBA.

I can think of no way to accurately characterize the decision to post as a"philosophical statement".

There were people who elected to not patronize the stores, but the effect was immaterial.

The policy was later changed, without fanfare.

There were people who protested the later change, without effect.

Loosedhorse
May 12, 2012, 08:27 AM
I'm afraid the meaning of the question eludes me.Perhaps we are usung the word "philosophy" (as in personal philosophy) differently.

As I tried to explain, to me, a decision to hang a no-guns sign can represent many things: a decision that I am right as a store owner to attempt to lower the risk of porperty damage is more important than my customers being able to lower their risk of being killed in an attack; or a decsion, if I feel it is not "right" to do that, to ignore what's right an do it anyway; or a decsion not to bother to think about my customers at all, except as possible sources of profit (mere objects, not people).

All of these decisions (and others) are statements of what I value; I value what I choose more highly than what I don't. The decisions describe my personal philosophy.

From M-W, about "philosophy":4a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or groupFor what it's worth, I believe that such a value statement (as made in hanging a no guns sign) does reflect one's "outlook on life" and therefore might dispose the individual to hold certain political views. I would see that as a tendency, not as a rigid rule. I have no statistics on that, so I didn't feel I should describe it as other than a feeling, based on "instinct" or emotion. So that's how I described it.

So, my mention of emotion was, to me, just like saying "JMHO"--why would I expect my emotions should be someone else's? Imagine my surprise when my response was labeled as "showing such disrespect to the concerns of your fellow humans", and "allows the rest of us to draw some inferences about you and your philosophy".

Let me be clear about MY personal philosophy--although I think I already was. I think that an owner of private property has (or should have) a clear right to exclude guns from that property, and that those visiting have a right to enter unarmed (if invited), to stay out--but not to enter secretly armed despite knowing the owner's preference.

I think that a public place (like a town square), or an open-to-the-public space (like a privately owned store), an individual's right to choose to be of a certain religion, or to choose to carry a religious symbol (openly or concealed)--or to choose to carry a firearm legally--should not be trumped by anyone's "right to not associate", nor by their fear that it might cost them the hassle of replacing a toilet bowl someday (which the gun-carrier should be financially responsible for, in any case).

I am not sure why any of that--or the statement that I arrive at it to large degree by my emotional sense of fairness--is showing disrepect toward others or worthy of (negative) inferences about my character.

In any case, I find it sad that this thread veered to the point that I now feel compelled to write a long post, defining the word "philosophy", and defending myself against a claim that "inferences" should be drawn about me.

Why the need to "draw inferences", especially the inference that, in expressing my opinion, I am showing "such disrespect to the concerns of your fellow humans"?

beatledog7
May 12, 2012, 09:27 AM
So, a business can basically create "law" via signage?

No, not at all. The state legislature created a law that allows specific signage to designate zones in which that law will apply.

Kleanbore
May 12, 2012, 09:46 AM
Posted by Loosedhorse: As I tried to explain, to me, a decision to hang a no-guns sign can represent many things: a decision that I am right as a store owner to attempt to lower the risk of porperty damage is more important than my customers being able to lower their risk of being killed in an attack; or a decsion, if I feel it is not "right" to do that, to ignore what's right an do it anyway; or a decsion not to bother to think about my customers at all, except as possible sources of profit (mere objects, not people).

All of these decisions (and others) are statements of what I value; I value what I choose more highly than what I don't. The decisions describe my personal philosophy.To you, maybe, but not necessarily to anyone else.

Too many unsubstantiated assumptions for me!

Do you really think that the decision maker believes that permitting customers to bring firearms into his or her establishment would "lower their risk of being killed in an attack"?

Where does lowering "the risk of property damage" come into it?

How can it become a "decision to ignore what's right and do it anyway"?

I think that a public place (like a town square), or an open-to-the-public space (like a privately owned store), an individual's right to choose to be of a certain religion, or to choose to carry a religious symbol (openly or concealed)--or to choose to carry a firearm legally--should not be trumped by anyone's "right to not associate", nor by their fear that it might cost them the hassle of replacing a toilet bowl someday (which the gun-carrier should be financially responsible for, in any case).I'm sure that opinions similar to yours have been voiced in the lengthy discussions of the subject that have led to the drafting of the various statutes and the various pronouncements of opinion issued by the attorneys general of a number of states.

They did not prevail. There are centuries of legal doctrine that have been brought to bear on the subject of property rights vs. other rights in this and other contexts. Extensive debate and long standing legal tradition have brought us where we are.

Also, anyone with the slightest knowledge of risk management will understand that the possibility of damage to a toilet bowl is among the least significant issues to be assessed---by far. A business decision of the kind at hand will likely be based on weighing the potential advantages and disadvantages of each course of action. Some of those may involve potential liability. Some will not.

MachIVshooter
May 12, 2012, 09:56 AM
The signs are primarily there for tort liability reasons.

This is so trite and untrue.

An open to the public business is not liable for a patron's acts. look at all the various tort reform legislation.

There has also been much discussion on this board as to the property rights of an open to the public business. I'm in the camp that believes no open to the public business has the right to ban lawfully carried firearms, and so is my state; No guns signs do not have weight of law here. You may be charged with trespassing if you're asked to leave the premesis and don't, but it's not a weapon offense.

HGUNHNTR
May 12, 2012, 09:57 AM
In a free society people should be able to reserve the right not to associate with other peeople for ANY reason including carrying weapons. Immagine how rediculous a law would be that REQUIRED you to patronize a business with an anti-gun policy, or a pro-gun policy for that matter. Freedom of association is a basic human right, even if Congress passes trendy legislation to the contrairy

Sounds like a society rife with racism, hoplophobia, homophobia, and sexism. If you are operating a business that caters to the public you are subject to the law---personal freedoms (if thats what you call bigotry) don't supercede the law.

Deanimator
May 12, 2012, 10:28 AM
I may be missing something, but why all the outrage over the "no firearms" signs in various businesses. The signs are primarily there for tort liability reasons.

If you have a legal CCW permit, who's going to know you're carrying as long as your gun stays concealed. Discretion is the better part of valor. Or put another way, why make a stink if you don't have to.
Because in Ohio, other than in parking lots, it's a CRIME to ignore them.

It's not worth it to lose your CHL. It's just better to avoid such establishments whenever humanly possible. Of course being in New Jersey, you probably don't have a concealed carry credential in the first place...

Frank Ettin
May 12, 2012, 03:26 PM
If it WAS a "constitutional right", then they COULDN'T pass laws against it, much less enforce them. It's a privelege, by definition, because t hey CAN and do pass and enforce such laws. Not sure what you're referring to, but --

[1] It's settle law that Constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation.

[2] Property rights are protected under the Constitution from government:


Fifth Amendment: ...nor shall any person ... be deprived of ... property, without due process of law; ...

Fourteenth Amendment:...nor shall any State deprive any person of ... property, without due process of law;...

Loosedhorse
May 12, 2012, 04:47 PM
Do you really think that the decision maker believes that permitting customers to bring firearms into his or her establishment would "lower their risk of being killed in an attack"?What I think is that no matter how the decision-maker arrives at his decision to hang the sign (or to not hang it), that decision is the result and expression of his personal philosophy--of which considerations he finds to be more important than others.

Perhaps the decision-maker would assume that gun-carriers want to carry guns for the reason of personal protection (that is, to lower the risk they are killed or maimed in an attack), or perhaps he assumes that gun-carriers carry for a completely different reason. Perhaps the decison-maker feels that it is his business to decide FOR his customers whether or not carrying a weapon is a good idea for their well-being. Perhaps he doesn't give the rights, convenience, or risks of his customers a second thought. Doesn't really matter--whatever he judges as important or insignificant considerations in his decision, that judgment is an expression of his outlook on his rights versus the rights of others: his philosophy.

To the extent that others in this thread suppose that the store-owner is chiefly concerned with minimizing his risk of damaged toilet bowls, I would have thought that I can suppose the owner is familiar with the concept of risk management. And that therefore he knows that those who carry guns tend to do so also for risk management.Where does lowering "the risk of property damage" come into it?This was the suggestion of Mr. Ettin, at post #50. I believe he meant it to contradict my idea that a No-guns sign was a statement of philosophy (after another poster opined it was a political statement), but I maintain that choosing to be chiefly concerned with the risk of property damage is still a function of the chooser's personal philosophy.anyone with the slightest knowledge of risk management will understand that the possibility of damage to a toilet bowl is among the least significant issues to be assessed---by far.As I said, toilets weren't my example: Mr. Ettin posted links to two accidental bathroom shootings in post #50, including one where a toilet was damaged. If you are implying that Mr. Ettin, in selecting those news stories, is thereby showing minimal knowledge of risk management, I think you are incorrect--but please take it up with him. ;)How can it become a "decision to ignore what's right and do it anyway"?The decision to hang a no-guns sign can come about in many ways. One possible way would be if the store-owner realizes that he "should" allow lawful carry in his store, but he doesn't want to. That would be a decision, IMHO, to ignore what's right and hang the sign anyway.They did not prevail.Yes, I've made this point myself. I have also said that, absent an eventual SCOTUS ruling saying that carrying (in some form) is as much a part of the RKBA as is owning a working handgun in the home (as ruled in Heller), those who share my opinion may never prevail.

I guess I must hasten to add, lest someone swoop in and "inform" me that any such ruling, if it ever happens, would not "automatically" allow folks to carry in stores, that I understand that. What I believe is that, once it is established--if it ever is--that carry is a right, not a privilege, then attitudes about excluding lawful carry will change, and so eventually will the law.

I could be wrong. Maybe SCOTUS will never make such a ruling, and if they do, maybe that will not cause eventual legislation disallowing no-guns signs in businesses open to the public.

But I do think that is what should happen. Just as, even before Heller, I felt that persons in DC should be allowed to own operable firearms for the purpose of self-defense. Even though persons who thought that way also did not prevail.

Until they did.

hso
May 12, 2012, 04:50 PM
If it WAS a "constitutional right", then they COULDN'T pass laws against it, much less enforce them.

Wrong. That happens all the time and the Supreme Court exists partly to decide the constitutionality of such laws. That's why legislation get's deemed unconstitutional and thrown out.

Kleanbore
May 12, 2012, 07:14 PM
Posted by Loosedhorse: What I think is that no matter how the decision-maker arrives at his decision to hang the sign (or to not hang it), that decision is the result and expression of his personal philosophy--of which considerations he finds to be more important than others. Well, OK. But if the decision is one of whether to hang the sign, the decision-maker is either the owner of the establishment or someone to whom the owners have entrusted the management of the establishment. And what he or she finds to be important will be, or at least had better be, the financial health of the firm and the safeguarding of its assets. And that responsibility extends far beyond the management of risks pertaining to property damage.

I would have thought that I can suppose the owner is familiar with the concept of risk management. And that therefore he knows that those who carry guns tend to do so also for risk management.What the two have in common is the process. Where the differences come up is where their interests diverge.

From the standpoint of the customer, the risks are those of being seriously threatened by criminal violence. The likelihood of that happening is less than remote, but the potential consequences are very severe. A possible mitigation strategy is to carry a weapon, if that is permitted. If that is not permitted, the risk can be mitigated by going somewhere else. Or, the customer can elect to accept the risk without mitigation.

For the owner, the analysis is more complicated. If he or she does not permit the carrying of weapons, one risk is that a customer will choose to go somewhere else. The likelihood will vary among customers and according to the competitive environment. The potential consequence must be assessed.

If he or she does permit the carrying of weapons, one risk is that an armed customer will take it upon himself or herself to intervene in an armed robbery that historical data might indicate will likely happen and would likely have resulted only in the loss of insured property, and trigger the shooting of the owner or one or more of his employees, the at least temporary closure of the business, and injury or loss of life.

If the firm is publicly held, the managers have no choice but to put the interests of the firm first; if it's a mom and pop affair, the choice is the same, but it's a matter of self interest.

As I said, toilets weren't my example: Mr. Ettin posted links to two accidental bathroom shootings in post #50, including one where a toilet was damaged. If you are implying that Mr. Ettin, in selecting those news stories, is thereby showing minimal knowledge of risk management, I think you are incorrect--but please take it up with him.Frank introduced one example to counter the argument that no-gun signs are a political or "philosophical" statement. It's a valid one and it makes the point. And yes, Frank does know a great deal about risk management, which incidentally was one of my specialties in a prior life,

The decision to hang a no-guns sign can come about in many ways.We agree on that.

However, I contend that for many of them, it would be a great "leap to say it is a political statement".

Rather, it is a business decision.

One possible way would be if the store-owner realizes that he "should" allow lawful carry in his store, but he doesn't want to.That makes no sense to me at all.

Loosedhorse
May 13, 2012, 07:48 AM
Frank introduced one exampleYou seem to be criticizing me for responding the examples he did present, instead of all the possible ones he might have presented.

I must admit it is interesting. I would have thought that I am allowed to express an opinion, especially about something as vague as "what should be." What I get when I do so, instead of an "I disagree" is, first, a dismissive "Phooey!"--my response to which was deleted--then the ad hom comment that "inferences" should be drawn about me, and then a point-by-point discussion of all the things I supposedly haven't considered. But I have.

The close discussion, which I usually enjoy, in this context feels more like an attempted justification of Frank's dismissiveness and ad hom, rather than actual interest. And I therefore respond more in the sense of defending myself from accusation, than discussing varying views.And what he or she finds to be important will be, or at least had better be, the financial health of the firm and the safeguarding of its assets.He or she should consider the firm's financial health above all other considerations? Hey, I could decide as a restaurant owner that keeping my kitchen clean and using foods (like fresh meat) that are not passed their expiration date is too expensive, so its better for the financial health of my company and the safeguarding of its assests to let all that slide. And if a few customers get sick, well, so what?

That choice, of financial well-being over customer safety, is what the owner is obliged to make? Or does it speak to a philosophy that should make us uncomfortable?

I consider the the choice to hang a no-guns sign (which attempts to disarm lawful citizens, and has no hope of disarming any armed criminals) as increasing the risk to customers, because it might be better for the bottom line. If the owner assumes the sign "won't do any harm", why is that more reasonable than the restaurant owner assuming her choices won't do any harm?If the firm is publicly held, the managers have no choice but to put the interests of the firm first; if it's a mom and pop affair, the choice is the same, but it's a matter of self interest.You seem to be saying that the only reasonable, responsible choice that any open-to-the-public business has is to hang a sign that says, no guns allowed. I guess we should be amazed that there are so many incompetent business owners, since such signs are not everywhere.

I'm not sure if you say that because you believe that a sign will actually exclude guns; or because a sign will reduce the store's civil liability if a robbery occurs and someone armed volunteers to stop it, and causes harm. I'm here to learn: if we have evidence that civil judgments are either disallowed or reduced against businesses in such a circumstance if they hang a no-guns sign, would you point me to it?

Most of us, I think, seem to all agree that when the state (outside of certain "sensitive areas," as SCOTUS put it) excludes all legal carry because of what someone MIGHT do, that's wrong. Even though owners of businesses are allowed to do that, we should consider that right?

Hey, in certain areas (and generally) the average income of certain races is lower than others. If an owner concludes (even falsely) that it is therefore in his business's best interest to hang a sign that says, "No people of ..... race allowed inside?" Well that's his choice, for the financial health of his business.

Well, of course not. However, it certainly used to be legal to post signs excluding certain races, and in some places such signs were much more common than no-guns signs are now. But all of that changed, because, at some level and eventually, we realized that--even if it was true it made economic sense for some store owners to exclude some races--it was wrong.

I think excluding lawfully carried firearms from a business, even if based on what seem to be unrealized (and perhaps unrealistic?) financancial fears, is similarly wrong. And so I hope the law eventually changes.

You (and anyone else) are free to disagree; and apparently do.I contend that for many of them, it would be a great "leap to say it is a political statement".

Rather, it is a business decisionI did not say it was a political statement; a different poster did. However, I do think that the same values that cause someone to hang a no-guns sign might cause them to hold particular political views (generally, not in all cases). That's why I said it's not a leap. (I also said that to be polite, to not be perceived by the poster I was responding to as saying, "No, you're WRONG! It's not POLITICAL!" even though I believed it was actually more a philosophical statement. Little did I know that my attempt at politeness would get me almost exactly that impolite response from a moderator, while he would direct no comment at all to poster who did say was political.)

What I do believe is that considering a no-guns sign "strictly a business decision," to be divorced from any concern for customer safety--or taking the stance that "keeping guns out is safer for my customers, even if they are too stupid to know that"--is a statement of philosophy. Which is why I chose that term insead of political.That makes no sense to me at all. Some people decide to do what they know they shouldn't all the time. They may even successfully, eventually, blind themselves to the fact that they shouldn't, by convincing themselves that their decision to inconvenience (and perhaps harm) others is "actually better for them this way" or "just a business decision."

What's the (other) famous phrase from the Godfather? "It isn't personal, it's just business." Didn't make what they did right.

j1
May 13, 2012, 07:52 AM
Since it is HIS store he has the right to limit who can enter, but that means that I also cannot spend any of MY money there, nor do I want to.

GEM
May 13, 2012, 10:30 AM
But we know that is not true. Did you miss the Civil Rights movement?

The issue is whether the property rights trump the SD rights. There are arguments on both sides.

Property rights did not trump civil rights - and rightly so.

Frank Ettin
May 13, 2012, 11:50 AM
...He or she should consider the firm's financial health above all other considerations? Hey, I could decide as a restaurant owner that keeping my kitchen clean and using foods (like fresh meat) that are not passed their expiration date is too expensive, so its better for the financial health of my company and the safeguarding of its assests to let all that slide. And if a few customers get sick, well, so what?... On the other hand, in most places there are codes or health department regulations and period governmental inspections to curb that sort of activity. In many places, inspection results are made public, and restaurants that don't meet standards become known to the public and lose business -- or get shut down.

...Perhaps the decision-maker would assume that gun-carriers want to carry guns for the reason of personal protection (that is, to lower the risk they are killed or maimed in an attack), or perhaps he assumes that gun-carriers carry for a completely different reason. Perhaps the decison-maker feels that it is his business to decide FOR his customers whether or not carrying a weapon is a good idea for their well-being. Perhaps he doesn't give the rights, convenience, or risks of his customers a second thought..."Perhaps" a lot of things. But the bottom line is that absent a law, the decision is at the discretion of business management. And business management is free to make that decision for any reason or reasons it considers good and sufficient.

And all you really know is the end result of the decision making process -- to post a sign or not post a sign. You can't know the reasons for the decision; you can only speculate. You may agree or disagree with the end result, but to ascribe a particular motivation is simply not possible.

Kleanbore
May 13, 2012, 11:52 AM
Posted by Loosedhorse: You seem to be criticizing me for responding the examples he did present, instead of all the possible ones he might have presented.Not intended.

He or she should consider the firm's financial health above all other considerations?That's about the size of it.

The shareholders elect directors. The directors elect a chairman of the board. The chairman appoints officers, who run the business, establish and test a system of internal controls, and protect the assets of the firm, which belong to the shareholders, whose objective is a return on their investment.

Hey, I could decide as a restaurant owner that keeping my kitchen clean and using foods (like fresh meat) that are not passed their expiration date is too expensive, so its better for the financial health of my company and the safeguarding of its assests to let all that slide. And if a few customers get sick, well, so what?Oh, come on.

What happens to the share value of a company that serves unhealthy food--or even food that doesn't taste very good?

That choice, of financial well-being over customer safety, is what the owner is obliged to make? Or does it speak to a philosophy that should make us uncomfortable?Let's address financial well being first. Ask any shareholder--pension fund manager, mutual fund manager, individual investor...whether financial 'well being"--share value, dividends--is important.

...or ask the owners of a mom-and-pop outfit who depend on their business for their living.

Customer safety is very important, or there will be no financial security, but not everyone agrees on how to maintain it. And that disagreement is what this is all about.

No, there is nothing about that philosophy that makes me uncomfortable at all.

You seem to be saying that the only reasonable, responsible choice that any open-to-the-public business has is to hang a sign that says, no guns allowed.Not at all!

The managers have to assess the pros and cons of each alternative and make a decision.

Personally, I think that prohibiting carry is detrimental to business and to customer safety, and if I were an owner or CEO, I would not post. But I do know very competent professionals who can argue effectively on the other side, and some of what they see at the range and on the gun boards contributes to their beliefs.

The large privately held corporation that I referred to earlier decided to post for various business reasons, and it later took the signs down.

I minimized my patronage during the interim. I did so not to make a philosophical statement or to pressure them. In my own personal risk assessment, I did not consider myself even marginally less safe inside the store. My concern was about my safety while walking to the car outside a clearly posted building.

I'm not sure if you say that because you believe that a sign will actually exclude guns; ... Of course not.

...or because a sign will reduce the store's civil liability if a robbery occurs and someone armed volunteers to stop it, and causes harm.Civil liability is but one thread in the tapestry. The mom or pop owner may be concerned about getting shot by a robber who would otherwise likely just take the money and run because someone who had been watching too much television decided to play the hero. The decision-makers for the shareholders would likely be more concerned losing employees and valuable customers and about revenue loss due to bad publicity.

Based on some of the posts we see here and on other boards, there seems to be no shortage of people out there who would try to intervene. I'm not one of them, and I do not think that you are, either, but their existence is among the many things that do have to be factored into both sides of the risk equation.

Full disclosure: last summer, I was in a grocery store and noticed what I am certain was an armed robbery in the making. There was a man in the store buying a single soft drink and looking furtively back and forth at the people in the office and at a man in a car parked the wrong way outside.

I moved to a position of relative safety where the man outside could see me clearly, made sure that he noticed me, pulled a cell phone, and poked it three times. The man outside waved with alarm, the man inside dropped the soda and ran, and they took off in a cloud of tire smoke.

I had been ready to draw and fire if necessary, and I had a very clear shot with a good backstop. The managers of that privately owned firm were more than happy afterward.

Again, it's a business decision. That decision encompasses keeping customers. Theirs had been to not post.

Incidentally, I recognized the signs of the developing robbery because of my having seen an explantion on TV from our member Massad Ayoob.

Again, I'm more concerned about the parking lot, and I'm a lot more concerned about the places where I am prohibited by law than the few posted private businesses I have to contend with.

Owen Sparks
May 13, 2012, 12:02 PM
This is really about conflicting harms.

You may feel that you are being put in danger by not being allowed to carry your pistol into a business and the property owner may feel that he is being put in harm’s way by allowing anonymous members of the general public to carry loaded guns into his place of business.

So how can we determine which person's harm is more important than the other?

In a free society conflicting harms are settled through the institution of private property rights, the concept of yours and mine. Historically property ownership has been seen as a bundle of rights. This means that if you own something you have the right to use it as you see fit, trade or dispose of it and also the right to exclude others from it's use. That way you can make the rules at your place and I can make the rules at mine.

For example, you might own a bar where a large number of patrons want to smoke so you allow smoking. You might also decide that since a large percent of your customers are drinking and prone to fight that it might not be a good idea for them to bring in loaded guns so you put up a sign and a metal detector at the door.

Suppose I on the other hand, own a restaurant that caters to families and I feel that the majority of my customers would be alienated by cigarette smoke so I put up a NO SMOKING sign. I also have decided that since we never have any trouble that I will allow people to come in armed if they choose.

Some may argue that I have "harmed" people who want to smoke or that you have "harmed" people who wish to carry a pistol. The reality is that people have a free choice to exchange some of there freedoms for admittance into our businesses or to stay outside if they feel that exchange is not worth the risk of being exposed to tobacco smoke or strangers with loaded guns.

Loosedhorse
May 13, 2012, 01:24 PM
That's about the size of it.Well, okay. That clarity is appreciated. As is your entire post.

It does raise some interesting points, however. There was (as I've already mentioned) a time when it was legal for businesses to post "Whites only" signs; and that businesses that allowed blacks in would be at risk for a heavy financial penalty (that is, the more affluent white clients would not go there any more).

It would seem then, (under a financial-risk-only model) until a law was passed to place heavy penalties on businesses that discrimated based on race, that businesses that discrimated were "right" to do so.

Or was such discrimination "wrong" even before a law was passed?On the other hand, in most places there are codes or health department regulations and period governmental inspections to curb that sort of activityExactly.

So my question is, before there were such regulations, was it "okay" for restaurants to ignore food safety concerns, and it only became "bad" to do that after the regulations and enforcement mechanisms came into being? (Does anyone read Sinclair's The Jungle anymore?).

Was it "okay" to discriminate based on race, and only became "bad" once anti-discrimation laws and enforcement came into being?

If the answer to those questions is, "Yes: those things were fine until laws were passed against them," then I am wrong; because then the mere fact that there is currently no law against prohibitting legal carry in an open-to-the-public store demonstrates that prohibiting such carry is indeed right and proper.

If the answer is, "No: those things were wrong even before there was a law; and the fact that they were wrong eventually caused a change in the law," then I am free to suppose and believe (as I do) that prohibiting such carry is wrong, and may eventually be changed by law. I am not saying anyone else has to believe that, though I suspect some do.
Personally, I think that prohibiting carry is detrimental to business and to customer safety, and if I were an owner or CEO, I would not post. But I do know very competent professionals who can argue effectively on the other side, and some of what they see at the range and on the gun boards contributes to their beliefs.I would argue that the fact that your decision would vary from others has little to do with you're being "smarter" than other experts--though you may be--or being ignorant of certain facts that they know. Instead, I would say that the difference lies in the fact that you weigh the same evidence differently, assess the same risks differently, consider the likeliness of certain suppositions differently, and therefore come to a different judgment.

I say that that difference in judgment is not only caused by but defines the fact that you have a different philosophy in addressing such questions compared to those other experts. You seem to think your different judgment is caused by something else, even though I'm not sure what that would be.You may agree or disagree with the end result, but to ascribe a particular motivation is simply not possible. I did not ascribe it to a particular motivation, nor even to a particular philosophy. I said that the decision would be reflective of the person's philosophy--in effect a statement of it. I did not say it could only possibly come from a single philosophy.

Yes, it is true: as I've already said, I think the values that one brings to this question will also be the values one brings to other questions. And therefore, yes, I do think there would be some correlation between an individual's answer to this question and his answer to other political questions (just as we know already that there is between most "gun rights" questions and other political questions). But I don't think it is a perfect correlation.

And that's why I said that to me was more a philosophical statement, but implied I understood instantly why it might seem a political statement.

Owen Sparks
May 13, 2012, 01:57 PM
Parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violates freedom of association and should be repealed.

Frank Ettin
May 13, 2012, 02:02 PM
Parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violates freedom of association and should be repealed. By now the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been petty well tested in court, so your opinion is irrelevant.

Kleanbore
May 13, 2012, 02:19 PM
Posted by Loosedhorse: It would seem then, (under a financial-risk-only model) until a law was passed to place heavy penalties on businesses that discrimated based on race, that businesses that discrimated were "right" to do so.Let's separate that into two components: the right and wrong of discrimination, and the "finanical-risk-only model".

Regarding discrimination, the reasons had their roots in culture, and in a body of thought and philosophy that convinced not only Herr Hitler but such luminaries as Winston S. Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt of the alleged superiority of the Aryan peoples over most others (they made an exception for the Japanese).

Segregation, not financial returns, was the goal. And it was wrong.

On the "financial model", let me see if I can simplify it a little more: if financial performance falls short of owner needs or expectations, either the management will be replaced timely, or the firm will cease to exist.

In private proprietorships, only the latter result was possible. The proprietor could, if he could stand the lower income, make decisions that were somewhat less than optimal from the financial standpoint. He could, for example, decide to bar some some patrons from his door for purely personal reasons, and forego the revenues from same. Not today; today's manager of a public company has far less leeway when his continued employment depends upon the approval of the equity markets.

So my question is, before there were such regulations, was it "okay" for restaurants to ignore food safety concerns, and it only became "bad" to do that after the regulations and enforcement mechanisms came into being?Of course not.

For a restaurant to ignore food safety concerns has been a guarantee of financial ruin from the beginning.

The problem was not one of trying to better financial performance by ignoring food safety, but one of ignorance, inadequate technology, and fraudulent behavior.

Failures were remedied in the marketplace, but the corrections were reactive and were not fast enough. Public safety demanded timely inspection before people got sick.

I would argue that the fact that your decision would vary from others ... lies in the fact that you weigh the same evidence differently, assess the same risks differently, consider the likeliness of certain suppositions differently, and therefore come to a different judgment.You nailed it.

There are two reasons why two people given the same evidence might make different decisions: (1) different goals and objectives; and (2) different judgments. Both the former and the latter determine the important results.

Only a limited part of the above is really pertinent to the subject at hand. To recap, managers are responsible to the shareholders for the performance of the businesses we are talking about, and they have to make a lot of decisions in the performance of their duty.

One of those deciaons has to do with whether to post no gun signs, and there are many factors that enter into that decision.

jim243
May 13, 2012, 02:25 PM
I may be missing something, but why all the outrage over the "no firearms" signs in various businesses.

Why the outrage? Because it is a form of discrimination against people who are legally authorized to carry a firearm for protection and have been veted by mulitable police agencies and found worthy of trust and compedent to carry that firearm.

You need to explain in a civil manor to the store owner or manager, that they are placing your family in extreem danger and leaving your wife and kids completely unprotected by their no carry policy, and if they are willing to accept the civil liability if something should happen to you and your family while shopping. This must be done in a calm civil manor so they understand you are not a gun nut, but a regular customer that has the safety of their family very high on your priority list.

Depending on their reaction, you could say you understand their point of view or just walk out and keep your money to spend elsewhere.

Just my view on it.
Jim

aeriedad
May 13, 2012, 02:31 PM
One of those deciaons has to do with whether to post no gun signs, and there are many factors that enter into that decision.

...and ultimately, the decision they arrive at will reflect, to one degree or another, the philosophy of the decision makers.

coalman
May 13, 2012, 02:51 PM
Why the outrage? Because it is a form of discrimination against people who are legally authorized to carry a firearm for protection and have been veted by mulitable police agencies and found worthy of trust and compedent to carry that firearm.

You need to explain in a civil manor to the store owner or manager, that they are placing your family in extreem danger and leaving your wife and kids completely unprotected by their no carry policy, and if they are willing to accept the civil liability if something should happen to you and your family while shopping. This must be done in a calm civil manor so they understand you are not a gun nut, but a regular customer that has the safety of their family very high on your priority list.

Depending on their reaction, you could say you understand their point of view or just walk out and keep your money to spend elsewhere.

Just my view on it.
Jim

It's really a property rights issue. You are not coming into my home and telling me what I can and can't do (as long as it's not illegal), what I can and can't tell you (as long as it's not illegal) and/or if I can or can't tell/ask you to leave (as long as it's not illegal). It's intersting to me how people will champion property rights in one regard (i.e. when they agree) and try to dismiss them in another (i.e. when they don't agree). Intentionally, that's not how property law works and it protects us from goverment as well as individuals. Same with a business and being "open to the public" does not matter unless the law says it does. Gun ownership is not a protected (civil/discrimination) class of people, meaning if it's not illegal it's the property owner's call. It's their business. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere. I don't, and I would whenever possible.

Loosedhorse
May 13, 2012, 03:36 PM
Segregation, not financial returns, was the goal. And it was wrong.So, you seem to propose that no business in the segregated South decided that their having a whites-only policy was "good for business" (but if they had, that would have been a "good" consideration)? And that instead whites-only businesses made that their policy because they were all motivated solely by segregation per se, which was a wrong consideration?

I really don't understand. If racial segregation (the act) was actually wrong even if done because of financial, business-survival considerations, then segregating based on the legal carrying of firearms for self-protection may also be wrong even if done because of financial considerations.

If, instead, racial segregation (the act) was only wrong because we may suppose it was never done with business principles in mind, but rather always founded solely on the goal of achieving racial segregation (and on the racial inferiority beliefs that underlied it), then why shouldn't we likewise suppose that a no-guns policy is founded solely on achieving segregation of gun owners, and the antigun beliefs that underlie that?

The only option I see other than the two scenarios above is that racial segregation by businesses was in fact "right" if it based on financial, business considerations; until a change in the law raised the cost of segregation and thus made it a bad business decision. Then and only then did racial segregation by businesses become wrong. But I don't believe that alternative one bit.

If there is a fourth option I am missing, let's discuss that.
For a restaurant to ignore food safety concerns has been a guarantee of financial ruin from the beginning.Guarantee is, I think, too strong. As you suggest, government food safety regs are more likely a recognition that, without them, businesses with unsafe practices (driven by financial-only mindset) can actually stay in business a long time, and may do fine for a while...

Until one day a disaster hits, and many customers die. Disarming customers might be the same. Most seem to agree that it was the disarming of customers at Luby's (not by the owners, but by the state) that eventually led to legislative action to produce carry laws for TX. Maybe we'll have to wait for another Luby's--this time caused by store policy instead of law--for similar legislative movement regarding private prohibitions of otherwise legal carry in open-to-the-public businesses.

And that may never happen. Which is fine; I don't like disasters, and I am hopeful that none will be needed to get us, eventually, to change the laws that currently allow store-owners to make us less safe if we want to enter their store.

Kleanbore
May 13, 2012, 05:30 PM
Posted by Loosedhorse: So, you seem to propose that no business in the segregated South decided that their having a whites-only policy was "good for business" (but if they had, that would have been a "good" consideration)?I stated very clearly that it is wrong.

I really don't understand. If racial segregation (the act) was actually wrong even if done because of financial, business-survival considerations, then segregating based on the legal carrying of firearms for self-protection may also be wrong even if done because of financial considerations.People are not "segregating based on the legal carrying of firearms".

Anyone may enter. They just may not bring in their guns if the owner so decides.

Nor may they bring them into into correctional institutions, child care centers, courthouses, amusement parks, hospitals, sports venues, post office property, schools, bars, military bases, controlled areas of airports, or churches when the Government so decides; some of these vary by jurisdiction.

Are you aware that in some states, one needs the permission of the resident to take a concealed firearm into someone'c home?

Perhaps the ethical distinction is that one cannot leave his or her race, color, or national origin in the car, or do anything to change it when applying for employment or for admission to a school.

Robert
May 13, 2012, 05:51 PM
Why don't all sides step back and take deep breath. We are done with this for now.

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