Carry at gun shows.

[JohnKSa]

I'm more than OK with rules saying that guns have to be unloaded.

Frankly, I don't like them. I think that the policy should be that carry guns should remain holstered while on the premises unless they are needed for the lawful use of deadly force. Of course I think that people who carry should always abide by that rule in public anyway.

It may ruffle some feathers here, but publicly accessible private property, like the mall or a gun show at a venue, is a completely different beast than the private property of your home or behind the fence at Lockheed-Martin.

There are differences, but not to the extent that a person going on to publicly accessible private property has the right to make up their own policies that are in contradiction to those of the property owner.

It's not a matter of ruffling feathers, it's a matter of facts, property rights and basic common courtesy.

Highly amusing that I was an armed "bad customer" while purchasing an $1800 flat screen TV from a mall based vendor with a "no weapons" clause in their "code of conduct", right above "no bare feet" and "no outside food".

I doubt it would have been amusing had they discovered that you were violating their policy. The fact that your violation of their policy remained undetected doesn't really change the underlying issue. Let me ask you this. Is a person who robs a bank but isn't caught still law-abiding? Does that fact change if the person is a good customer of the bank they rob? I think that the answers to both questions are pretty obvious.

Do their policies guarantee an assumption of liability for the my compete safety and security while on their property?

No, but there are two facts to consider:

1. If you talk to an attorney about this, you will find that they do not have any such obligation.

2. The bottom line is that if you don't like the policy you don't have to go there. Your desire to go there doesn't give you the right to ignore their policies, nor does your dislike of their policies and the ramifications of those policies give you the right to violate them.

Back to the Aurora Theater event- Did the no guns policy help to keep people safe?

That's irrelevant. Whether or not a policy serves it's intended purpose (even assuming you know for sure what the intended purpose was) doesn't have any bearing on whether or not patrons are required to abide by it. When you go onto someone's property you are agreeing to be bound by their policies. If you don't wish to enter into that agreement or have a fundamental philosophical difference with them or their policies then you just don't go onto their property. You are trying to complicate this, but it's really EXTREMELY simple.

Their property, their rules.

Because I want to, since it's applicabilty is very appropriate for review by policy compliance advocates.

It may be possible to get some traction to make laws that restrict the rights of property owners to make certain policies. That can create an interesting conflict between property rights and the rights of business patrons, but at least at that point things have changed. Until that happens, it still boils down to their property, their rules.

My carry gun doesn't even exist...

Ridiculous. I can't help thinking you understand how ridiculous this argument is. Their policy isn't "Carry as long as no one sees it." and you know it.

Carry-on and make your own decisions about your personal safety policies.

This, and your continued argument that this is about your personal safety is disingenuous or obtuse.

NOBODY is forcing you to make decisions that will compromise your personal safety. You keep trying to pretend that is what is at issue here. IT IS NOT.

This is not about anyone forcing you to compromise your personal safety. Get it? It's not about that.

If you were being FORCED to go to a venue that prohibited carry, then your repeated objections along those lines would be relevant.

You are NOT, in fact, being forced to go to such a venue. You have the option of not going to the venue and therefore not being bound by their policy.

This is about your feeling that your personal rights trump the business owner's property rights and therefore you can CHOOSE to go on their property and yet also CHOOSE to not abide by their policies.

You simply do not have the right to do that.

 

[crstrode]

No metal detector.
No problem.

 

[Howland937]

My dad and I used to set up at gun shows occasionally. No FFL, just regular folks selling and trading things we'd accumulated. We set up at maybe 10 shows total over the years, typically only on Saturday. I can promise
at minimum 8 occasions, someone yanked a loaded handgun from concealment in a trade proposal. My dad and I just talked about it last night as a matter of fact.
Was it a big deal? Maybe not... After the first couple times we decided to inform folks we weren't interested in trading for guns that hadn't been checked. That way we wouldn't be responsible for handling them against show policy.

 

[buck460XVR]

This is about your feeling that your personal rights trump the business owner's property rights and therefore you can CHOOSE to go on their property and yet also CHOOSE to not abide by their policies.

You simply do not have the right to do that.

You simply are much better with words than I am. What I tried to say in three posts, you were able to say in two sentences.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Frankly, I don't like them. I think that the policy should be that carry guns should remain holstered while on the premises unless they are needed for the lawful use of deadly force. Of course I think that people who carry should always abide by that rule in public anyway.There are differences, but not to the extent that a person going on to publicly accessible private property has the right to make up their own policies that are in contradiction to those of the property owner.

It's not a matter of ruffling feathers, it's a matter of facts, property rights and basic common courtesy.I doubt it would have been amusing had they discovered that you were violating their policy. The fact that your violation of their policy remained undetected doesn't really change the underlying issue. Let me ask you this. Is a person who robs a bank but isn't caught still law-abiding? Does that fact change if the person is a good customer of the bank they rob? I think that the answers to both questions are pretty obvious.No, but there are two facts to consider:

1. If you talk to an attorney about this, you will find that they do not have any such obligation.

2. The bottom line is that if you don't like the policy you don't have to go there. Your desire to go there doesn't give you the right to ignore their policies, nor does your dislike of their policies and the ramifications of those policies give you the right to violate them.That's irrelevant. Whether or not a policy serves it's intended purpose (even assuming you know for sure what the intended purpose was) doesn't have any bearing on whether or not patrons are required to abide by it. When you go onto someone's property you are agreeing to be bound by their policies. If you don't wish to enter into that agreement or have a fundamental philosophical difference with them or their policies then you just don't go onto their property. You are trying to complicate this, but it's really EXTREMELY simple.

Their property, their rules.It may be possible to get some traction to make laws that restrict the rights of property owners to make certain policies. That can create an interesting conflict between property rights and the rights of business patrons, but at least at that point things have changed. Until that happens, it still boils down to their property, their rules.Ridiculous. I can't help thinking you understand how ridiculous this argument is. Their policy isn't "Carry as long as no one sees it." and you know it.This, and your continued argument that this is about your personal safety is disingenuous or obtuse.

NOBODY is forcing you to make decisions that will compromise your personal safety. You keep trying to pretend that is what is at issue here. IT IS NOT.

This is not about anyone forcing you to compromise your personal safety. Get it? It's not about that.

If you were being FORCED to go to a venue that prohibited carry, then your repeated objections along those lines would be relevant.

You are NOT, in fact, being forced to go to such a venue. You have the option of not going to the venue and therefore not being bound by their policy.

This is about your feeling that your personal rights trump the business owner's property rights and therefore you can CHOOSE to go on their property and yet also CHOOSE to not abide by their policies.

You simply do not have the right to do that.

Sorry- You and I going to have to agree to disagree on most of those responses. I don't feel like doing yet another point-by-point rebuttal. Company policy wishes are not law unless specifically codified, and my personal policy to be able to defend myself and my family overrides them. You feel differently, and you can feel free to be fully compliant in their requests. I won't be, unless some sort of active security protocol forces my hand (metal detectors / screening). This is going to be true at any "open to the public" business, regardless of ticket or access fee.

It does raise an interesting question- I can assume, of course, that all of you folks were in complete compliance with business COVID mask and vaccination requests, correct? Even those without pubic health order backing? Since compliance was out in the open, and visible to other patrons or employees, I absolutely tried to follow them to the best of my ability. Did you, or is that "different"?

 

[Bazoo]

I did not wear a mask when mandated unless forced to do so. I was forced when I visited the hospital, and a drs office. Another drs office didn’t say anything when I entered barefaced.

I did have COVID and nearly died in early 2020.

I also refuse to be tested because I don’t want to be forced to quarantine. So when the wife and I were sick a few months back, we toughed it out instead of going to the dr because we would have been forced into being tested.

If asked to wear a mask I comply without causing a scene, but note that it’s a no go back place.

Similar to the gun thing however, I avoid places that force me to mask the same as I avoid placed that force me to unarm.

 

[Bazoo]

@JohnKSa you make it sound like a person is a bad person, if they carry past a no firearms sign, when it is legal to do so. Here in Ky, it says specifically in the ccdw manual that if you carry past the sign (for those private or public places other than schools etc) you’re not guilty of a crime. (Not just that you haven’t been caught) I don’t feel that it is immoral or wrong to carry anyway.

 

[CapnMac]

ou make it sound like a person is a bad person, if they carry past a no firearms sign, when it is legal to do

There are State, though, where carry past a sign, any sign is a "lose your carry" offense. It's not common, especially with the wider-reciprocity States (where it's typically a "trespass").

THR has a wide audience, which spans not only the United States and North America, but world-wide as well. Things that are specific to one place may not be generally applicable.

 

[DT Guy]

Like I said- "feathers ruffled".

Highly amusing that I was an armed "bad customer" while purchasing an $1800 flat screen TV from a mall based vendor with a "no weapons" clause in their "code of conduct", right above "no bare feet" and "no outside food". Oops, I had some tic-tacs in my pocket at the same time too.

Do their policies guarantee an assumption of liability for the my compete safety and security while on their property? Ask the patrons of the Aurora Century Theater about that one...

My feathers aren't ruffled; your personal choices are just that-personal. I don't run gun shows, so your refusal to abide by the gun show's rules has no real bearing on me, and I've been dealing with folks who don't follow rules for my entire adult life.

Just don't expect any sympathy if you go out back and find a meth lab on your property; it's not really 'private', as it turns out. I learned that on a gun forum.



Larry

 

[DT Guy]

There are State, though, where carry past a sign, any sign is a "lose your carry" offense. It's not common, especially with the wider-reciprocity States (where it's typically a "trespass").

THR has a wide audience, which spans not only the United States and North America, but world-wide as well. Things that are specific to one place may not be generally applicable.

In IL and TN (the only states I'm familiar with) 'No Guns' signs have the force of law, and disregarding them IS a criminal offense; unless you bring up the Aurora theater shooting, which is an affirmative defense.

(That's what I've read, at least.)

Larry

 

[.455_Hunter]

Kust don't expect any sympathy if you go out back and find a meth lab on your property; it's not really 'private', as it turns out. I learned that on a gun forum.

The funny thing is that I have never viewed private residential property in the same light as a retail sales or entertainment venues, but OK.

 

[.455_Hunter]

In IL and TN (the only states I'm familiar with) 'No Guns' signs have the force of law, and disregarding them IS a criminal offense; unless you bring up the Aurora theater shooting, which is an affirmative defense.

(That's what I've read, at least.)

Larry

Yes- Signage policy in force of law areas is different.

 

[Bazoo]

There are State, though, where carry past a sign, any sign is a "lose your carry" offense. It's not common, especially with the wider-reciprocity States (where it's typically a "trespass").

THR has a wide audience, which spans not only the United States and North America, but world-wide as well. Things that are specific to one place may not be generally applicable.

You cut my quote off, wherein the next sentence I say for Ky. I’m aware that some states it’s a crime. And in those states one is better served following the law. Here there is no law prohibiting carry past the sign. With exception of schools and bars and daycare etc.

 

[redneck2]

guess I find it odd that a place, that is as pro gun as gun shows, disallows carry. I understand the legal and safety aspects because there are so many folks of unknown safety levels there. Guess I feel it’s ironic.

I worked at the LGS. If you saw some of the things I saw, you wouldn’t want people to carry at a show either. The number of owners have little to no muzzle discipline is depressing

A fair number want to try out holsters. Waiving around a load firearm is an invitation to disaster

 

[Rubone]

I guess I find it odd that a place, that is as pro gun as gun shows, disallows carry. I understand the legal and safety aspects because there are so many folks of unknown safety levels there. Guess I feel it’s ironic.

When I went to the one I went to ten years ago, I didn’t think anything about it and assumed I was cool to carry as long as I didn’t whip it out and wave it around. But, nope.

Whipping a gun out and waving it around at a gun show is a good way to commit suicide. Most gun shops have the same policies. But there are always folks who feel they are the special exception and it shouldn't apply to them. Sadly they are usually those who screw up.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Whipping a gun out and waving it around at a gun show is a good way to commit suicide. Most gun shops have the same policies. But there are always folks who feel they are the special exception and it shouldn't apply to them. Sadly they are usually those who screw up.

People who are stupid enough to pull out a loaded gun in a gun show deserve what they get- I have no sympathy.

 

[Electricmo]

I carry in a boot holster everyday everywhere I go. I haven’t had to unholster it yet and I’ve been to a lot of gunshows. It isn’t for sale or trade either. In fact the only one who knows it exists is me just the way it should be.

 

[Bazoo]

This is one of the dumbest threads in THR history. I thought somewhere buried in here would be something redeeming or educational. 4 pages of subtle jabs and circular point-making has all the benefits of watching clothes dry.

Yeesh.

Stay safe.

It wasn’t my intent.

 

[JohnKSa]

@JohnKSa you make it sound like a person is a bad person, if they carry past a no firearms sign, when it is legal to do so.

I make it sound like they are violating the policy of the property owner--because that is exactly what is happening. You can decide if that makes them a bad person or not--if you feel like it's important to make a judgement one way or the other.

Company policy wishes are not law...

Of course they are not. I've made no claims that you could be prosecuted for violating their policy.

...my personal policy to be able to defend myself and my family overrides them.

If you were forced to be on their property then you could try to make that argument. Since you have the completely free choice to go on their property or avoid it, should you voluntarily, of your own free will, choose to go on their property, you should abide by their policy.

Your CHOICE to go on their property is what creates the conflict between the two policies and therefore you absolutely do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to saying that they should accommodate your policy.

I don't really think this is a complicated principle.

If you CHOOSE, of your own free will, to go onto someone's property, then you have zero room to argue about the impact of their policies on you. If you don't like their policies you can easily avoid them entirely. Just CHOOSE not to go onto their property.

it makes no sense to say: "I CHOOSE to come onto your property. Because of my choice, now your policies are null and void if they conflict with mine." Your choices don't nullify their rights to have and enforce the policies they want to.

People who are stupid enough to pull out a loaded gun in a gun show deserve what they get- I have no sympathy.

I will go a step further. It's idiots like that who drive property owners to create policies like the one in question. And that is, if you think about it, the smallest impact they have--their actions also have resulted in people being injured and killed.

The funny thing is that I have never viewed private residential property in the same light as a retail sales or entertainment venues, but OK.

The fact that they are not exactly the same doesn't mean they have no similarities at all. Public properties do have more restrictions on what kind of policies they can make and enforce compared to someone who owns a private residence, but that doesn't mean they can't make or enforce any policies at all.

It does raise an interesting question- I can assume, of course, that all of you folks were in complete compliance with business COVID mask and vaccination requests, correct? Even those without pubic health order backing? Since compliance was out in the open, and visible to other patrons or employees, I absolutely tried to follow them to the best of my ability. Did you, or is that "different"?

It's not different at all. It is exactly the same thing.

 

[Electricmo]

Kind of like the time not to long ago when you didn’t have to wear a mask in the grocery store if you had been vaccinated. Who asked?

 

[Ignition Override]

Too many people have been shot at gun shows.

But luckily only Other people make such mistakes. If irony isn't apparent here, then I will return and choose an ' emoji '.

 

[Archie]

No loaded weapons, including concealed carry firearms is a common condition at the Gun Shows I've attended and those at which I've been a vendor. The reason is simple. The potential for one so armed will decide on another holster, or grips or whatever. Then the self-righteous nitwit will be showing off and waving a loaded gun creating a hazard to all.

Those who ignore such directions are tantamount to those who routinely exceed the speed limit on public roads.

Those who will not submit to the rules of the producers and refuse to attend such shows will not be missed. Those who ignore such rules will be ejected if discovered. Those firing a shot in carelessness or incompetence are agents of the anti-gun faction in reality and will likely loose their rights and perhaps freedom in recompense.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I make it sound like they are violating the policy of the property owner--because that is exactly what is happening. You can decide if that makes them a bad person or not--if you feel like it's important to make a judgement one way or the other.
Of course they are not. I've made no claims that you could be prosecuted for violating their policy.If you were forced to be on their property then you could try to make that argument. Since you have the completely free choice to go on their property or avoid it, should you voluntarily, of your own free will, choose to go on their property, you should abide by their policy.

Your CHOICE to go on their property is what creates the conflict between the two policies and therefore you absolutely do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to saying that they should accommodate your policy.

I don't really think this is a complicated principle.

If you CHOOSE, of your own free will, to go onto someone's property, then you have zero room to argue about the impact of their policies on you. If you don't like their policies you can easily avoid them entirely. Just CHOOSE not to go onto their property.

it makes no sense to say: "I CHOOSE to come onto your property. Because of my choice, now your policies are null and void if they conflict with mine." Your choices don't nullify their rights to have and enforce the policies they want to.I will go a step further. It's idiots like that who drive property owners to create policies like the one in question. And that is, if you think about it, the smallest impact they have--their actions also have resulted in people being injured and killed.The fact that they are not exactly the same doesn't mean they have no similarities at all. Public properties do have more restrictions on what kind of policies they can make and enforce compared to someone who owns a private residence, but that doesn't mean they can't make or enforce any policies at all.It's not different at all. It is exactly the same thing.

Once again, I am going to have to agree to disagree with you. You do your thing and I will do mine. If I am placed into a position where I need my weapon in a "policy violation" area, I will be damn happy I had it. I will also be fully willing to engage in a post-event discussion with management about how I didn't follow their "Code of Conduct"- maybe invite some media types along for the fun.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Those who ignore such directions are tantamount to those who routinely exceed the speed limit on public roads.

Those who will not submit to the rules of the producers and refuse to attend such shows will not be missed. Those who ignore such rules will be ejected if discovered. Those firing a shot in carelessness or incompetence are agents of the anti-gun faction in reality and will likely loose their rights and perhaps freedom in recompense.

No loaded weapons, including concealed carry firearms is a common condition at the Gun Shows I've attended and those at which I've been a vendor. The reason is simple. The potential for one so armed will decide on another holster, or grips or whatever. Then the self-righteous nitwit will be showing off and waving a loaded gun creating a hazard to all.

Those who ignore such directions are tantamount to those who routinely exceed the speed limit on public roads.

Those who will not submit to the rules of the producers and refuse to attend such shows will not be missed. Those who ignore such rules will be ejected if discovered. Those firing a shot in carelessness or incompetence are agents of the anti-gun faction in reality and will likely loose their rights and perhaps freedom in recompense.

You guys must run in a different crowd of carriers than I do- that is disturbing. None of the above describe the individuals I know who carry, and they have exactly the same mindset as me with regards to carrying at all public venues.

 

[Archie]

You are correct, sir. None of those with whom I congregate consider ourselves superior to all other people nor ignore common decency.