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

Status
Not open for further replies.
An ordinance is a law. A sign posted by a business owner on the front door to the shop is not an ordinance -- it's a sign.
Well, here in NC that little sign makes it illegal to carry into that establishment.
 
Well, here in NC that little sign makes it illegal to carry into that establishment.
And there's the lesson: laws vary from state to state.

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

pax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Otherwise, I carry pretty much everywhere, as the above cited mall is the only place that I know of that has any signs. I've looked for others, but have not seen them.
 
Ignoring the sign isn't illegal here, nor in many other places.

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

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

Most of my knowledge on where to carry and where not to comes from reading PA laws and from local Constables. Is it 100% accurate? I would be kidding myself if I thought it was. Is it 99% accurate, to the best of my knowledge with the information available? Yes.
 
Wow this thread is so much fun! Lets see, where to start?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as has been mentioned, I too used to carry illegally for a time. It isn't fun. You are always worried about getting caught. With that permit, the worry level is minimal and now I can focus more on paying attention to my surroundings than getting arrested.
 
the worst they can do to you is ask you to leave and if you refuse they could have you charged with trespassing... but thats as bad as it gets
 
I do not carry in a federal building, school, bar,any place specified according to the laws governing my CCW issue, strictly a no-no. Any other place doesn't get my business, except for the Dr's office.
 
I tell you what, just keep disregarding those no entry to armed people signs, see what happens sooner or later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Jeffrey
 
Jeffery,

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


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

All the best,
Glenn B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh sorry. Did I spell it wrong again? Look at my profile, I can't even spell California right. Don't take any offense.
 
Last edited:
El Rojo,
I was not so much "asking for respect" as I was pointing out that mispelling my name seems disrespectful, to me; particularly so because as I pointed out, my name is correctly spelled before you every time you read my posts.


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

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

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

-Jeffrey
 
Here's what the relevant authority in Utah has to say on the subject:

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

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

I generally avoid any businesses that are posted, though I do from time to time ignore the signs; as there is no criminal restriction on so doing.
 
Well where I live (Arizona) if you enter a store or whatever that's posted, and someone calls the cops what will happen is this:

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

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

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

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

Now go ahead and do whatever ya' got'ta do ...
 
Well, Fuff, I guess you're saying that you KNOW that in AZ, it is against the LAW to carry where a proprietor has posted no carry?

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

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

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

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

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

The whole concept is quite puke-worthy.

-Jeffrey
 
Well, Fuff, I guess you're saying that you KNOW that in AZ, it is against the LAW to carry where a proprietor has posted no carry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,
Glenn B
 
I don't think I've ever seen one of those signs here in Colorado.
The RMGO maintains a list of places with signs in Colorado: http://www.rmgo.org/Merchant/merchantlisting.html

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

I happen to know that a local mall has "no weapons" in its policy, which is printed in a 12 point font on a sign near most of the entrances. AFAIK the worst they can do in Colorado is ask you to leave and get you for trespassing if you don't. The mall would probably tell me I'm banned for some very long period of time, but, it isn't like the security kids would notice I was armed unless I started dancing around the food court wearing nothing but a belt and holster.
 
Jeff, what is your point now? What possible good are you trying to accomplish in your hypothetical disobedience situation? Getting into an argument with a private property owner over your carrying a gun against his wishes on his property? Seriously, what is your point now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Jeffrey
 
"So I take it the property owners who legitimately choose to do as they please upon their own property, such as not allowing firearms, are idiots because as you said the signs are "idiot".

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

Here are the questions of the day:

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

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

Make your own choices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top