No Carry Zones: Abolishing Them

I think the Gun Free Zones should be banned, period. Everytime a thread like this comes up there are those who say a private property owner should be able to deny you the right to be armed. If you're talking about residential property then I agree. If it's a business and you are open to the public then they don't have the right to deny you a Constitutional right. How long would a business stay open if they could decide , No Whites, or No Blacks! They would be legally shut down.

Bottom line if your business is a Gun Free Zone, you won't get my money!

Big 44-

How is my private store front any less my property? Who are you (or the politicians) to say what I should or shouldn't allow on my property? Do you pay the rent?

I agree. A store owner who bans guns in his store should go out of business. And I would probably facilitate that process by not spending my money there. But I'm not going to get my feelings hurt and run off to my representatives and get them to pass a law enforcing my beliefs on other peoples' private property.

Yes, they are open to the public, but the public is not forced to set foot on that property. If you don't like being without your gun for 5 minutes while you purchase coffee and a bagel then go down the street to the store with the "guns welcome" sign.

If banning guns is bad for business, they will go out of business naturally. The market will decide. Gun people are normally independent, free-thinking, liberty-lovers except in this area. Really what's the difference between forcing people to tolerate guns on their property and forcing people to give them up? Either way, liberty suffers.

How is my private store front any less my property?

Click to expand...

You voluntarily have given up some of your rights in order to have the privilege of owning a business. A few examples: submitting to zoning laws and regulations, submitting to having your books examined (tax purposes -- have to make sure you pay taxes on the money you claim you earn!), and so on.

Who are you (or the politicians) to say what I should or shouldn't allow on my property?

Click to expand...

I dunno. Again, I agree with you in principle, but try not paying your property taxes sometime and tell the government to get off your private property when they come to take it. There are always good reasons for certain laws, rules, regulations; have these gone too far? IMO, yes, many of them have and I really don't agree with a huge percentage of them.

Which is a better expenditure of our collective energies, however? To pass a law that affirms the right of self-defense, or to hinder such a law when there are so many, many more that stifle us, yet do nothing to try and remove them?

You voluntarily have given up some of your rights in order to have the privilege of owning a business. A few examples: submitting to zoning laws and regulations, submitting to having your books examined (tax purposes -- have to make sure you pay taxes on the money you claim you earn!), and so on.

Click to expand...

Again, those laws are wrong. If I own a piece of property I should be able to do whatever I want with it. I should be able to open a store or build a house no matter where that property is. And I should be able to allow or ban any items or even people that I want from that property. After all who actually owns the property? Me? The Government? 50%+1 of the voting public? Who? I was under the impression that we all owned our own private property. These laws violate that right.

Again, I agree with you in principle, but try not paying your property taxes sometime and tell the government to get off your private property when they come to take it. There are always good reasons for certain laws, rules, regulations; have these gone too far? IMO, yes, many of them have and I really don't agree with a huge percentage of them.

Which is a better expenditure of our collective energies, however? To pass a law that affirms the right of self-defense, or to hinder such a law when there are so many, many more that stifle us, yet do nothing to try and remove them?

Click to expand...

We don't need to pass a law that affirms the right to self defense. All we need to do is repeal the ones that infringe upon it. The same thing goes for the property rights area. And passing a law that would force property owners to allow items onto their property that they don't want there would be a huge infringement upon property rights. We don't need any gun laws or property rights laws. The government just needs to leave us alone and we'll figure it out ourselves. Let's use a really really obvious example. As a property owner I should have every right to post a sign on my door that says "no black people allowed." If I do that, do you think only black people will avoid my business? No. Most white people would shun me too and I'll be forced to either let black people shop there or close down my shop. The problem solves itself. We don't need laws for that sort of thing. Now apply that same concept to guns.

Personally, I think that the only places that could be no-carry zones, are places that have a very strong armed security guard contingent. Courthouses, Airports beyond security, etc.

Big 44-

How is my private store front any less my property? Who are you (or the politicians) to say what I should or shouldn't allow on my property? Do you pay the rent?

Click to expand...

Gun Free Zones are nothing more than Kill Zones. What a business that has a No Guns Policy is doing is denying gun owners the most basic of human rights. We either have to choose to leave our guns at home, or leave them in our vehicle. The CCW community has made great strides in recent years but we are losing ground here.

When you open a business to the public you have to obey certain laws. Some good and some bad. In short a business that is technically private property is a lot different than your residence.

What a business that has a No Guns Policy is doing is denying gun owners the most basic of human rights.

Click to expand...

hehe Ok you're not quite makin' the journey with me here. You-don't-have-rights when you're on another person's property. You do not have the right to free speech in my house. You can say what I let you say or else you can leave. You don't have rights there because I own it and you don't have to be there. Now, If I forced you onto my property and took away your freedoms, that would be wrongful imprisonment.

And this is really all hypothetical. In real life, I personally don't care what you say in my home or if you're carrying a gun. But if I did have a problem with guns, I would expect to be able to exercise MY most basic human right make my own rules on the property that I own.

What a business that has a No Guns Policy is doing is denying gun owners the most basic of human rights.

Click to expand...

Think of a business like a house. You generally have the right to deny people access to your house for a reason you see fit, why can't businesses do this as well?

One thing I want to add: Criminals know no bounds. They don't care about whether the property they are on is public or private, or allows legal weapons to be carried by law abiding citizens.

If law abiding citizens are restricted arbitrarily, you are effectively creating victims for the criminals.

Again, there is a difference between private property and private property that is a business open to the public. I fully agree that on private property you should be able to do what you want and enforce your wishes. That is, within reason.

A business, even though it may be private property, is open to the public and has to obey certain laws. If a business owner denies a handicapped person from entering, just because they don't like someone in a wheel chair, they are breaking the law, etc. Hopefully, you get the point of what I'm saying here.

I don't understand why any business owner, especially if they support the 2nd Amemdment, would deny someone with a CCW permit that right. Especially if the weapon is fully concealed. That's just my two cents worth.

And again, businesses that are gun free zones get none of my money!

big44,

There shouldn't be any difference. You do not have to enter my storefront if you don't feel safe. If you leave your gun in the car, come in to shop, and some crazy guy shoots you, that's no one's fault but the guy who decided to pull the trigger. If you don't want to put yourself in that situation, you're free to avoid my business. If you don;t like the way I run my store, open your own and put me out of business.

What you're saying makes sense until you break it down. You don't like what I as a business owner am doing with my business, great but who has say over what happens there? Why do you get to do what you want and I get the shaft when I'm the one that put in all of the effort and money to start it up?

Of course running to mommy government to get me to play nice and let you have your way is even worse. The government has no business sticking their nose into this issue. They're a third party that has no say in our theoretical disagreement.

And again, businesses that are gun free zones get none of my money!

Click to expand...

Good! I'm right there with ya

ArchDuke,

I am probably more anti-government than anybody. I think we need to return to Constitutional government. That being said, I do disagree with you about Gun Free Zones. I've seen way to many bad examples of them. I live only 40 minutes from VA Tech as an example.

I do commend you for discussing this with me in a rational, civilized way. So many times these threads get heated and way to personal. Thanks for being a gentleman.

Right but the constitution doesn't give government the power to force it's will on a business whether pro-gun or anti-gun. The constitution forbids the government infringing on our rights but it doesn't have any rules for private property owners. It is a restriction on them, not us. So on public property you should be allowed to carry without question. On private property, it's up to the owner.

Haha and yeah thanks for being civil. Funny thing about the internet, people go nuts and loose all inhibitions for some reason. I never understood it.

I'm hoping that, eventually, the RKBA is recognized as a fundamental civil right, related to the right to continue living.

Re: private property rights, the owner should be allowed to determine if someone is allowed on the property, but not based on what they're carrying (bible, gun, paint can.) If they are there for legitimate purpose (buying something, meter reader, employee, etc.), then there's no harm in whatever they have in their pack.

The problems start when you assume someone's guilty because of that paint can. He could be a surveyor, rather than some punk looking to vandalize your concrete wall.

Same thing goes for guns. If the state certifies someone's law-abiding and qualified to CCW, then private property should have nothing to do with this. Until, of course, he commits a crime with that gun.

If Utah is treating it this way, bully for them!

Do you think you have the right to free speech in my place of business? Can I kick you out for saying something I don't like in my store?

Do you think you have the right to free speech in my place of business? Can I kick you out for saying something I don't like in my store?

Click to expand...

Huh. Yeah, I guess you're right.

I'm sure it was well worth it to all those black people who fought and died for your right to tell them they can't go into your store.

Or work in your store. Or not sell property or rent property to them.

Yup. Oppression by the government is bad, but oppression by you is okey-dokey, thumbs up, the American way!

Huh. Yeah, I guess you're right.

I'm sure it was well worth it to all those black people who fought and died for your right to tell them they can't go into your store.

Or work in your store. Or not sell property or rent property to them.

Yup. Oppression by the government is bad, but oppression by you is okey-dokey, thumbs up, the American way!
_____

Click to expand...

I think I pretty much covered that one. As a business owner, I should have the right to be racist and say no black people allowed. And as free people, you all have the right to ostracize me and I'll either go out of business or I'll have to start letting black people in. No need for racist legislation like affirmative action. Banning black people, or guns, or free speech in my business is NOT oppression because...say it with me...You-don't-have-to-go-there. If you don't want to be forced to leave your gun in the car, hey! you don't have to! Just don't come into my store. If you don't want to be kicked out for saying something I don't like, don't come in, if you don't want to be kicked out for being black, go somewhere else and tell all of your friends to do the same.

(I'd like to reiterate here that I don't actually hold any of these views that I'm talking about. If I really owned a store I'd welcome gun-toting, free-speaking, black people with open arms. This is all hypothetical).

You seem to think that you have a right to shop in my store. In other words, that I have an obligation to serve you. That sounds like an entitlement mentality to me. You're not entitled to shop at my store. Your rights end where mine begin and my rights end where yours begin. On my property, my right to kick you out for whatever I want trumps your right to do or even be something that I don't like. If I kick you out for carrying a gun in my store and then later that day I walk into you're store, you'd probably kick me out. That would essentially be banning me for free speech and you'd have every right to do it.

Does that make sense?


EDITED TO ADD: The reason why it's oppressive for the government to have these same views is because you can't avoid it. There's no where you can go to avoid federal gun laws. But you can avoid a private business that has stupid rules.

Regardless of what we daydream about what we or anyone else should or shouldn't be able to do or shouldn't be able to do, we need to be able to convince our elected officials of this so that they may create a bill or vote on one. Like it or not, politics is all about compromise. That's the reality.

Pick your stand, fight for it and accept that you won't get everything you want, because we share this country with everyone else and their needs, wants, opinions.

This is why our existing carry laws aren't perfect, but in most cases, they are a heck of a lot better than they were 10-20 years ago. Now that we have some of what we want, keep fighting for more (ask Florida!).

Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

Yup, it sure does. And as I've stated before in various threads about this, I pretty much agree with your stance. It's just difficult for me to rightly express my thoughts on this particular subject and what, IMHO, the focus should be.

I'm only gonna post a minor quibble with the next statement and then bow out of this thread.

No need for racist legislation like affirmative action.

Click to expand...

Apparently a huge number of private citizens, business owners and consumers, felt the need for this kind of legislation. Protesting the individual businesses in the hopes that they'd go out of business or change their policies was tried for oh... I dunno... over a hundred years and it didn't seem too terribly effective.

In my opinion, I think that people went to the legislatures as a last-ditch effort to effect the kind of reform that was needed in this country.

In my opinion, I think that people went to the legislatures as a last-ditch effort to effect the kind of reform that was needed in this country.

Click to expand...

I have the impression that the legislation came not from the people but rather from the bench (SCOTUS). Didn't they rule that the interstate commerce clause empowered the feds to make a restaurant on a highway serve blacks? And didn't they then rule that the interstate commerce clause empowered the feds to make a restaurant not on a highway serve blacks, claiming that if they didn't serve blacks then less food would be eaten and thus less food would be shipped interstate? I have read that a reporter ask President Kennedy if the federal government was going to make it so that if a woman wanted to rent a room, and she would prefer to rent it to a white woman, that she would have to rent to anyone and could not discriminate ... and the President replied "that depends on how much it would impact interstate commerce".

I tend to think of the civil rights movement as the second wave of reconstruction. And it seems to me that this same corruption, this trick of abusing the interstate commerce clause to mean whatever they fancy, is where a lot of our national gun laws come from.