Concealed carry at a gun show?

[divemedic]

they aren't disarming you. YOU ARE CHOOSING to disarm yourself

I agree that if I do disarm, it is MY CHOICE. I simply choose not to.

Out where we live, there are many PUBLIC roads that go through the MIDDLE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

That is called a "right of way" and all states have them.

But when it comes to property owners and their rights, you have made it quite clear that you DON'T CARE about their property.

Again we agree. When it comes to my rights I don't care about your right to dictate that I must be willing to die so you can tell me what to do.

As far as the law I posted, read it again:

No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):

Not just employees, sport.

 

[christcorp]

Well; considering your quote mentions paragraphs A-E; yet you only posted "A"; and that mentions the gun being LOCKED INSIDE or TO a Private Motor Vehicle; and doesn't actually mention ON THEIR PERSON; it's sort of difficult to make a concrete opinion on the comment. And IF, a big IF HERE; your state law prohibits a private property owner from denying a patron from carrying a concealed weapon onto their property, then that's your state's law. Therefor, your state doesn't have any signs that say "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED". Therefor; why the hell are you even in this conversation, other than saying "In my State, the law says that a private property owner can't deny a person to carry a weapon concealed onto their property". That should be the extent of your comment. However; I doubt that that is what the law says in your state. And it sounds like you just don't like the answer. Your arrogance towards other people's property and your lack of respect is quite obvious. So I don't see how this conversation can go any further. If you disagreed with a poster here or a property owner, that would be one thing. But when you blatantly don't care one bit about what others have to say or what a property owner does with their property, then discussing is futile. If you can't respect others and their property, then obviously it's difficult to respect your position.

 

[Rockwell1]

Good God guys, we're two hundred twenty seven posts into this and no ones mind is changing.

The horse is dead, let it go.

 

[REAPER4206969]

Are we seriously having a ten page thread arguing against carrying a gun at a gun show on a gun site?

 

[sammy_adams]

Your arrogance towards other people's property and your lack of respect is quite obvious. So I don't see how this conversation can go any further. If you disagreed with a poster here or a property owner, that would be one thing. But when you blatantly don't care one bit about what others have to say or what a property owner does with their property, then discussing is futile. If you can't respect others and their property, then obviously it's difficult to respect your position.

Sam1911 has been excruciatingly polite to you for countless posts. I for one am amazed by the level of respect he has shown.

Property owners own property. The do not own people. I support property owners being able to develop, build on, use for commerce, etc, their real estate. I support property owners who want no people on their property at all. I do not support property owners who are using their property to make a buck and then think they own the people giving them the bucks and can dictate every bit of invisible minutia regarding what people are wearing.

Is there no limit to the level of detail (or absurdia) that property owners should be able to dictate to people who step on their property? Is there anything that you feel is too silly or petty or intimate for property owners to be able to dictate to visitors?

 

[christcorp]

sammy; first of all, the portion you quoted to me was toward divemedic; so I don't know why you are talking about Sam1911. Unless they are the same person. 2nd; I don't care how he talks to me or treats me. That isn't the comment; so why are you commenting on how he speaks to me??? The disrespect and arrogance is towards the private property owners. I personally don't care how he speaks to me. And finally; concerning what you THINK of property owners, you can believe what you want. As a property owner; if there isn't a law specifically stating a certain subject; I believe a private property owner should be allowed to do ANYTHING THEY WANT to with their property. And you are correct that they don't OWN THE PEOPLE. But for some off the wall reason, there is a group of people on this forum/thread that are under the delusion that some how you have SOME RIGHT TO BE ON THEIR PROPERTY. You don't have a RIGHT to go on another person's property. EVER!!!!! Any time you are on someone else's property, for ANY REASON, it's a privilege. Once you realize that and stop believing that misconception that you have RIGHTS; you'll understand the truth.

 

[Rockwell1]

Somebaody shoot this thread and put us out of our misery

 

[christcorp]

I'll vote for that.

 

[Gryffydd]

I think part of the respect sammy adams was talking about was related to how the rest of us are fine with you having a different opinion about what YOU do in order to respect property owners' rights. On the other hand, you've done nothing but preach about this absolute moral law, and that we are absolutely without question completely in the wrong and that you absolutely know what is RIGHT.

We respect that you have a different opinion. Why can't you respect that we are allowed to have ours? You may not agree with it, but nobody died and made you the Oracle of Truth.

I don't know why you are talking about Sam1911. Unless they are the same person.

sammy_adams Join Date: 06-13-09

Yep, he probably started a new account before this thread was even posted in order to be able to back himself up at some unknown point in the future.

 

[Gryffydd]

It's all making sense now. I just ran across your "Rights vs Privileges" thread. I had no idea that you had your own silly made up definition of what a right is. If I'd have read that thread first I would never have bothered trying to have a discussion with you.

Lesson #23847: It is impossible to have a decent discussion with someone who makes up their own definitions of well established words and concepts.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Put a fork in it. This thread is DEAD. lol

 

[Gryffydd]

If I'd read that other thread first I'd have known it was DEAD at post #1

 

[christcorp]

gryff; there's quite a number of threads along this line. And if you read the beginning of this thread; it had absolutely NOTHING to do with rights, or what you want it to be. It had to do with Different gun shows in the country. I asked a simple question; that was answered very quickly. It wasn't until a bunch of people started with the "Screw the world, I've got my rights" crap; that it evolved into what it is. I have no problem with this thread being closed.

But as for your statement of respecting different opinions; sorry, but not when it comes to rights. There is a wrong and a right answer with subjects like this. If it was a: "I like revolvers - I like Semi-auto's" or "I like JHP - I like FMJ" etc...; those are definitely preferences and I totally respect people's rights to have a different opinion. That's because there really isn't a right or wrong answer. It's simply preferences. And those, we can definitely agree to disagree. But you can't just say we should respect each other's difference of opinion concerning people's rights. You're saying it's OK for me to respect a private person's property rights, and it OK for you NOT to respect a private person's property rights. And that we should take the Rodney King approach and just "Get along".

Maybe the problem is that it's possibly a "State's" matter. IOW; it's possible that in some states, the law states that a sign on a private property is legally binding; while in some states, they don't believe a law is necessary for a private property owner to post a sign. And maybe that's where the problem lies. So; I guess I would suggest checking with your local law enforcement agency. Then you'll know. And if the property owner has the right; and you disregard it anyway; and hold the attitude of "As long as I don't get caught, it's no big deal"; then you'll know where you stand. I personally don't need to know what the law says. Because if a property owner posts any set of rules, policies, etc.... I will respect what they post, being it's their policy. And if it's a policy that I don't feel comfortable with or feel I can't live with; then I won't go on/into their property. So I guess we can agree to that.

 

[Gryffydd]

You're saying it's OK for me to respect a private person's property rights, and it OK for you NOT to respect a private person's property rights.

You've completely missed it. That's not even where the argument is. The argument is that carrying completely concealed disrespects them in no practical, measurable manner. If a property owner asks me not to smoke, I won't smoke. If he asks me not to wear pink, I won't wear pink. If he asks me not to bring my dog, I won't bring my dog. What is inside my pants and stays there on the other hand, is none of his business--not when the safety of my family and myself is on the line.

There is a wrong and a right answer with subjects like this.

OK...but what makes you the one who gets to decide what's right?

In any case, I'm out of here. This is pointless.

 

[christcorp]

The safety of you and your family are NOT AT RISK. Why? Because you DON'T HAVE TO BE THERE! Why is that so hard to understand. And why aren't you fighting the law; or better yet, just disobeying the law and carrying your weapon into federal bldgs; courthouse; etc...? Is it because you RESPECT the law. Most probably not. You don't respect it. But because it's the law, you probably FEAR it.

If I don't like the heat of Arizona; I CHOOSE not to go there.
If I don't like the racism of certain cities/towns, I don't go there
If I don't like the far left liberal politics of Northern California, I don't go there
If I don't like the food at a particular restaurant, I don't go there
If I don't like the dress code or price of Per Se restaurant in New York, I don't go there
If I don't like the sign and policies of "XYZ" business in BFE, USA; then I don't go there.

The only difference between my point of view and your point of view is that you are willing to still enter the establishment because you're able to "HIDE" the fact that you are disrespecting the property owner's policies. If it was a particular dress code, you wouldn't be able to hide it. Therefor, the attitude would simply be; "Shucks, they caught me. I guess I won't go in". If it wasn't for the fact that the weapon in discussion is concealed; and you are able to misrepresent yourself to the property owner, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's only because you have the choice of conning the property owner that we are debating this.

 

[Rockwell1]

Christcorp

We've been around this mountain a dozen times. No one's opinion is changing and we've devolved to the level of pointless bickering. As the OP the Mods will honor a request from you to close the thread. Please make the request.

 

[danbrew]

As a relative newcomer here, now I know when to offer my comments and insight to a thread and when to just ignore what amounts to bait posts and trolling. It's astounding that there are at least three threads taking place NOW that are basically the same topic, with all of the same protagonists. I'd bet that there are 20 more threads just like this.

Enough.

 

[catspa]

Three? I only saw two. Perhaps one was concealed. Guess I better pay more attention...

Parker

 

[sammy_adams]

Christcorp:
The only difference between my point of view and your point of view is that you are willing to still enter the establishment because you're able to "HIDE" the fact that you are disrespecting the property owner's policies. If it was a particular dress code, you wouldn't be able to hide it. Therefor, the attitude would simply be; "Shucks, they caught me. I guess I won't go in". If it wasn't for the fact that the weapon in discussion is concealed; and you are able to misrepresent yourself to the property owner, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's only because you have the choice of conning the property owner that we are debating this.

I get the impression you mean "slavish subservience to the property owners every whim" rather than "disrespect".

Disrespect is something a person does to someone else's face. Waving a gun in the property owners face and saying "I'm going in anyway" is disrespect.

Is there anything at all that you would ignore even if a property owner demanded it? What if every store in your town had a sign saying that anyone who still has their appendix cannot go in. Would you have your appendix removed, or else do all your shopping on-line or in another town?

 

[christcorp]

I tried to not answer and let the thread die; but there are just some people that continue to ask questions. ESPECIALLY questions that have already been answered. Sammy; you obviously have not read this post very closely. But to answer your question anyway; ANY, let me repeat, ANY rule/policy/etc... that a property owner makes; MUST, let me repeat, MUST apply to ALL PATRONS. As such; it can not go against any existing laws such as; NO BLACKS, NO GAYS, NO HANDICAPPED, etc... Again, it must apply to everyone. The ONLY exception to this, that has been upheld in court (Albeit locally), are policies that concern safety or existing state/federal laws. I.e. No One Under the age of 21 years old .......; or You Must be at least 42" tall to go on this ride...... But other than that, the property owner (In the case of a business) can not make a rule/policy/etc... that doesn't apply to ALL PATRONS.

But to answer your deeper meaning question: If the property owner had a rule/policy that applied to EVERYONE; then NO, I would NOT ignore it. If I couldn't agree or live with the rule, I simply wouldn't go on/into their property.

And in the interest of letting this thread DIE; I hope it does; let me clarify and say again. I personally believe that a NO FIREARMS ALLOWED sign is totally illogical and stupid. A business owner has absolutely no logical reason for having one, IF IT INCLUDES CONCEALED CARRY. Bad guys will not respect the rules and it only keeps law abiding folks from having a means of self defense. And if the local/state/federal government can trust the carrier enough to issue a concealed weapons permit; then so should the property owner. However; if they wanted to deny OPEN CARRY; I can understand the logic in that. There are some people/customers that would be uncomfortable with seeing an open gun. Therefor, in the spirit of making all customers comfortable, I could see not allowing open carry. Concealed carry is totally illogical to deny. But I do believe that a private property owner has the right to be stupid and illogical. It's their property. If the rule is stupid; so be it. I just won't go on the property. But it is THEIR RIGHT. I don't have a right to go on their property. For me to go on the property, it's a privilege.

 

[Rockwell1]

You can make the thread die, all you need to do is ask.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

This has pretty much gone circular anyway.

Closed per author's wishes.