Concealed carry at a gun show?

[Rockwell1]

There has to be a difference between someone who cares deeply and gets a bit wound up (and perhaps wanders a bit while trying to track down his point) and a low-life troll who merely seeks to get a rise out of others.

Ok I will retract that statement.
I’m having a hard time expressing my opinion of CC because of my lack of communication skills. I believe that he is the type of nominal gun owner that is willing to own firearms and allow certain others to but only under heavy government oversight. Very similar to this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ySNI7WKbMw&feature=channel_page

He's got too many posts to be a troll.

Obviously your internet wanderings have never brought you up against a character by the name of Wildalaska

I have given them "MY WORD" that I will obey such sign. because without "my word" I am not a person, I am a piece of rubbish.

Which means (by implication) that I’m a piece of rubbish, nice backhanded personal attack

 

[christcorp]

No, I'm not a troll; I just don't get it. I guess I refuse to believe the "Rationalization" that's going on here. The rationalization is: "Unless I get caught, I haven't done anything wrong". Sam, it doesn't matter if there's a law or not that says whether you can or can not do something. If a property owner has rules, then that's good enough. You don't have to go on their property. Either abide by their rules or don't. But to basically say that as long as they don't catch you, you'll continue to do it; specifically says that you don't respect their Rights.

And yes, a tenant of property does have property rights. I.e. A renter in an apartment has the Right to tell you to not bring a gun in their house; not to smoke in their house; to take off your shoes in their house; etc... You either comply or don't go in their house. This has NOTHING to do with Rule of Law. It has to do with respect. I started this thread because of gun shows. But it applies every place. If I was an anti-gunner and you wanted/demanded that I respect your right to the 2nd amendment; what makes that right any more valid or important, than my right to tell you that I don't want you to carry a gun on my property? There is no difference. I fight anti-gunners all the time. But I can honestly say that many are realizing that Rights are a 2 way street. For every person who has the Right to Do/Have/Go/etc... a particular exercise; there also exists the Right to NOT Do/Have/Go/etc... a particular exercise. I just can't for the life of me understand how you can disrespect other people's right to make rules/policies on their property; and that you'll disregard them; and ONLY if you get caught will you then decide to either comply or leave the premises. And then in the same breath say that those people need to Respect your 2nd amendment Rights.

And Cat; I'm not going to answer your hypothetical question concerning NO GUNS for ........ whoever. I've already answered that hypothetical. I already said that a Business owner is allowed to set rules/policies/conditions/etc... for any customer that enters their property AS LONG AS IT APPLIED TO EVERYONE, and wasn't discriminatory against any person or persons. So no; you can't just set policies on some people and not others. Although, we do have laws that do such a thing. E.g. No One under the Age of 21 allowed in. (Even though 18 years old is the legal age of being an adult). But that's a different issue.

Sorry all; but I did not start this thread to talk about rights. As properly noticed; I started a thread dedicated to that purpose. I simply wanted to know about gun shows in different areas of the country. I don't recall seeing anything about concealed carry at any of the gun shows here in wyoming. I will look closer this weekend. I'm not sure if there will be a sign. We don't have police at the doors. We don't have very restrictive gun laws. Many people carry openly; and many have concealed permits. We still have rifles in the rear window of our pickups. Even sometimes when we go to the larger towns. Obviously, even in a state where we have no remorse whatsoever for defending ourselves; to including shooting another person; there are still some criminal activity. No much, but some. So we don't always have guns displayed in our vehicles unattended. But many of us still keep our door to our houses unlocked and so on. But as far as if there is a sign at the gun show prohibiting LOADED GUNS on the premises; I will comply. WHY: Because I respect the property owner's rights WHILE ON HIS/HER PROPERTY. Even a lease tenant. And I feel this way about ANY property. If it says "No Trespassing", I WON'T trespass. If it says "No Off Road Driving". (We have a lot of public roads that go through private property); then I won't take my vehicle OFF ROAD. If it says no firearms on their private property; either in writing or if the landowner verbally tells me; then I won't carry a firearm on their property IF I DECIDE to go on their property. I want the non-gun owners and such to RESPECT my rights. Including my 2nd amendment Rights. In order to EXPECT that RESPECT; I should be EXPECTED to RESPECT their Rights also. And they have the Right, on their private property, to set policy or rules. I RESPECT THAT. No one's holding a gun to my head and forcing me to go on their property. And NO; I won't be a hypocrite and say it's OK as long as they don't KNOW about it.

I will say however that it is the property owner's responsibility to TELL me, either verbally or in writing, if they have any restricted policies. If they don't have a sign that says NO FIREARMS; or they haven't TOLD me; I'm not going to ASK if it's OK. EVERYTHING that I am legally allowed to do/have/etc... is ALLOWED Unless otherwise POSTED. But if it is posted or verbally said; then that is their right, and I WILL respect it. If I don't, then there's no way that I can expect them to respect my rights.

 

[Sam1911]

I have given them "MY WORD" that I will obey such sign. because without "my word" I am not a person, I am a piece of rubbish.

Which means (by implication) that I’m a piece of rubbish, nice backhanded personal attack

Of course, of course. You could spend several entertaining minutes tracking back through this thread and counting the number of times such thrusts were sent and perried. But using such tactics, or rising to the bait, so to speak just pulls us off the message and destroys the great value of what we've debated and discussed here.

Wallowing in the mud offers too many easy "outs" for folks who run out of logic and/or rhetoric. Don't let it happen!

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

Ok, Christcorp. Thank you very much for sharing your views and taking the time to explain them so thoroughly.

We have some differences of opinion on rights, especially how and when we might violate each others'. But that's fine. Let's not butt heads over it any more, lest we both leave needlessly bruised!

As they say, "peace."

-Sam

 

[kanook]

Which means (by implication) that I’m a piece of rubbish, nice backhanded personal attack

nice try. I said no names and pointed no fingers to anyone but myself. If I were to imply anything to a spefic person I would do it via pm. I respect others input and ideas that agree and disagree with mine. Their is a person who is very vocal with their opion on carry and that is fine with me. Some people choose to push legality (still legal) others don't.

 

[Rockwell1]

No, I'm not a troll; I just don't get it

.

Just so we're clear I have retracted the statemnt and I apologize

 

[catspa]

Kanook, I once heard of something called an "adhesion contract", and it sounded kinda like what you're describing. Basically it meant that one party could "adhere" a bunch of conditions onto a simple exchange and enforce them after the fact. It sounds unconscionable to me, may or may not be legal, I don't know. But you could wear a button on your jacket that read "Free Tibet", and the fact that they sold you a ticket while you were displaying the button doesn't obligate them to actually gain freedom for Tibetans, or even attempt it.

Where I was raised up, when you looked a person in the eye and shook his hand on a deal, you were honor bound to do it. 40 bales of hay for 250 bucks, paid next Tuesday? (shake) It's a deal, no backing out, unless you're a piece of rubbish. The fact that he had signs posted all over reading "Eat more beef", "Vote Jack Daniels for President", "Say no to crack, pull up your pants" or whatever had no bearing on the deal. We both knew that what we agreed on was a hay sale.

Good point on the hijack scenario, rabbit. What I hope is that as more people get armed and CCW'ed, they learn the safe gun-handling practices that you and I already observe, and they never have a ND. I'm personally willing to help introduce them to safety practices, in my local Hunter Education program and elsewhere. If there are some who have to learn the hard way, I hope that their ND only results in a hole in the wall or floor, and after that they're "scared straight" and help others learn by their example.

Rockwell1, I watched that video up to where he said he hunted doves with a 10 gauge, and that was all I could take. Ever hold a dove? They're little tiny birds, and if you centerpunched one with a 10 gauge I don't think you could find the pieces. While I uphold his right to hunt, I think he's an idjit. Obviously far from "Philadelphia convention" material in terms of his views on liberty as well.

Never heard of Wildalaska, although I did grow up in Anchorage for a time and played down on the Kenai. I've resigned myself to the fact that, in addition to helping like-minded people communicate, the Internet also allows maroons a place to shoot off their mouths. It is what it is.

Parker

 

[divemedic]

A renter in an apartment has the Right to tell you to not bring a gun in their house; not to smoke in their house; to take off your shoes in their house; etc... You either comply or don't go in their house.

A home is not the same as a business open to the public. A property owner can place conditions on entry of his HOME. I can put a sign in front of my home that says "I don't allow Jews to eat dinner here." and that is completely legal. I cannot do the same if I own a business.

Now, a property owner can put up a sign that prohibits people from carrying weapons, but as long as there is no law in that state that grants those signs the force of law, the people entering are under no legal obligation to comply.

The rationalization is: "Unless I get caught, I haven't done anything wrong"

Almost. The rationalization is "Unless I am told specifically to leave, I have done nothing illegal."

If you want to talk right and wrong- here it is:

I am willing to support a law that grants the force of law to a "no guns sign" under one condition: That same law requires that the property owner provide adequate armed security for entrants who have been disarmed, and holds them civilly liable for any shooting that happens in the "disarmed victim" zone.

See. I don't think it is moral for a property owner to deny me a weapon for my own self defense, but then claim that he cannot control the actions of criminals in order to dodge liability when a shooting happens on that same property.

 

[danbrew]

Amen.

 

[Rockwell1]

Given, the proven track record of mass shootings occuring in places where the general public is denied the right of self defense I'd say its only a matter of time before some whack job tries to shoot up a gun show.

This has been asked several times with no response so I'm going to ask it very plainly

What real, measurable, specific harm do I do to a gunshow promoter by carrying on his property.

How does my concealed, holstered , handgun affect your reasonable enjoyment of the gun show or in any way threaten your safety?

 

[christcorp]

Divemedic; I think you have hit on one of the major obstacles in this debate, when you said:

the people entering are under no legal obligation to comply.

I personally don't care or consider if it's LEGAL or not. I care about respect to and from. I don't think we would need public ordinances that say; "No Smoking" or "Noise Ordinances" etc.... if people were just respectful. If I smoke cigarettes; I obviously have every right to smoke in my house. And technically; NO ONE has the right to tell me I can't. However; the "RIGHT" thing to do if I am having a party/get together/etc... at my house is if I know there are some people that don't smoke; then for ME NOT TO SMOKE in the house. (Please, don't get into the stuff about cigarettes are harmful. This is about RESPECT, and doing the RIGHT THING. Not following government imposed micro-managed LAWS)

Forget the law. Forget Legal Right and Wrong. I am specifically talking about respect. It doesn't mean anything if it's legal or not if a Business owner puts a sign on his door that says "No Weapons Allowed on the Premises". The fact that he put such a sign up, on HIS PROPERTY, is enough for me to RESPECT him/her and abide by their desires IF I want to enter their establishment. For the same reason I EXPECT them to RESPECT my right either in PUBLIC or on MY PROPERTY. That is the "RIGHT" thing to do. No other choice.

I guess it still all comes down to RESPECT. We don't need more stupid LAWS. We simply need to respect each other. If I want someone to respect certain rights that I may exercise; then I think it's important that I RESPECT certain Rights that others may exercise. And in my opinion; a person has a right to make any rule or policy that they want for their own property. And if that property is a business open to the public, then the same applies so long as the owner of the property makes policies/rules/etc... that apply to ALL PATRONS.

 

[danbrew]

I personally don't care or consider if it's LEGAL or not. I care about respect to and from. I don't think we would need public ordinances that say; "No Smoking" or "Noise Ordinances" etc.... if people were just respectful. If I smoke cigarettes; I obviously have every right to smoke in my house. And technically; NO ONE has the right to tell me I can't. However; the "RIGHT" thing to do if I am having a party/get together/etc... at my house is if I know there are some people that don't smoke; then for ME NOT TO SMOKE in the house. (Please, don't get into the stuff about cigarettes are harmful. This is about RESPECT, and doing the RIGHT THING. Not following government imposed micro-managed LAWS)

Forget the law. Forget Legal Right and Wrong. I am specifically talking about respect. It doesn't mean anything if it's legal or not if a Business owner puts a sign on his door that says "No Weapons Allowed on the Premises". The fact that he put such a sign up, on HIS PROPERTY, is enough for me to RESPECT him/her and abide by their desires IF I want to enter their establishment. For the same reason I EXPECT them to RESPECT my right either in PUBLIC or on MY PROPERTY. That is the "RIGHT" thing to do. No other choice.

I guess it still all comes down to RESPECT. We don't need more stupid LAWS. We simply need to respect each other. If I want someone to respect certain rights that I may exercise; then I think it's important that I RESPECT certain Rights that others may exercise. And in my opinion; a person has a right to make any rule or policy that they want for their own property. And if that property is a business open to the public, then the same applies so long as the owner of the property makes policies/rules/etc... that apply to ALL PATRONS.

So it all comes down to respect? Or, better put, as long as we all see eye-to-eye with you. Your version of respect. Your version of right and wrong.

I'm not using you, "christcorp", above in the literal sense, but as in we've got to honor respect as it is understood by someone else? Hmmm. Maybe. Maybe not.

Maybe I like to smoke. Maybe I like to smoke in my own house because that's about the only place I can smoke these days with all those folks out there telling me what's good for me.

I've disagreed with almost every single thing that you've said in this thread - does that mean that I don't respect you? Not at all. We disagree. Yet by your logic, it would seem that I would be disrespecting you if I didn't agree with your logic. Suppose you were the gunshow promoter?

Different people have different ideas about lots of things - that's what makes this such an interesting country. It's clear that many in this thread have a difference of opinion. It's not a stretch to believe that my view of respect is different from your view of respect.

I can't see how anyone that could claim to respect me (the person, not the rights) would insist that I go unarmed and fail to provide sufficient protection (liability-wise at least) in the event of a criminal act.

 

[Gryffydd]

Some people make the decision that their own safety comes in ahead of a gun show promoter's rule that no one will ever know has been broken. I can see the logic in that.

Some people make the decision that they would rather choose to not attend an event out of respect for the wishes of a gun show promoter, regardless of whether breaking the rule does any real or measurable harm to anyone. I can respect the integrity in that.

Neither view is wrong. Personally, I'll stick to the logic that what is in my pants is no one's business. Period. The difference between that and smoking is that no one will be harmed or bothered in any way (unless they assault me). How that compares to noise ordinances I have no idea. That's like saying I'm disrespecting someone by listening to my headphones too loud.

 

[divemedic]

Forget the law. Forget Legal Right and Wrong. I am specifically talking about respect. It doesn't mean anything if it's legal or not if a Business owner puts a sign on his door that says "No Weapons Allowed on the Premises". The fact that he put such a sign up, on HIS PROPERTY, is enough for me to RESPECT him/her and abide by their desires IF I want to enter their establishment. For the same reason I EXPECT them to RESPECT my right either in PUBLIC or on MY PROPERTY. That is the "RIGHT" thing to do. No other choice.

I thought you would say that, so I ask you this question:

What happens when you disarm, and are robbed while on his property? During the course of the robbery, your wife is shot and paralyzed for life from the shoulders down. This medical condition requires millions of dollars in medical treatment, and ongoing care. Do you think the property owner is going to do what is right and help with the costs, or what is legal and tell you that he can't be held liable?

Will the owner admit that it was his policy that contributed to the shooting, and assist with the bills? Or do you think it more likely that he will lawyer up and even if you sue, will hide behind a "third party intervention" defense?

So if you ever find yourself in the position of being in a posted establishment during a robbery, clutching a family member who is bleeding from the gunshot wound they received because there wasn't enough cash in the register for their liking, you can console your dying loved one with the last words you will speak to each other: "Honey, at least the owner of this store knows that I respect him."

 

[catspa]

christcorp: Forget the law.

Now there's a refreshing idea. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Parker

 

[kanook]

Neither view is wrong. Personally, I'll stick to the logic that what is in my pants is no one's business. Period.

that is correct. and as long as everybody would do that the sign would not be posted. but do to the fact that some people can't, we all have to suffer thru this thread.

 

[Gryffydd]

but do to the fact that some people can't, we all have to suffer thru this thread.

If more people kept more things in their pants this world would have a whole LOT less problems.

 

[christcorp]

divemedic; the problem with your hypothetical about "WHAT IF"; is you are assuming that somehow you are FORCED to be on their property. You aren't. And therein lies the respect. It you CHOOSE to go onto their property, then you CHOOSE to respect their Right to establish rules for their property. This has nothing to do with the law. That's why I said "Forget the law". This has nothing to do with the law. And respect has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the other person. Dan, respect is best seen when you don't agree. And Gryff; I already said not to mention health affects with smoking. It is totally irrelevant. It was just an example. I assume you understood that. This is not difficult, and I don't understand why people are so resistant. In 3 simple steps:

1. A person; private or business; develops rules/guidelines/etc... on their property. If you CHOOSE (No one is forcing you) to go on that person's property; then you agree to follow their rules.

2. If you don't like or want to follow their rules/guidelines/etc... then you can CHOOSE (Again, no one is forcing you) NOT to attend or go onto their property.

3. Through whatever means of deceit; you choose to go onto the person's property; blatantly disregarding that person's rule/guidelines/etc... Whether or not the person knows or not; finds out or not. Thereby, you say that you do not respect that person's right to set rules/guidelines/etc... on their own property.

It IS that simple. Any other rationalization is simply a cover up. That is what respect is about. It's abiding by another person's rule, thought, guidelines, etc.... BY CHOICE. Let me say again; it is BY CHOICE; even though you may not agree or like such rules, guidelines, decisions, etc... If you are forced to follow such things; then it's done out of FEAR. Fear of retribution. I.e. fines, being fired from work, etc... But when you do it out of CHOICE, it is respect. If you decide NOT to attend; that TOO is a sign of respect. When you deceitfully enter their property, knowingly doing so against their rules/guidelines/etc... that is DISRESPECT. And while we're at it; I suppose each of you who believe that deceitfully disrespecting the rules/guidelines/etc.... set by the property owner; has quit ALL your jobs that didn't allow you to carry concealed at work. Or maybe you are disrespecting them and carrying anyway and not telling them. If so; hopefully if you get caught and fired for it, you won't argue or complain about it.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, this has now passed into the realm of the absurd:

I personally don't care or consider if it's LEGAL or not. I care about respect to and from.

So, because you wish everyone saw right and wrong in the shades that you do, and you wish that everyone would just get along and be polite to each other, respect each other -- please, let's all be good, for goodness' sake! -- you would demand that I give up the means with which to defend my life against those who ... what? Who blow second hand smoke in my air space? Who play their radio too loud? What the he!! are we talking about here? OH, YEAH. To defend my life and that of my loved ones against those who would murder them in the street for the dollar in their pocket!

It is fine by me if it "all comes down to RESPECT" for you. But there are things...MANY things... of significantly more importance to me than some un-discerned , untold, undisclosed, and ineffectual sign of "respect" for a business owner. Things like my life and that of my loved ones.

I am a very respectful person. I've apologized and made good with practically every person I've ever wronged, if I possibly could. But my respect for another citizen is worth not a farthing compared to my desire, duty, basic human INSTINCT to preserve my life and that of my family.

In what surrealist world could this not be so?

We simply need to respect each other.

AMEN! Citizens and neighbors, and businessmen, and gun show promoters, and street thugs, and murderers, and car-jackers, and rapists alike! And when we walk the streets of gold I'm sure it will be so. But until that day, I'll be packing.

-Sam

 

[Rockwell1]

christcorp

This has been asked several times with no response so I'm going to ask it very plainly

What real, measurable, specific harm do I do to a gunshow promoter by carrying on his property.

How does my concealed, holstered , handgun affect your reasonable enjoyment of the gun show or in any way threaten your safety?

 

[Sam1911]

If I want someone to respect certain rights that I may exercise; then I think it's important that I RESPECT certain Rights that others may exercise.

Do you not see the logical collapse of this one sentence? You want them to respect your rights, so you give up those rights to show them that you respect their rights to make you give up your rights?

Where is that smiley icon of a dog chasing it's own tail?

Or, put another way, "I sold my truck to pay for the gas to drive it."

Whee.

I can't see how anyone that could claim to respect me would insist that I go unarmed and fail to provide sufficient protection...

Home-run there, eh? Where is this lauded two-way street of respect? These hypothetical business owners are climbing into my pants to demand I disarm, and that somehow RESPECTS ME?

Utterly absurdist thinking. As a buddy of mine is fond of saying, "The mind wobbles."

-Sam

 

[rondog]

Oh b-o-y-y-y-y, r-u-u-u-les! We lo-o-o-o-o-ve to follow r-u-u-u-u-les!

 

[kanook]

great, now I'm tired

 

[Sam1911]

divemedic; the problem with your hypothetical about "WHAT IF"; is you are assuming that somehow you are FORCED to be on their property. You aren't. And therein lies the respect. It you CHOOSE to go onto their property, then you CHOOSE to respect their Right to establish rules for their property.

And, in the case of his analogy, he then CHOSE to have his wife shot and paralyzed.

Boy, that respect must be some GOOD stuff. In your world we buy it for other people at a MIGHTY high price.

Have you ever considered a career as a martyr? The pay's not great, the benefits are spotty, but you do seem to have the personality for it.

-Sam

 

[divemedic]

the problem with your hypothetical about "WHAT IF"; is you are assuming that somehow you are FORCED to be on their property. You aren't. And therein lies the respect. It you CHOOSE to go onto their property, then you CHOOSE to respect their Right to establish rules for their property.

So I am free to open a business with no fire exits, no handicapped access, and a sign that says black folks can't eat at the lunch counter? After all, if you CHOOSE to enter my property...Or even, as a condition of admission to my business, you agree to waive all right to sue me for any reason whatsoever. That means that I no longer have to worry about wet floors, cracked pavement, exposed wiring, or any other hazard because you CHOSE to enter my property, I am no longer responsible for ANYTHING that happens to you while you are on it.

Don't you think that if such a rule were possible, businesses would already have done it?

Of course, by the same token, no one is FORCING you to run a business, thereby opening your property to the public. Once you allow the public on your property, you owe a certain debt to that public to ensure that you have taken reasonable steps to mitigate hazards. Instead of mitigating those hazards, you ignore them and hope for the best.